Recent Comments

Prev  545  546  547  548  549  550  551  552  553  554  555  556  557  558  559  560  Next

Comments 27601 to 27650:

27601. 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.

27602. 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.

27603. 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.

27604. 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. 

27605. 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?

27606. 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.

27607. 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.

27608. 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.

27609. 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.

27610. 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!

27611. 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.

27612. 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?}

27613. 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...

27614. 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.

27615. 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.

27616. 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.

27617. 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.

27618. 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. 

27619. 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.

27620. 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.

27621. 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.

27622. 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.

27623. 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.

27624. 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.

27625. 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 :)

27626. 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?

        

27627. 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.

27628. 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.

27629. bozzza at 16:51 PM on 8 September 2015
       2015 SkS Weekly Digest #36
       

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

27630. One Planet Only Forever at 14:26 PM on 8 September 2015
       What Emma Thompson got right and wrong on climate change
       

       Most of the 'critics' picking up on the inaccuracies in Emma's comments could easily be shown to have failed to note (deliberately since they noted Emma's), the climate mis-statements made by the likes of Senator Inhofe and most of the current Republican Wanna-be-Presidents. What's up with that?

27631. scaddenp at 14:07 PM on 8 September 2015
       Denial101x MOOC - Full list of videos and references at your fingertips
       

       "At my age I'd risk blowing a gasket."

       You know, that is advice  I should follow too before it's too late.

27632. Digby Scorgie at 13:43 PM on 8 September 2015
       Denial101x MOOC - Full list of videos and references at your fingertips
       

       I have deliberately steered clear of denier websites.  They're toxic.  At my age I'd risk blowing a gasket.  As for my friends, there are actually none that I know of who entertain denier thoughts.  If there are any, they keep such thoughts private.  So I'm just going to sit back and relax, and see if the wheels fall off before I kick the bucket.  I would so love to see the smirk wiped off the face of every denier on the planet.

27633. Tom Curtis at 13:02 PM on 8 September 2015
       2015 SkS Weekly Digest #36
       

       bozza @7, agreed, e certainly does not equal mc².  Nor, come to that does E = mC², or MC².  At least, not in the standard notation.  But surely this does become pure pedantery.

27634. Tom Curtis at 12:56 PM on 8 September 2015
       2015 SkS Weekly Digest #36
       

       BBHY @6, the reference is to the Vostock icecore record which extends back 420,000 years:

       

       That has recently been extended back to 800,000 years for EPICA Dome C, but the more extended data is frequently ignored on the internet:

       

27635. bozzza at 12:52 PM on 8 September 2015
       2015 SkS Weekly Digest #36
       

       @4, the debate is consenus of opinion versus consensus of fact.

       A nice distraction but any politician using it has long term credibility problems as the groupthink will work out the complete disingenuous nature of the original fake dichotomy and follow the money trial the made it so!

27636. bozzza at 12:49 PM on 8 September 2015
       2015 SkS Weekly Digest #36
       

       I was always taught that 'e' certainly does not equal 'mc²'....

27637. BBHY at 11:25 AM on 8 September 2015
       2015 SkS Weekly Digest #36
       

       "...temperature and carbon fluctuate in tandam at fairly regular intervals over the last 400K years"

       Is that a reference to Milankovitch Cycles? It sounds like it is, but those are not limited to only 400K years.

27638. Tom Curtis at 10:02 AM on 8 September 2015
       2015 SkS Weekly Digest #36
       

       Ignaz @2:

       "...a talk by William Nordhaus at Yale, certainly no denier, where he showed the number of data dependencies in models, that have not been isolated..."

       At 7:23 in the video, Nordhaus is talking about the fact that different estimates of climate sensitivity use the same or overlapping data to make those estimates, ie, the same twentieth century temperature record and the same twentieth century forcing record (in some cases), or the same ice core records (in others).  It follows that those estimates are not stastically independent.  That has nothing to do with the independence of climate models.  You have completely misrepresented what Nordhaus was saying (through ignorance, I suspect).

       "However, as of 2013 we do not know to what extent carbon forces temperature and temperature forces carbon..."

       Nonsense, and nor is it what Nordhause is saying.  Specifically, we know that CO2 concentration increases by approximately 7.7 ppmv per 1 degree increase in global temperatures (likely range of 1.7-21.4 ppmv/^oC).  Nodhaus's estimate comes out at a 2.23% increase per degree C, or 6.3 ppmv/^oC at 280 ppmv initial CO2 concentration.  We also know that temperature increases relative to CO2 concentration at approximately 3^oC per doubling of CO2 (likely range of 1.5-4.5⁰C per doubling).

       Not knowing values to arbitrary precision is not the same as not knowing the values.  Nor does Nordhaus suggest it is.  His discussion of what we know relates only to the limits of the method he discusses in his video.  Multiple other methods can be, and have been applied to the problem.

27639. scaddenp at 09:42 AM on 8 September 2015
       2015 SkS Weekly Digest #36
       

       Noone is claiming that the veracity of a scientific question is settled by vote - the extent to which anything in scence is "true" is dependent on constant comparison of theory and results by experienced scientists. The opinion of relativity deniers doesnt weigh much unless one them someday publishes a reproducable result which would call the theory into question and this applies in climate too.

       The importance of understanding what the extent of consensus is among climate scientists is a/ to counter the denier myth that consensus doesnt exist and b/ because the consensus science position is the best guide to policy action in any sphere.

       Weather is chaotic, climate is not as far as we know. See here .Climate is determined by the energy balance and sets the bounds in which the complex dance of weather occurs. Ask yourself why summer average temperature is higher than winter average temperature - because the energy input into the system is higher. CO2 is likewise.

       CO2 can be both a forcing and feedback. In the ice-age cycle, the controlling forcing is the highly predictable change in solar distribution. CO2/CH4 are very slow feedbacks that magnify the effect of the solar forcing and fortunately, temperature-induced increases in CO2 and CH4 are slow enough not to have significant impact in next hundred years.

       "However, as of 2013 we do not know to what extent carbon forces temperature and temperature forces carbon, or excatly why they fluctuate if indeed one expects a reenforcing feedback loop is present."

       What on earth is your source of this claim? If Nordhaus, then he is wrong. See for instance Hansen and Sato 2012 - look at Fig 2, and lower 2 comparisons of calculated temp to measured.

       It is best to find out about science from scientists. The best way to do that would be to read the IPCC WG1 reports. All the text in main report linked back to published science that the text is based on.

27640. Tom Curtis at 09:41 AM on 8 September 2015
       2015 SkS Weekly Digest #36
       

       Ignaz @2, if E=mc², then it is not true that F=ma.  Rather,

        

       where

       

       and a∥ is the acceleration parellel to the instantaneious velocity of the object, and a⊥ is the acceleration perpendicular to that velocity.

       This is not mere pedantery.  If you are going to argue that "we know" not by scientific concensus but by the actual data, then you have to adopt a consistent perspective that fits that data, not swap between more exact and less exact (and falsified) theories in a single breathe.  That you treat equally to formulas, one of which is the best available (ie, not formally falsified and substantially tested) theories and an approximation retained by consensus as a convenience for many common situations seriously damages your thesis.

       Even more damaging is that the approximation is adequate for everyday experience.  More devestating for your case is the fact that the much worse approximation from Aristotelian dynamics is still adequate for the vast majority of peoples actual experience.  It is only when we measure the motion of objects in a precise manner that Aritstotle's theory (or at least the medieval developments of that theory) are shown false.

       The result is that for me, and the vast majority of others; we do accept that E=mc², and F=ma because (we have been told that) it is the consensus view of physicists.  No person with only a high school education in physics has done enough experiments to verify Newtonian dynamics as a close approximation of the truth, let alone Relatitivistic kinematics.  Very few actual physicists have done so either.  Even for most with an actual interest in the topic, they are only aware of a few historically influential experiments, without being aware of the vast number of other experiments actually supporting the theories in question.

       So, we (as in the fraction of the general populace interested enough to actually follow the science) know these things (whether in dynamics, kinematics, or climate science) because we accept a scientific consensus, and know enough that the consensus itself  was not formed by accepting a consensus but by following data.  But unless you have an extensive research career covering both theoretical and experimental aspects of the topic, you do not know these things independently of accepting some things because they are the consensus view.  (Indeed, even then you must accept the consensus on peripheral factors necessary to carrying out your experiments.)

27641. Ignaz at 05:56 AM on 8 September 2015
       2015 SkS Weekly Digest #36
       

       Question: Do we accept the veracity of E=MC² or F=MA because 97% of  physcists say so?
       
       I understand that climate is a nonlinear chaotic system, but it's that a reason to be even more circumspect? I recently heard a talk by William Nordhaus at Yale, certainly no denier, where he showed the number of data dependencies in models, that have not been isolated. Specifically, when we look at paleoproxy data we see that temperature and carbon fluctuate in tandam at fairly regular intervals over the last 400K years. However, as of 2013 we do not know to what extent carbon forces temperature and temperature forces carbon, or excatly why they fluctuate if indeed one expects a reenforcing feedback loop is present.
       
       Has this issue been addressed and resolved?
       
       (Nordhaus' pertinent comments at 7:22) https://youtu.be/Wr_2RKnCqNQ

27642. johnsnz at 04:56 AM on 8 September 2015
       2015 SkS Weekly Digest #36
       

       This is where our expectations of science went terribly wrong.

       Tol takes issue..saying its only 91% consensus not 97% as John Cook claimed. But its unusual to adopt a denial stance when you already know you believe its at least 91% probable that John is right all along?

       The scientific truth begins when at least a 95% probabilty is reached. 91 is only 4 away from 97 or 4% of it. Both figures are so high as to mean the very same thing our planet is troubled and we are the only ones who can do anything about it.

       We need wake up now, stop wasting time on semantics, modify/fastrack our methods considering all, first looking for medium strong trends and only then distilling out the scientific. 

27643. Sunspot at 02:50 AM on 8 September 2015
       What Emma Thompson got right and wrong on climate change
       

       Then again, everyone admits that the predictions back in 2000 were much too conservative, things are changing much faster than anyone would have believed 15 years ago. We are entering uncharted waters, and it becomes more difficult to predict these changes. There is clear and present danger, whether things get to a certain point in ten years or twenty is of course important, but some things are truly unpredictable and all predictions at this point should still be regarded as likely understated.

       Today, tomorrow, and the day after will be 15-20 degrees above normal here in New England, and the forcast is for more heat next week. This is getting very suspicious already...

27644. One Planet Only Forever at 02:08 AM on 8 September 2015
       Denial101x MOOC - Full list of videos and references at your fingertips
       

       Digby Scorgie,

       From my perspective it is more imporant to ask them to explain things. And what I would ask them to explain are:

       • The history of CO2 levels in the atmosphere and the rapid recent increase. Why the rapid recent increase? Use the resources in the course to ensure that the facts of CO2 levels through the past 800,000 years are clearly understood.
       • What do they believe the effects of CO2 in the atmosphere are? What is the science of CO2 related to incoming solar ratiation and outgoing infrared radiation from the surface. Ask them to provide a rational explanation with references to peer-reviewed publications. Correct any clear misuderstanding with information from this course.
       • Based on their, potentially new, understanding about CO2 in the atmosphere ask them if they have changed their mind. If they have, then share the course link and encourage them to delve into the fuller understanding of what is going on.

       If they won't understand the CO2 issue you have found someone who has decided to resist being convinced. Ask them what is motivating their deliberate reluctance to understanding what is going on. They probably will not answer but I am sure they will understand that some unacceptable personal interest is motivating them. That acknowledgment is the first step toward the required change of made-up minds that have been easily impressed by made-up claims.

27645. Stranger8170 at 00:39 AM on 8 September 2015
       Climate change and Hurricane Katrina: what have we learned
       

       Tom Curtis, your response to Ignaz was terrific!  I know that the moderators might delete my post if I say that  Ignaz is  intellectually dishonest, so I won't.

27646. Javii at 00:17 AM on 8 September 2015
       A Rough Guide to the Jet Stream: what it is, how it works and how it is responding to enhanced Arctic warming
       

       Just registered only to thank you for such a damn good article!

27647. Tom Curtis at 23:57 PM on 7 September 2015
       Climate change and Hurricane Katrina: what have we learned
       

       First, Ignaz @5 has plagiarized from wikipedia, which states:

       "On April 5, 2006, months after independent investigators had demonstrated that the levee failures were not due to natural forces beyond intended design strength, Lt. Gen. Carl Strock testified before the U.S. Senate Subcommittee on Energy and Water that, "We have now concluded we had problems with the design of the structure." He also testified that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers did not know of this mechanism of failure prior to August 29, 2005. The claim of ignorance is refuted, however, by the National Science Foundation investigators hired by the Army Corps of Engineers, who point to a 1986 study by the corps itself that such separations were possible in the I-wall design."

       You will notice that his wording is exactly copied by Ignaz without attribution, following his clause, "Although the Army Corp of Engineers initially asserted that the levees would have failed even if the design flaws had not been present ...".

       Second,  despite Ignaz's willingness to quote (without attribution) from wikipedia, he neglects to quote wikipedia when it says:

       "According to Professor Raymond Seed of the University of California, Berkeley, a surge of water estimated at 24 feet (7 m), about 10 feet (3 m) higher than the height of the levees along the city's eastern flank, swept into New Orleans from the Gulf of Mexico, causing most of the flooding in the city. He said that storm surge from Lake Borgne travelling up the Intracoastal Waterway caused the breaches on the Industrial Canal."

       To illustrate this point, consider the following map of part of the flooded areas in New Orleans following Katrina:

       

       The map comes via a USGS article, that states:

       "The storm surges produced by Hurricane Katrina on August 29, 2005, breached the levees protecting New Orleans in numerous places, flooding approximately 75 percent of the metropolitan area. Most of the levee failures were caused by overtopping, as the storm surge rose over the top of a levee and scoured out the base of the landward embankment or floodwall. Three major and costly breaches appear to have been caused by failure of the soils underlying the levees or failure of the earthen levee embankments themselves; in several places, levee foundations failed when water levels were below the tops of the levees."

       (My emphasis)

       The blue stars on the map indicate locations where the levies were overtopped, and the redstars locations of structural failure in the levies.  As can be seen, most of the flooding in this restricted area came from levies being overtopped, and even in the locations where structural failure was a significant factor (New Orleans East Bank and New Orleans East), there was also flooding due to overtopping of levies.  In the areas effected by structural failures, therefore, those failures made flooding worse - but flooding would still have occured without the failures.

       As this larger map of the flooding (below) indicates, the area in the map above represents only a subsection of New Orleans and of the flooding.  The flooding outside of the area of the map above is all due overtopping of levies (as I understand it).

       

       So, in addition to a bout of plagiarism, Ignaz has taken the summary of reports that show the majority of the flooding and much of the damage to have been due to overtopping of the levies and interpreted them to indicate that effectively all of the damage was due to structural failure.  That is, he has egregiously misrepresented the findings of the various inquiries into the flooding resulting from Katrina.

       It may be noted that his failure to properly note and cite his quotation also served the purpose of (temporarilly) hiding his misrepresentation.

27648. Rob Honeycutt at 23:36 PM on 7 September 2015
       The cause of the greatest mass-extinctions of all? Pollution (Part 1)
       

       dudo39... The first "question" is completely irrelevant to the main topic of mass extinctions, the second question is merely asking why your irrelevant question was moderated.

       I'm still not seeing a question that requires a response.

27649. Tom Curtis at 23:00 PM on 7 September 2015
       Citi report: slowing global warming would save tens of trillions of dollars
       

       Ignaz @13, I think you are right to point out the financial interest of Citi group in the issue.  However, you have the sign wrong.  Citi group is an insurer.  That does not mean they are likely to make large profits from tackling climate change.  Rather, it means they are exposed to large losses if we do not tackle climate change.  That is due to the increased rate of climate related natural disasters in a warming world:

       

       Of course, tackling climate change is no no benefit in reducing insurance losses if climate change does not in fact drive increased natural disasters.  That is, they only have a financial interest in telling us about climate change if climate change is in fact real, and harmful.

27650. michael sweet at 22:55 PM on 7 September 2015
       Climate change and Hurricane Katrina: what have we learned
       

       Ignaz,

       This article describes the strength of hurricanes and sea level rise and how heey affect damage.  The levees in New Orleans are not germaine to the discussion.  Your comment is off topic.

       Please provide a citation for your claim that the 1881 hurricane was stronger than Haiyan.  In any case, Haiyan was the strongest hurricane recorded at landfall in the history of carefully recorded data.  You are trying to minimize record strength at landfall.  That is small consolation for the people who have to weather stronger and stronger hurricanes at landfall.  The fact that in the past occasional hurricanes were as strong as current ones does not compensate for the increase, caused by AGW,  in the strongest hurricanes.

Prev  545  546  547  548  549  550  551  552  553  554  555  556  557  558  559  560  Next