Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 553 554 555 556 557 558 559 560 561 562 563 564 565 566 567 568 Next
Comments 28001 to 28050:
-
One Planet Only Forever at 00:16 AM on 21 July 2015Climate pledge puts China on course to peak emissions as early as 2027
CBDunkerson,
Your comment is a little confusing.
Reviewing the following presentation of the history of national CO2 emissions it appears that the only measure where the US is not a bigger polluter than China is in the 'recent rate of emissions' category.
And the per-capita emissions presented by the World Bank clearly indicate China is a long way from exceeding the US per-capita rates.
And I do not accept any claim that focuses on 'one or a few nations to blame'.
I prefer to focus on restricting the actions of the group of wealthy and powerful people who try to get as wealthy and powerful as possible through activity they could understand was damaging and would not develop a lasting better future for everyone.
Those unacceptable people exist in China. They also exist outside China and are invested in benefiting from the unacceptable things that happen in China.
These people are the real problem. They will deliberately pursue and promote damaging activity that a declining number of people can benefit from as the non-renewable resources consumed by their pursuit of profit and benefit are diminished.
Those powerful wealthy people have a long history of trying to hide of make excuses for the unacceptable opportunities they want to benefit from. They have even manipulated governments to get the type of leadership they want, including a history of assassinations and government overthrows and even the starting of multinational wars in the hopes of benefiting. (Noam Chomsky and Naomi Klein are among the many who have clearly presented details of the long history of damaging actions by this group of trouble-makers).
So the required action is the shutting down of the unacceptable pursuits of this group of trouble-makers. The worst of the group are very unlikely to willingly change their minds. They will need to be forced to change their minds and behave more considerately, less competitively. And any of that group that persist in fighting against the developed better understanding of how to behave need to be kept from having any significant influence on the global rules of the game and its monitoring.
Those trouble-makers are identifiable. Ultimately, they need to be excluded from having any influence at important global meetings such as the Paris talks later this year. Having to obtain 'consensus' about what needs to be done with those types of people is clearly a waste of time, which is what those type of people want the Paris meeting to be.
-
Tom Curtis at 00:01 AM on 21 July 2015Climate pledge puts China on course to peak emissions as early as 2027
CBDunkerson @2, here is the breakdown of the 12 nations with the highest per capita emissions, as of 2010-2014:
- Qatar 43.9
- Trinidad and Tobago 37.2
- Kuwait 29.1
- Brunei Darussalam 24
- Aruba 23.9
- Oman 21.4
- Luxembourg 20.9
- United Arab Emirates 20
- Saudi Arabia 18.7
- Bahrain 18.1
- United States 17
- Australia 16.5
With the exception of Luxembourg, all nations ranked higher than the US have economies dominated by the supply of fossil fuels.
China, with emissions 6.7 metric tonnes per capita, ranks 47th in the world and emits just 40% of US emissions per capita. It also performs better than most European nations, including Denmark, Germany and the UK, although some (including Sweden and France) do better. The European Union as a whole emists 7.1 metric tonnes per capita (2011 figures), so China continues to perform better then the EU.
This is important in that the only just way to view emissions is on a per capita basis. Expecting third world nations to allow past high emissions by the West to be a warrant for continuing high per capita emissions by the West is unjust. It is also guarentteed to fail as a negotiating strategy. Given this, the fact that the US doesn't top Qatar in per capita emissions is a distraction. The most we can demand of China is that they not exceed our per capita emissions; which there is no indication that they will do.
Of course, if, as the West should, we start counting emissions targets in per capita terms, we might then reasonably expect China to do more as it now exceeds world per capita emissions (5 metric tonnes per capita). However, I see no haste by first world negotiators to make that transition. They seem more concerned with cementing in past economic advantages rather than solving the problem of AGW.
-
CBDunkerson at 21:33 PM on 20 July 2015Climate pledge puts China on course to peak emissions as early as 2027
longjohn119, examine those factors (i.e. current emissions, per capita emissions, longest emissions period) and you will find that the US is not the "biggest polluter" under any of them. You'd have to go with something like 'total accumulated emissions'... and even there China will pass the US.
Right now, China is the single country which can do the most to reduce global warming. If they got down to zero emissions the world would be about a quarter of the way there. The US & EU combined gets us a little over another quarter. The remaining half is unfortunately spread throughout the world in small slices that will each need to be solved individually... but three governments could deal with half the problem and China is far and away the most important of those. Especially as it is the only one of the big three where emissions are still increasing.
-
william5331 at 20:40 PM on 20 July 20152015 SkS Weekly Digest #28
El Nino effecting California? Could be. They could do something about it. Get a book called Three Against the Wilderness by Eric Collier. It describes at least a partial solution for California. To my mind it is as significant book as Silent Spring by Rachel Carson, Feral by George Monbiot or Never Cry Wolf by Farley Mowatt. It is too late for this El Nino but with an effort it could mitigate the effects of the next one and more and more as the years go by.
-
John Hartz at 04:59 AM on 20 July 2015Dutch government ordered to cut carbon emissions in landmark ruling
wideEyedPupil:
If I interperet the National Reports webpage of the Framework Convention on Climate Change correctly, there are two sets of reporting requirements. One set, more sophisticated than the other, is for developed countries. The other set is for developing countries.
-
wideEyedPupil at 04:48 AM on 20 July 2015Dutch government ordered to cut carbon emissions in landmark ruling
Offically the GHG emissions from the Land Use and Forestary sector in 2013 was 7,522.25 Gg in a total of 549,445.84 Gg or 1.4%. Compare that with BZE's 55% 20 yr GWP or ~45% 100 yr GWP and there is some serious under estimating going on. frankly I don't understand why it's not a national scandel — perhaps there's too many sacred cows lined up down that path of enquiry?
-
wideEyedPupil at 04:38 AM on 20 July 2015Dutch government ordered to cut carbon emissions in landmark ruling
@peter prewett and John Hartz note that while all countries use the same methodology that doesn't ensure accuracy in and of itself. for instance the Zero Carbon Australia Land Use Report published by BZE and MSSI found that using 20 yr GWP GHG emissions accounting Australia's land use sector accounts for 55% of national emissions. Using 100 yr GWP is was in the 40-50% range (dont recall exactly but it will soon be 50% using 100 yr GWP) which obcures the impact of methane, the shortest of the IPCC 'long-term GHGs', because it's half-life in the atmosphere is only 6-7 years.
so Australia due mainly to enteric fermentation, savana burning and land clearing (including repeated landclearing) is under reporting it's land use emissions heavily. there are similarly unaccounted for emissions in the industrial sector like for eg. air transport.
-
wideEyedPupil at 04:29 AM on 20 July 2015Dutch government ordered to cut carbon emissions in landmark ruling
@ Tom Curtis. Of course the BAU estimates almost certainly would have relied on dubious projections by AEMO on electrical demand and BREE on mining activity. AEMO continued to predict increased demand for years after 2011/12 when demand started falling main due to increased EE and addition of rooftopPV. BREE mining projections are ludicrious, see the BZE report key findings and DL it at bze website.
-
Paul Pukite at 02:49 AM on 20 July 2015Models are unreliable
"While models appear to capture ENSO behaviors, there is no way they can predict it. "
We may be getting close to doing just that at the Azimuth Project forum — http://forum.azimuthproject.org/discussion/1608/enso-revisit#latest
Others are making progress as well [1].
[1] H. Astudillo, R. Abarca-del-Rio, and F. Borotto, Long-term non-linear predictability of ENSO events over the 20th century, arXiv preprint arXiv:1506.04066, 2015.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 01:02 AM on 20 July 2015Dutch government ordered to cut carbon emissions in landmark ruling
To clarify my comments regarding Global Conservatives. I am referring to the attitude and actions of the groups, not the label they hide behind. The Liberal Party of Australia is clearly the type of group I refer to as being part of the Global Conservative Movement.
The actions and attitudes of this group are the desire to benefit from action plans that can be understaood to be unsustainable and unacceptable. This group cares about their benefit in their lifetime more than any other consideration. IN fact most of them focus on gather personal benefit as quickly as possible any way they can get away with. THey have no interest in participating in development toward a lasting better future for everyone. The requirements for that type of development would not provide them the freedom to benefit from knowingly behaving unacceptably.
Their choice to prioritize maximizing their personal benefit leads them to willingly try to do things that can be clearly understood to be damaging. They willingly pursue control to ensure that a few like them get to benefit the most from getting away with unacceptable actions.
That has been their fossil fuel gambit. Lots of people have developed a desire to support efforts to get away with the clearly unacceptable pursuits. And they will even support a group that offers an 'impression' of personal benefit even if the reality will be that only a few, excluding them, will significantly benefit from the unacceptable activity.
And in addition to not caring about the life circumstances faced by others, none of that group care about the future. They do not even care that fewer and fewer of their type of people will be able to continue living the way they try to get away with.
-
mancan18 at 23:51 PM on 19 July 2015Dutch government ordered to cut carbon emissions in landmark ruling
Tom Curtis
Thanks for your responses and the links you have pointed me to. I do have a clearer understanding of what is supposed to be meant by "emissions intensity".
However, I notice the first paper you pointed me to, "Australia's Abatement Task and 2013 Emissions Projection", was dated 2013. This means that it would have been likely to have been prepared on the basis of the policy stance of the previous Labor Government, as the LNP Government wasn't elected till the latter part of 2013. The Labor Goverenment did have an ETS policy, and acting on Climate Change is a central part of the party's platform. So that report is likely to been a hangover from Labor's time in power. The second paper, "Emission's Reduction Fund White Paper" was dated April 2014 and prepared by Greg Hunt, Australia's Minister for the Environment. Now, although Greg Hunt is a LNP Minister, he does understand that Climate Change and Global Warming is real, and in the past did advocate and support the idea of using an ETS to act on reducing emissions. However, he has since changed his tune to be more in line with the LNP's current token reduction Direct Action Policy because he has faced significant opposition from the Climate Change denier/skeptics and an anti-ETS members in his own party. This is the political reality he has to deal with. Also, from this second paper, the observed reductions in emissions from 1990 levels outlined, seem to have come mostly from using gas to replace coal for electricity power generation. While there is also a small percentage change to generating power power from renewables, and there has been a slight per capita reduction in demand, there does not appear to be any plans for retiring the dirty brown coal burning power plants in the Latrobe Valley in Victoria. Also, considering that the LNP have now appointed a Minister for Wind Turbines to investigate the health impact of wind turbines; that the Prime Minister Tony Abbott and the Treasurer, Joe Hockey,have both expressed their displeasure at seeing wind farms while having no problem with the great gouges out the landscape due to open cut coal mines; and the fact that the Clean Energy Finance Corporation has been given instructions by the LNP Government not to make further investments in wind turbine generation projects and household solar, while somehow doubling the Clean Energy Finance Corporation's profitability; I don't think their 5% reduction target is realistic. It may occur incidentally due to the same forces that saw the decrease in emissions from 1990 as outlined in Greg Hunt's Emission's Reduction Fund White Paper, but it is not likely to occur due to any positive action from the LNP Government. Since the abolition of the previous Government's Carbon Tax/ETS scheme by the LNP, emissions in Australia appear to be increasing again. Also, I'm not sure whether Australia's emissions measurements are all home grown or include the emissions that are created from the exports of Australian Coal.
However, I'm only a lay observer of these political machinations which has made me rather cynical. I do hope the Dutch judicial decision does ultimately have an international impact because I don't see the current Australian Government changing its stance until there is a change in Government or a significant impact upon the Australian economy due to international boycotts and a significant reduction in the demand for Australian fossil fuel exports.
-
Tom Curtis at 22:07 PM on 19 July 2015Dutch government ordered to cut carbon emissions in landmark ruling
mancan18 @10, here is the chart showing the current emissions reduction target against projected BAU emissions from the Dept of Foreign Affairs and Trade, but first published by the Department of Environment (first link of my preceding post):
"Abatement task is measured in million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent (Mt CO2-e). Source: Department of the Environment (2014); Australia's Abatement Task and 2013 Emissions Projections, p.3"
As you can see it shows a straight forward 5% reduction from 2000 levels as the target. That in turn is approximately a 4% reduction from 1990 levels. Given these very explicit, publicly available, and official commitments, the L/NP coallition cannot plausibly pretend their targets is only a reduction in emissions intensity (however defined).
I agree that just because they promised to reach that target does not mean they intend to do so. Since the election of John Howard in 1996, it has been standard tactics by the Liberal party to espouse a set of promises that, upon achieving government they discover a crisis that prevents them from doing so, and requires them to revert to what more cynical observers thought to be their intended policy all along. In 1996 John Howard distinguished between those promises he intended to keep, and those he evidently never intended to keep as core and non-core promises (terms carefully not mentioned before the election). The current L/NP policy is certainly consistent with their 5% target being a non-core promise, ie, a promise made solely for the purposes of election, and not with any intention of being kept. But on paper, however, the policy is for a 5% reduction in emissions, not emissions intensity.
-
mancan18 at 20:17 PM on 19 July 2015Dutch government ordered to cut carbon emissions in landmark ruling
Tom Curtis and One Planet Only Forever
I may have misrepresented the normal meaning of "emissions intensity" relating to its "emissions compared to GDP" meaning.
However, I do not have faith that the current LNP Australian Government will necessarily interpret it in its normal context but more in a context related to the rate of increasing emissions. They, along with their usual spin in the Murdoch press, are just as likely to use this meaning to say they have reduced emissions by 5% by 2020, even though they may not have. Because of all their recent actions, like their attack on the various Climate Change Advisory bodies; their desire to reduce the Renewable Energy Target (RET) which is related to the mix between renewable versus fossil fuel power generation; their desire to nobble of the Clean Energy Finance Corporation whose task is to ensure that financing renewable eneregy projects is more doable and stable; there steadfast opposition to anything related to an ETS with their simplistic anti-Carbon Tax message in relation to it; their lack of any real financial commitment to their Direct Action Program to reduce emissions by 5%; and their keeness to approve huge coal export projects, some even threatening the Barrier Reef; all indicate that this Government is unlikely to meet even the insignificant 5% emissions reduction target that they have set. It will be interesting, but tragic, to see the spin surrounding their failure and what targets they will actually set post 2020. I will be very surprised if anything of substance actually happens. It will be more of the same "of them saying one thing but doing something else".
Tom as for the meaning of LNP in Australia. It is true there is a combined LNP Party that has been in Government of Queensland and is now in Opposition. However, federally, LNP means the Liberal National Party Coalition. The Liberal and National Party are separate parties but they govern in Coalition. Traditionally when the LNP are in power federally, the Prime Minister comes from the Liberals (who are really conservatives/neocons) and the Deputy Prime Minister comes from the Nationals (who supposedly represent areas, mostly agricultural, outside the main metropolitan areas). Both Parties, Liberal and National, have a significant number of members who are Climate Change denier/skeptics and the advisory bodies that formulate their policy also have a significant denier/skeptical slant.
I may be pessimistic, but I don't have any faith that the current Australia Government will contribute anything of substance in Paris. I also expect that the current Australia Government will try to run interference for achieving a substantial binding agreement. If the actions of the Australian Government are any indication, then all I am expecting is a break down of negotiations in Paris with no binding agreement, and then the Murdoch press madly spinning the outcome while ignoring the actual situation. However, I am prepared to be pleasantly surprised. Not likely though.
-
longjohn119 at 18:32 PM on 19 July 2015Climate pledge puts China on course to peak emissions as early as 2027
We call China the biggest polluter yet the US leads China by 300% in per capita CO2 production, and per capita hydrocarbon use.
And a 60-70 years polluting Head Start
-
One Planet Only Forever at 15:31 PM on 19 July 2015Dutch government ordered to cut carbon emissions in landmark ruling
mancan18,
I am inclined to expect that Tom Curtis is correct about the emissions intensity being related to GDP.
The same claim about emissions intensity being a 'legitimate' measure of action has been pushed by the current Conservative leaders of Canada.
The Canadian Conservatives, like the Conservatives in the US and Australia and the UK, have a clear history of deliberately trying to beneft as much as possible from the burning of fossil fuels (and many other unacceptable popular and profitable activities), typically by preying on the easy popularity and profitability of the activities they understand are unacceptable.
And the Conservative leaders of Canada also cannot be trusted to honour their claims. Their commitment to a 17% reduction from 2005 levels by 2020 was not only a weak commitment compared to other nations, the Conservatives have done nothing to meaningfully reduce Canada's emissions. And the projections are clear that Canada will not even meet the weak 17% reduction (actually a commitment to only be 8% above 1990 levels by 2020 - and above is not a typo) Globe and Mail report. In addition, Canada under Conservative leadership has reduced regulations and restrictions related to the pursuits of profit from exporting of fossil fuels for burning, an action that fuels the global problem without being accounted against Canada. And they did it with measures buried in Omnibus Budget Bills (one of many Reports here).
And the unacceptable actors hiding behind the Conservative Movement label have been a global problem for a while now. This global group of 'pursuers of what they want any way they can get away with' have been conspiring together on a variety of action plans for a long time. In 2003, while leading the Opposition in Canada, Canada's current Conservative leader Harper gave a speech about Iraq that paraphrased Austarlia PM John Howard's speech (CBC report), and we all know how well that action plan turned out.
-
Tom Curtis at 13:34 PM on 19 July 2015The Skeptical Science temperature trend calculator
s_gordon_b @83, I would speculate that the temperature indices have been split into those that include an land/ocean index but do not give full global coverage, mostly due to missing polar regions (land/ocean), and those that use various statistical methods to extend the data set to cover all points on the Earth's surface (global). I would also speculate that Karl consists of the NOAA data set updated for the new ocean dataset as specified in Karl (2015), which would suggest that NOAA represents the unupdated data set, even though the latest version of NOAA does include the update SFAIK. On this understanding, NOAA would relate to Karl the way that HadCRUT3 relates to HadCRUT4.
-
Tom Curtis at 13:22 PM on 19 July 2015Dutch government ordered to cut carbon emissions in landmark ruling
mancan18 @7, two quibbles, and a query:
1) You say:
"However, "a 5% reduction in emissions intensity" does not mean that. It means that the increase in emissions will be 5% less than the rate that emissions were increasing in the early 2000s."
Emmissions intensity can be defined various ways, but is most commonly defined in terms of GDP. Thus, if you reduce your emissions per unit GDP by 5%, you have reduced your emissions intensity by 5%. Given this, the only way to reduce emissions 5% of 2000 levels in 2020 if you do not reduce emissions intensity by more than 5% is to ensure the economy does not grow, or (as it has already grown from 2000 levels) to ensure that it shrinks back to 2000 levels - a very painful correction indeed. However, the rate of increase in emissions will only be 5% less with a 5% reduction in emissions intensity if the rate of increase in GDP is constant. Given the effect of the global financial crisis and it aftermath (still being felt in Greece, and hence the world), that would be a small ambition for government.
2) The LNP is the party unique to Queensland formed by the amalgamation of the Liberal Party and the National Party. In the Northern Territory, a similar amalgamation is called the Country Liberal Party. Federally, however, and in the rest of Australia, the two parties remain unamlgamated and in coallition. The coalition might by reffered to as the L/NP coallition (or just "the coallition"), but internal politics play out quite differently between the amalgamated version in Qld, and the coalition version nationally, so the two should be distinguished.
Final and most crucially, the query. Do you have a source for the coallition's target being just a 5% reduction in emissions intensity? The government documents I have seen have been quite explicit that it is a 5% reduction in emission levels. Further, as the emissions intensity of the Australian economy has fallen by 50% from 1990 levels as of 2014, and about 28% of 2000 levels already, a 5% intensity target would amount to a policy of massively increasing emission intensity and levels from current levels. I am sure that Labor and the Greens would be making considerable hay if such a target was mentioned in L/NP documents.
-
mancan18 at 11:17 AM on 19 July 2015Dutch government ordered to cut carbon emissions in landmark ruling
@1 and 2 One Planet Only Forever
When considering Australia, one needs to be careful when referring to the actual emission reduction commitments that the current Liberal National Party (LNP) controlled Australian Government makes.
First, the LNP has quite a number of Climate Change deniers as sitting members.
Second, the LNP gets a lot of its advice from people who are Climate Change deniers.
Third, the current Prime Minister, Tony Abbott, became leader of the LNP because of his opposition to taking any effective action on Climate Change. He, along with the Greens, torpedeoed the proposed ETS scheme, which had previously been agreed upon by both sides, LNP and Labor.
Fourth, the main reason that this anti-climate change rhetoric became accepted in the Australian electorate was that the Murdoch media, along with the right wing shock jocks, reaches about 83% of the Australian population to spread the usual denier disinformation, without any substantial penetration of the full scientific argument. Despite this, a substantial number of Australians do think climate change is a serious issue and action needs to be taken. As a consequence of this, there is now a Direct Action Policy that is a salve to the concerns of people looking for Climate Change action. The trouble with this is that the LNP Government can now spin that they think climate change is of concern and that they are now acting to reduce emissions by 5%; even though they have only allocated 2.25 billion dollars, less that half the cost of a decent oil platform, to pay emitters to reduce emissions, without any penalty if they don't, and something they should be doing anyway. The policy is a crock.
Fifth, The target of reducing emissions by 5% is also a crock. When you read the LNP literature related to their commitments on Climate Change and listen to the LNP Party members commenting on what they are doing, you hear two phrases: "reducing emissions by 5%" and "reducing emissions intensity by 5%". In the Murdoch dominated Australian media, which is biased towards the LNP at the best of times, the terms get blurred depending upon the spin needed at the time. "Reducing emissions by 5%" is a pretty clear cut, though totally inadequate, benchmark. It means total emissions will be 5% less in 2020 than they were in the early 2000s. However, "a 5% reduction in emissions intensity" does not mean that. It means that the increase in emissions will be 5% less than the rate that emissions were increasing in the early 2000s. Which is a totally different thing. It means that in 2020, emissions in Australia will still be increasing but at 5% less than they were increasing in the early 2000s. It is not a 5% reduction in emissions. It means that emissions will still higher than they were in the early 2000s and will still increasing, only at a lesser rate. It is double speak used to confuse, and due to the Murdoch dominated media, what the current Australian Government says is never put under scrutiny, so it can still say they are acting while doing nothing substantial. In Australia, there are too many vested interests so that no significant commitment will be made. If history is anything to go by, the then LNP Federal Government could not even sign the flawed but precedent achieving Kyoto Agreement in 1997, which actually allowed Australia to increase it's emissions by 8% over 1990 levels. If they had signed, then it would have sent a clear message to emitters and Australia would now be a different place with a more sustainable economy.
So be very careful of any commitments that this current Australian Government makes. Don't expect anything significant and anything they agree to may well be based on it's usual double speak of apparently saying one thing while meaning another.
-
bjchip at 10:20 AM on 19 July 2015The Skeptical Science temperature trend calculator
Looks like the UAH numbers aren't following their revised corrections for diurnal drift... nor the ones made by Po-Chedley.
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-13-00767.1
I use the trend calc an awful lot. Hopefully it can get updated again. I think its going to be an ongoing project as methods improve.
Perhaps you'd want two versions of the Satellite information ? Can you persuade Po-Chedley et.al. to rework the satellite data regularly?
Thanks
BJ
Moderator Response:[PS] Link activated. Please use the link tool in the comment editor in future.
-
s_gordon_b at 09:55 AM on 19 July 2015The Skeptical Science temperature trend calculator
I use the trend calculator all the time for personal research, blogging, challenging dopes and dupes in the denialsphere... It's an invaluable tool, but since your latest update I no longer have a grasp of all the data categories. For example, what's the difference between "land/ocean" and "global"? And who is "Karl," with or without "krig"? I would really appreciate it if you would consider adding a legend to the page to remove any ambiguity/uncertainty.
-
Jim Hunt at 02:14 AM on 19 July 2015Dutch government ordered to cut carbon emissions in landmark ruling
Paul D @4 - You left out "imposed a climate levy on renewable generation". If you're a UK citizen and feel strongly about such matters you may wish to follow my example and give your Member of Parliament a piece of your mind? See for example:
http://www.V2G.co.uk/2015/07/an-open-letter-to-mel-stride-george-osborne-david-cameron-et-al/
not to mention:
https://twitter.com/jim_hunt/status/622329856924229632
et seq.
As Lord Deben recently put it:If everybody here made sure that they went to their Member of Parliament between now and August 1st that would make a hugely important impact at this point.
-
michael sweet at 00:41 AM on 19 July 2015Global warming is causing rain to melt the Greenland ice sheet
Ranyl,
My computer used to have the same issue you have. At the same time I used another computer and it did not have the problem so I concluded it was something in my computer. The issue went away when I updated the operating system.
-
Bob Loblaw at 00:18 AM on 19 July 2015Global warming is causing rain to melt the Greenland ice sheet
(Actually, it looks like I forgot to choose "open in a new window". The link opens in thr same window.)
-
Bob Loblaw at 00:17 AM on 19 July 2015Global warming is causing rain to melt the Greenland ice sheet
ranyl:
I'm not sure how you are trying to enter a link, but here is the "easy" way:
- start by typing in the text that you want to appear in the post - i.e. the text the link will be hidden behind
- highlight the text (select it using the mouse or keyboard)
- go to the "Insert" tab, and click on the little chain link button
- In the box that appears, enter the URL for the link in the appropriate box. You can also set options to open in the same window or a new window.
- Close the box by clicking "Insert".
For example, after I typed this text, I selected it, and then clicked the link icon, pasted in a link to your 16:15 PM comment, changed it to open in a new window, and closed the box. The link is now hidden behind the "after I typed this text" phrase, and it has not moved from where I typed it.
I think a lot of times people don't realize that they should type text first, then select it before trying to linkify it.
If that is what you are doing, I can't help. :-)
-
wideEyedPupil at 22:30 PM on 18 July 2015More evidence that global warming is intensifying extreme weather
Is the current uncharacterist cold freeze over North Eastern Australia related to wobbles in the southern Jet-Stream north of Antarctica the way Super Storm Sandy was said to relate to jet stream wobble in the North/Arctic?
-
John Hartz at 22:10 PM on 18 July 2015Dutch government ordered to cut carbon emissions in landmark ruling
Peter Prewett:
Countries calculate their annual CO2 emmissions in accordance with procedures set forth by the UN's Framework Convention on Climate Change. For details, go to the National Reports webpage of the Framework Convention on Climate Change.
-
Paul D at 18:33 PM on 18 July 2015Dutch government ordered to cut carbon emissions in landmark ruling
OK this hopefully should start things up in the UK.
The UK i believe is the only nation that has legally binding targets for reducing emissions, yet we now have a Chancellor of Exchequer (George Osborne) and a Conservative party that is reversing all the good work done for a number of years now.
They have:
Reduced support for onshore wind farms.
Reduced support for renewables in general.
Reduced tax breaks for low carbon motor vehicles.
Removed the regulations for low carbon housing.
Approved fracking.
I suspect there is more, so my list probably needs updating?George Osborne in 2011:
“We are not going to save the planet by shutting down our steel mills, aluminum smelters, and paper manufacturers,”
So IMO it's time for research into legal action being taken here in the UK, since it appears to be clear that the Conservatives intend to break British law by setting up policies that will result in failure to meet legally binding UK targets. -
peter prewett at 17:50 PM on 18 July 2015Dutch government ordered to cut carbon emissions in landmark ruling
I am confused then being old is a good excuse.
Does each country use the same method of calculating co2 levels ??
And have some countries changed the method since the first date, or planning to do so ??
Is it all done by gestimates and what are the error bars +/-100% ??
-
ranyl at 16:15 PM on 18 July 2015Global warming is causing rain to melt the Greenland ice sheet
Sorry the last sentence should read,
This paper's figure on page 2 of pdf (1461 in journal), show how CO2 hasn't been at 350ppm for 4-5million years, 400pppm for 12million years and 460ppm for 15-20 million yearsm just in case people feel we have a carbon budget.
-
ranyl at 16:11 PM on 18 July 2015Global warming is causing rain to melt the Greenland ice sheet
Link Paper,
Thanks JH,
That must make the Ice cliffs at the glaciers fronts higher and that already means trouble in Antartica in a simulation at 400ppm and ~2C warmer bottom water (consistent with early Pliocene, although the 400ppm was from a 2003 paper and 350ppm is more commonly reproted now, and th ebottom waters are rising in temperature), incorportating hydrofracturing and ice cliffs collapse they found sea level rose, ~3-4m in 100 years, 5m in 200years and 17m in ~1000-2000years.
Add in Greenland and the rapid warming coming as we are 470ppmCO2e and several metres of sea level rise by 2100 looks more likely everytime new research is published.
And 2200, only 200 years, Rome been here 2000years or more and that reallt does mean we should be planning to move most of th emajor coastal cities of world fairly soon.
http://www.clim-past.net/7/1459/2011/cp-7-1459-2011.pdf
This papers figure on page 2 (1461 in journal) shows how CO2 has been at 400ppm for ~12million years and 450ppm last 15-20million, just in case anyone actually beliefs in th etotally ficticious carbon budget oftne procliamed.
Dear Moderator,
Why when I put a link in does it always go to the start of the post and not were the cursor is in the text?
Moderator Response:[JH] I have never experienced the problem that you are encountering re the placement of links. I therefore cannot answer you question. You may want to check the HTML code of your draft comment when this happens next.
-
Andy Skuce at 12:07 PM on 18 July 2015Are we overestimating our global carbon budget?
All of the CMIP5 models have some sort of carbon cycle model. They assume that some fraction of the emissions go into the ocean and the terrestrial biosphere. If they did not, GHG concentrations would rise roughly twice as fast as they are.
What I am talking about in this article are the differences between the average CMIP5 model (there is huge variation between them) and the recently modelled responses. The permafrost feedback is not modelled at all, whereas the terrestrial carbon uptake may well be significantly overestimated in the CMIP5 models.
I didn't deal with ocean CO2 uptake models at all here.
-
John Hartz at 08:41 AM on 18 July 2015Global warming is causing rain to melt the Greenland ice sheet
Recommended supplemental reading:
The troubling reason why Greenland may melt faster than expected by Elahe Izadi, Energy & Environment, Washington Post, July 17, 2015
-
One Planet Only Forever at 06:17 AM on 18 July 2015Dutch government ordered to cut carbon emissions in landmark ruling
A correction to my post. The EU commitment is a 20% reduction from 1990 levels by 2020. This is still not as severe as the 25% reduction the court ruling supported. And it further highlights the weakness of the offerings of action (or perhaps more appropriately described as deliberately weaker action), by the likes of the US, Canada, and Australia.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 06:07 AM on 18 July 2015A Hard Deadline: We Must Stop Building New Carbon Infrastructure by 2018
Electric cars being judged to be 'better' when running on coal generated electricity based on 'cost' is a fallacy of relying on the free-marketplace to develop decent results. The 'price or value' of things in the marketplace is misleading and incomplete.
In places where electricity is mainly generated from coal burning without CCS, like Alberta, the emissions are generally over 1.0 kg of CO2 / kWh of generated electricity with a cost of about $0.10/kWh. And Tesla's vehicles are among the most efficient at 18 kWh/100 km. This means that running electric cars in Alberta would produce more than 18 kg of CO2 /100 km (cost of $1.80 / 100 km).
By comparison, burning gasoline is 2.3 kg of CO2/l (Density of gasoline is about 0.75 kg/l. CO2 weighs 3.7 times the weight of the carbon in it). And the extraction, refining and transportation impacts add about 40% more emissions. So the total for gasoline would be about 3.2 kg/l. And my Hybrid Accord is gets an average of about 4.3 l / 100 km. That is about 14 kg of CO2/100 km ($5 / 100 km).
So in Alberta it is significantly cheaper to run an electric vehicle than a gas burning hybrid. But it is 'better' to run an efficient gas burning hybrid (not one of those 8 l / 100 km hybrids), and pressure the government into meddling in the marketplace to reduce the emissions of electricity generation.
Some people 'revere' the concept of the free-market'. But, the free action by 'everyone including uncaring greedy people', in the marketplace has to be expected to develop unacceptable results. The free marketplace can only be expected to develop lasting decent results if everyone playing the game is a caring considerate person genuinely striving to best understand what is going on and striving to develop a lasting better future for everyone. That means everyone is focused on limiting what they do, no one attempting to get more benefit from something that can be understood to be less acceptable.
The irrational idealism that is the basis of most economic analysis was most blatantly on display when Alan Greenspan basically told Congress that he had no idea that corporate leaders would ever willingly do something that they could understand had no future, something that would lead to damaging future consequences. He said that when asked how the 2008 global catastrophe had developed under his watch.
Therefore, restrictions of what is acceptable clearly need to be 'imposed'. That could be claimed to be 'interference in the marketplace'. But it is clearly essential for responsible leaders to impose restrictions based on the best understanding of what is going on. And that requires leaders to be responsible.
And that requirement is clearly challenged by the current system based so heavily on cost, profitability, and popularity. It actually would require seeking out those who wish to benefit from trouble-making and keeping them from ever being successful. And that would include not compensating anyone who has invested in or bet on getting away with benefiting from burning fossil fuels. And it would include shutting down unacceptable activity even if it appears to be lower-cost, more popular or more profitable, even if it has only recently been started or built.
I provided a relevant related response in the previous SkS article about economic growth being able to close the emissions gap here.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 03:36 AM on 18 July 2015Dutch government ordered to cut carbon emissions in landmark ruling
(My previous comment was copy-pasted from a word file, but I forgot to insert the links).
It is important to note that the Dutch ruling requires action relative to 1990 levels, and requires 25% reduction by 2020 rather than the EU commitment of a 17% reduction by 2020. A presentation of National reduction commitments can be seen here.
An interesting point in the table of commitments is that most developed nations make their commitments relative to 1990. However, the the US and Canada present their 2020 reduction targets relative to 2005 levels. And Australia presents its targets relative to 2000 levels.
The US 2005 levels were 17% higher than their 1990 levels. Canada's 2005 levels were 25% higher than in 1990. And Australia's 2000 levels were 15% higher than 1990.
Therefore, the USA pledge to be 17% below 2005 levels by 2020 is rather weak. And Canada's 'matching 17%' is even weaker. And Australia's 5% commitment with a promise to do more if they believe everyone else does even more appears to be a deliberately convoluted attempt to obtain more competitive advantage by doing less than others.
However, the real measure has to be per-capita with an accumulated debt owed by nations with a history of higher per-capita emissions. The current per-capita emissions are here, and an earlier history of per-capita emissions are here.
Reviewing the per-capita emissions data and the reality of the promises being made, it is clear which nations are the biggest trouble-makers (not China or India or Brazil). However, the more important understanding is that the real trouble-makers are individuals, not nations. And some people in places like China and India are among the biggest trouble-makers, though many international investors benefiting from activity in those nations have a history that makes them bigger trouble-makers.
The biggest trouble-makers are the wealthy people who attempt to control the activity in nations through any means available to them, including free-trade agreements and the development of regional popular opinion through misleading message dissemination and financial influence on elections and elected representatives.
It would appear to be beneficial to have the developed best understanding of what is going on, primarily the investigation and evaluation to the impacts of human activity, be used to identify and penalize the most powerful and wealthy people who can be shown to have deliberately fought against the development of better understanding of what is going on and fought against having their opportunities to benefit be limited by that better understanding.
The global community already has the information and research ability to identify these people. The will of global leadership to seek out and severely penalize the biggest trouble-making individuals, not generic political parties, nations or corporations, is an important part of the required change.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 02:40 AM on 18 July 2015A Hard Deadline: We Must Stop Building New Carbon Infrastructure by 2018
Glenn @52... I suspect this is part of the reason new projects are getting canceled. Lack of backers as lenders and investors see the writing on the wall. There's a good chance those loans and investments might not pan out. When it comes to very large investments like this it takes only a small amount of additional risk to change the financial equation.
-
KR at 00:43 AM on 18 July 20152015 SkS Weekly Digest #27
MA Rodger - That's an excellent review of Michael/George White's nonsense on this thread.
Note that I'm quite certain it's George - even a slavish acolyte would tend to avoid the rather obvious mistakes shown (or at the very least make different ones). Gobs of mixed-up math noise propping up his unsupported conclusions - IMO those conclusions preceded and override the evidence for him.
Moderator Response:[DB] Michael/George White is no longer a participating member of this site.
-
Glenn Tamblyn at 21:50 PM on 17 July 2015A Hard Deadline: We Must Stop Building New Carbon Infrastructure by 2018
Interestingly, when we compare electric cars with petroleum cars, electric cars are already cheaper to run in terms of cost per kWh driven than petrol cars, even when the source of the electrons is coal. The issue with electric cars has been purchase price and range. Electric cars give perfectly fine perfomance they just haven't done that for enough kms per charge.
So when will people swap? When costs say it works.But an important point, linked to CBDunkerson's use of the phrase 'junk', is that we don't have to junk them. They junk themselves! They wear out!
The average lifetime of our vehicle fleet is 10-15 years. So the 'economics' question isn't perhaps cost to justify junking. It is cost to justify choices when we re-purchase.Which is a different question entirely.
Similar factors apply when we consider replacing our power stations with renewables. Most power stations operating today would, in the normal course of events, be shut down by 2050. It is the economics of their replacement that is the central issue. -
MA Rodger at 21:45 PM on 17 July 20152015 SkS Weekly Digest #27
Moderator Response @63.
This may or may not be George Michael we are experiencing on this thread, or an accomplice, or involving accomplices; whoever this entity is, I feel it is not worth allowing them to continue here. I would argue this even if there were no possibility of it being George Michael. I would argue this, but not on any grounds that feature in the comments policy.
This Michael Fitzgerald/Whoever is repeatedly and exasperatingly wrong, or perhaps more correctly 'presenting concealed nonsense.' Where this surely becomes inadmissible is when the concealment is deliberate.
His obfuscation always hovered on the edge. Consider his 'contribution' @60. After beng asked directly twice for the source for his170K (the lower limit of GHG operation), he at last hand-waves at "Tom" and the source can thus be tracked down to an off-handed comment @8 by Tom Curtis. #60 then actually says it agrees with a response to him @57 but this is only evident with a very dedicated reading @60. And the remaining bulk of #60 is pure madness. (It is saying that when feedback begins to apply at some threshold with rising temperature, the temperature leaps up because the feedback suddenly applies to all the original forcing below the threashold as well as the additional forcing above the threashold. And voila, we can arrive at the answer we first thought of.) As I say, pure madness, although this could still be a genuine but very very stupid person who fails to explain themselves clearly.
There may be room for such stupidity at SkS but @61(which also is inconsistent with #60) the intentional concealment cannot be ignored.
There can be no denying that the comment @61 is intentionally complicated to dress up the argument. Thus it unnecessarily breaks into differentiation-by-parts but, in so doing, makes a mistake which mysteriously corrects itself when solved. And after that slip, the laborious 'morphing of ε' gives exactly the same outcome as it did before ε was 'morphed'. This is not just "a mathematical model that doesnt capture actual physics". It is scientific madness, the product of a fool and one who is actually trying to hide his method.
I would suggest such a one has no place here.
-
Glenn Tamblyn at 21:35 PM on 17 July 2015A Hard Deadline: We Must Stop Building New Carbon Infrastructure by 2018
I don't think anyone will have to pay to shut them down.
Rather some people will pay because they have shut down! The people who invested in them.
If a FF powerplant with a 40 year payback time is forced to close after just 20 years because it is being out-competed, somebody loses their shirt.
And that possibility is what is starting to register in the financial world. They are becoming wary of investing in such plant precisely because of that percieved risk.
It becomes stranded when it can't service its debts, and there are still debts.
-
CBDunkerson at 21:13 PM on 17 July 2015A Hard Deadline: We Must Stop Building New Carbon Infrastructure by 2018
Stephen, I don't think anyone will 'have to pay' to shut down stranded assets. For example, at the point where it is possible to buy electricity cheaper from wind and/or solar plants than it is from coal plants, people will do so... and eventually that will mean that individual coal plants will be making less money from selling electricity than they are costing to operate. At that point, the coal plant owners will shut them down to minimize their losses. No 'buy out' involved. This has already happened with natural gas undercutting coal in the US overall and solar undercutting petroleum based electricity generation in Hawaii. If wind and solar declining cost projections prove out, then we will similarly see them replacing coal and even natural gas before end of life. Obviously, "a significant carbon tax" could have caused this process to begin years ago... but it will happen eventually even without legislative support.
Vehicles will probably be a different story. It seems unlikely that electric vehicles will become so much cheaper than petroleum based transportation that it would make economic sense for people to junk their gas burners and switch to electric. Indeed, as electric vehicles proliferate the cost of oil will inevitably fall and keep older vehicles competitive for a long time. Thus, we would need some kind of buy out or incentive to get people to abandon their gas vehicles before end of life.
However, note that vehicles in the scenario above wouldn't really be 'stranded assets' by the usual definition of the term... that only applies when the 'asset' has become a liability / financial loss. If it still has some value to be bought out then it isn't 'stranded'.
-
Tom Curtis at 14:17 PM on 17 July 20152015 SkS Weekly Digest #27
PS, sorry but my post @61 was made before I saw your inline @61, or 61 at all.
Moderator Response:[PS] I deleted other stuff from George, but then on reflection, he said:
"If mathematical proof is insufficient to demonstrate that a sensitivity of 0.8C per W/m^2 is impossible, what proof would convince you?"
George, mathematical proof only proves a mathematical postulate. A mathematical model that doesnt capture actual physics is worthless. So to convince me and the rest of science, you need an observation/experiment where your model produces a closer match than existing models. Given the stress-tested nature of textbook physics, I'll back that till you can produce that experiment.
-
Tom Curtis at 13:32 PM on 17 July 20152015 SkS Weekly Digest #27
Michael Fitzgerald @60, here are the important temperatures for gases that are currently significant, or have in the past been significant in the Earth's atmosphere. Of these, methane and ammonia were major players (along with nitrogen and CO2) prior to the evolution of photosynthesis approximately 2.4 billion years ago. Neither can survive long in an oxidizing atmosphere, so they have been bit players since then. In the list below, I have distinguished greenhouse gases by bolding them, and underlined the group of gases including the two major components of the Earth's current atmosphere.
Molecule Freezing Point, Boiling/sublimation point
Helium NA, 4.15 K
Hydrogen 13.95 K, 20.15 K
Nitrogen 63.15 K, 77.15 K
Argon 83.75, 87.35 K
Oxygen 54.35 K, 90.15 K
Methane 91.15 K, 111.65 K
NO2 182.29 K, 184.67 K
CO2 194.65 K, 194.65 K
Ammonia 195.42 K, 237.65 K
H2O 273.15 K, 373.15 K
Considering an Earth with a modern atmosphere, and of a similar age to the Earth, but which existed far from any star, the total energy at the surface would be a very evenly distrubuted 0.1 W/m^2, generating a surface temperature of approximately 36 K. That is sufficient to "boil" Helium and Hydrogen, but no other of the gases that constitute the Earth's atmosphere. So, at that temperature the Earth would be a frozen wasteland with a very thin atmosphere of helium and hydrogen, with hydrogen being the largest component. Importantly, because the atmosphere would be so thin, and because there would be no liquids on the surface of the Earth, the formula for the Earth's average temperature would be:
(((Geothermal + (TSI*(1 - albedo))/2)/σ)^0.25 + (geothermal/σ)^0.25)/2
This formula is used because the lack of heat transfer means daytime temperatures would become much hotter night time temperatures, thereby emiting much more energy to space. The result averages out to a lower temperature than that derived using the more common formula (which assumes exactly equal temperatures across the entire globe). The formula will not be perfectly accurate, but will generate a reasonable estimate. The more common formula is also only approximate, slightly overestimating expected temperatures (because there is some temperature variation between night and day, summer and winter and across geographical divisions).
Further, at absolute zero (or 36 K), the Earth's albedo would not be 0.3. Rather, it would be entirely covered by ice and snow, giving it an albedo between 0.6 and 0.9 (depending on the purity of the snow). In my estimates discussed below I shall use the more conservative figure of 0.6.
Using that formula and estimated albedo, we can determine a no feedback estimate of global temperatures. That is, we can determine the final global mean temperature if you really started at absolute zero, and gradually increased TSI up to 1360 W/m^2 (the current best estimate of its value). That temperature turns out to be 150 K. That is, it turns out to be too low to sublimate CO2, let alone to melt ice. Indeed, even with an albedo of 0.3, and with more or less equal temperatures across the globe, the global mean temperature would be around 255 K, not enough to allow unfrozen water at the equator. Given the importance of water in heat transport, and given the importance of the greenhouse effect in equalizing temperatures at the poles (the polar amplification effect), the temperature would in fact be less than that.
Given this we see the decietfulness of CO2isnotevil's challenge. By setting the albedo at 0.3, he has already included all albedo feedbacks in his calculation of the "no feedback" temperature response (255 K). Indeed, he has also included the surface heat transfer feedbacks as well, by using the standard formula. If he is going to include those in the base calculation, he needs to exclude them from the Climate Sensitivity Parameter (λ), reducing it from 0.8 to about 0.5 (ie, twice the planck response). Worse, by framing it in terms of energy in an the TOA, he also excludes any greenhouse effect (forcing or feedback) from the calculation. So, his challenge is for us to find the albedo and greenhouse feedbacks in an equation that excludes them by design.
We also see a fundamental problem with your framing of his challenge. If we indeed started with a cool Earth, and gradually turned up the heat we would still be in a snowball Earth. The same conditions which give us our currently very livable Earth are consistent with one entirely frozen depending on whether you start with cold conditions and warm up, or with warm conditions and cool down.
As it turns out, cooling down from a warm condition, if we reduce the atmospheric greenhouse effect by just 22 W/m^2, the Earth's temperature will cool by 21 C. That estimate excludes any growth of ice sheets, which if allowed would allow the temperatures to plummet even further. Those results mean that averaged over the last 22 W/m^2 of warming, λ = 0.95.
Moderator Response:[PS] Numerous people on numerous forums have tried to explain physics to George White over years including here. I doubt further efforts will be effective.
-
chriskoz at 13:02 PM on 17 July 20152015 SkS Weekly Digest #28
Climate change: NSW Farmers Association changes policy, calls for fossil fuels transition
Of particular note, apart from the fact that ruling NLP party in Australia, with science denying PM Tony Abbott, are becoming increasingly alienated from reality, is this particular passage:
The NSW Farmers Association ended its annual conference [...] by voting to remove clauses in its official policy that had called [...] "to explore the scientific veracity and soundness of claims that carbon is a pollutant" and to investigate "whether the activities of mankind are responsible for causing any change" [...] The rejected clauses – inserted between 2008 and 2011 – were "archaic" and the strong support for their replacement "shows farmers really are the forefront of climate change and really care"
Interesting that the denying clauses are as new as 2008, when the denial movement started at the leading to COP 2009. The abolishment of this dnial among farmers is very welcome. Note that this region of NSW hold strong support for National Party which is the ruling party. Due to the changes going on here, I expect the ruling party to change their stance or face diminishing support at the next election.
-
Stephen Leahy at 12:30 PM on 17 July 2015A Hard Deadline: We Must Stop Building New Carbon Infrastructure by 2018
CBD agree on US coal. As my article notes shutting down stranded assests will require $ compensation. A carbon tax could fund the buy outs unless the pollution tax is very high making it uneconomic.
Overall a significant carbon tax would help enormously in reducing amounts of new fossil fuel burning stuff being built. Sadly we need that tax yesterday.
-
MIchael Fitzgerald at 11:18 AM on 17 July 20152015 SkS Weekly Digest #27
KR,
Perhaps the math will help you see the nature of this problem more clearly. Consider that the Earth from space looks like a gray body whose temperature is the surface temperature and whose emissivity is 240 W/m^2 / 390 W/m^2 = 0.62. From this, we can readily quantify the planets behavior as follows:
If P is the planet's emissions, T is the surface temperature, ε is the effective emissivity of a gray body model of the planet and σ is the Stefan-Boltzmann constant (5.67E-8), express P as,
1) P = εσT^4
and quantify the LTE sensitivity as a function of state, λ(P), as the change in T consequential to a change in P. We can do this because the definition of the steady state is when the planet emissions P are equal to the net power arriving from the Sun, thus incremental P conforms to the definition of forcing.
2) λ(P) = dT/dP
Solving 1) for T and differentiating, we get,
3) T = (P/(εσ))^0.25
4) u = (P/(εσ))^0.5
5) T = u^0.5
6) dT/dP = .5/u^.5 * du/dP
7) dT/dP = .5/u^.5 * .5/u * 1/(εσ) = λ(P)
8) λ(P) = (P^-0.75 * (εσ)^-0.25) / 4For ε = 0.62 and P = 240 W/m^2, λ(P) = 0.3, which is the slope of the SB curve at 255K.
Integrating dT/dP (the sensitivity function λ(P)) from P = 0 to 240 W/m^2 results in T = 288K, which is the expected average temperature of the surface at 240 W/m^2 of input power. The definite integral is the value of 3) at P = 240 W/m^2 since the integral of 8) is 3) and T(P) is 0 when P = 0. While this sensitivity function is relative to input power, it can also be expressed as a function of equivalent surface temperature, T.
9) λ(T) = T^-3 / (4εσ)
At T = 288K, λ(T) has the same value as λ(P) at P = 240 W/m^2. These formulations for λ(P) and λ(T) are exact for any gray body at any emissivity and applying this model to the Earth is consistent with all measured averages, albeit with a sensitivity lower than expected. The only way to morph this behavior is to make ε a function of P or T, which we know to be the case anyway, as increasing GHG's will decrease ε. Up to about 233K (for KR's hypothetical that feedback kicks in at -40C), ε = 1 and gradually decreases until ε = .62 at 288K. If ε is a function of P, and we know that feedback can only directly affect ε, so a change in ε is applied to all P, not just the incremental P.
The sensitivity as a function of state can be be rewritten as one component dependent on P, λP(P), times a dimensionless component dependent on ε, λε(ε), such that λε(ε) = 1 at ε = 1.
10) λ(P, ε) = λP(P) * λε(ε)
11) λP(P) = (P^-0.75 * σ^-0.25) / 4
12) λε(ε) = ε^-0.25At the current steady state when ε = 0.62 and P = 240 W/m^2, λε(ε) = 1.13 and λP(P) = 0.266 whose product λ(P, ε) = 0.3. For λ(P, ε) = 0.8 keeping P constant, the required λε(ε) is 1.13*(0.8/0.3) = 3.01. The required ε to achieve this is about 0.012 which at 390 W/m^2 of surface emissions results in 4.7 W/m^2 of emissions by the planet, which is obviously wrong as 240 W/m^2 are required. Splitting λ(T) into a temperature component and a dimensionless component dependent on the emissivity leads to a slightly different impossible result.
What this tells us is that a sensitivity λ(P, ε) = 0.8C per W/m^2 is in conflict with the emissivity of the planet, ε and the power emitted by the planet, P. Either the Stefan-Boltzmann Law doesn't apply to the climate or the sensitivity is not 0.8C per W/m^2.
Presumably, this analysis will not convince you that a sensitivity of 0.8C per W/m^2 is impossible, so what will? Can you supply mathematical and physics proof that the SB Law is irrelevant to how the climate behaves?
Moderator Response:[PS] Are you or are you not George White?
[PS] I find it hard to believe there are two people in the world going for this nonsense and I think we can conclude that "Michael" is actually George still trying to flog his unphysical maths. Please do not respond.
-
MIchael Fitzgerald at 11:02 AM on 17 July 20152015 SkS Weekly Digest #27
KR, re #57
Thank you, this is what I was asking from you. FYI, the 170K value came from either you or Tom, so since you don't remember saying this, it must have come from Tom. But lets go with your suggestion that feedbacks don't kick in until -40C. The first 167 W/m^2 get us to -40C (233K) leaving 73 W/m^2 to get to 288K. If we assume a sensitivity of 0.75 for the remaining 73 W/m^2, we get to 288K.
There's still a problem with this. If the increase in sensitivity is consequential to an increase in feedback, all of the accumulated W/m^2 of forcing are subject to the same new feedback influences and you should expect a large change in temperature as the feedback kicks in and is applied to the accumulated W/m^2 and a smaller change thereafter as only the incremental W/m^2 matters as long as feedback remains constant. If we assume a step change in feedback at 40C that results in increasing the sensitivity from 0.35 to 0.75 the first 167 W/m^2 now acts like 167*.75/.35 = 358 W/m^2 and the temperature jumps to 281.8K (48.8C per W/m^2), thereafter to increase by 0.75C per W/m^2, resulting in a final temperature of 336.6K which is obviously too high. How can you modify your quantification of sensitivity to account for this?
-
Stephen Baines at 08:31 AM on 17 July 2015Are we overestimating our global carbon budget?
ubrew 12. Boyce and colleagues have a new analysis that tries to address the many concerns posed by responses to the orginal paper (that were published in Nature at the same time). The new paper is a lot more equivocal about the scale of the change, while still suggesting declines in biomass are common at low latitudes. Changes in upwelling and ventilation due to stratification are built into the advanced earth system models, but I don't believe they come anywhere near to explaining a 40 % decline in phytoplankton biomass over the last century.
I probably should read up more systematically on this line of research and see if I can find a good summary, or draw up one myself. I know there has been some modeling work to try to make sense of the problem, but my sense is that noone understands it very well right now.
It's worth noting that phytoplankton biomass per se is not an important reservoir of carbon, accounting for only 0.5% of what is in the atmosphere according to the IPCC. Decreases in biomass could affect the biological pump, that removes atmospheric CO2 to deep waters over centory time scales. It could also reflect a more efficient biological pump. A chicken-egg situation.
-
scaddenp at 08:03 AM on 17 July 2015Are we overestimating our global carbon budget?
ubrew12 - my understanding from comment at RealClimate is that some AR5 models include carbon cycle feedbacks. However, the feedbacks are very slow and not likely to have much impact pre-2100.
-
ubrew12 at 04:12 AM on 17 July 2015Are we overestimating our global carbon budget?
I read a few years ago that ocean phytoplankton populations are down 40% in the last half century, to quote "with unknown consequences for ocean ecosystems and the planet's carbon cycle... rising sea surface temperatures are to blame". This would also act as a 'source' of CO2 compared to pre-industrial levels, and would likely intensify throughout this century. Does anyone know: Is this effect accounted for in the IPCC computer models?
Prev 553 554 555 556 557 558 559 560 561 562 563 564 565 566 567 568 Next
