Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 570 571 572 573 574 575 576 577 578 579 580 581 582 583 584 585 Next
Comments 28851 to 28900:
-
MA Rodger at 03:55 AM on 24 June 2015The latest global temperature data are breaking records
Tom Curtis @59.
The obscure IPCC inference I mention @55 for the pre-industrial tempeature being 0.3ºC below the 1951-1980 average, equivalent to 0.5ºC below 1990 levels comes from AR4 SPM5 "...a 1 to 2°C increase in global mean temperature above 1990 levels (about 1.5 to 2.5°C above pre-industrial)..." which concurs with what you brand as my "guess", and happily also concurs with your own "reasonable estimate".
-
Tom Curtis at 03:52 AM on 24 June 2015The latest global temperature data are breaking records
Willi, the 2 C limit is not a cliff. That is, the costs of reaching 2.1 C will not differ very greatly from that of reaching 2 C, or 1.9 C. Rather, costs will gradually increase with higher values. As a result, the 2 C target is a fuzzy estimate, set at 2 C (rather than 1.8 or 2.15) because it is convenient to communicate in round numbers. When uncertainty on the estimates are included, they show a similar range to the uncertainty in temperature change since the preindustrial. That means that with low probability we may have already reached the threshold of "dangerous" climate change; or that with equally low probability we may have a 2 C leeway. The central estimate (of about 1 C leeway ignoring warming "already in the pipeline") is, however, a reasonable estimate for policy.
Having said that, the uncertainty is sufficient that tracking every 0.1 C difference is largely irrelevant except that each 0.1 C increase is a step in the wrong direction. We can track those increases from temperature anomalies from the mid twentieth century (which are well known) more easilly than those from the preindustrial (which is not well known).
Finally, I agree with Rahmstorff (and Rob Honeycutt) on the validity and achievability of the 2 C target.
-
Tom Curtis at 03:39 AM on 24 June 2015Renewables can't provide baseload power
Superposition 134, what part of this summary from the OP do you consider inaccurate:
"To sum up, there are several types of renewable energy which can provide baseload power. It will be over a decade before we can produce sufficient intermittent renewable energy to require high levels of storage, and there are several promising energy storage technologies. One study found that the UK power grid could accommodate approximately 10-20% of energy from intermittent renewable sources without a "significant issue" (Carbon Trust and DTI 2003). By the time renewable energy sources begin to displace a significant part of hydrocarbon generation, there may even be new storage technologies coming into play. The US Department of Energy has made large-scale energy storage one if its research priorities, recently awarding $24.7 million in research grants for Grid-Scale Rampable Intermittent Dispatchable Storage. And several plans have been put forth to meet 100% of global energy needs from renewable sources by 2050."
If you do not find any substantial errors in the summary, then your problem comes down to:
1) Some wording in the article can be improved to avoid ambiguity; and (possibly)
2) The wording of the "myth" needs to be restated to better reflect "pseudo-skeptic" arguments.
The later because pseudo-skeptics do not argue that storage technology is not currently adequate to make a full renewable plus storage system capable of meeting baseload demand, but also that they will never be able to do so, either as a technical impossibility or because it will be to expensive.
Given that the contributors to SkS are volunteers, if your points are (1) and (2), how would you word the myths and or sections of the article you consider dodgy without at the same time implying (falsely) that renewable energy could never provide baseload power.
-
Tom Curtis at 03:30 AM on 24 June 2015Renewables can't provide baseload power
PhillipeChantreau @131, renewable energy in the form of wind and solar cannot provide base load power by themselves, but the OP read in context does not claim that they can (although it is guilty of ambiguous wording). However, wind and solar energy can in principle provide baseload power when coupled with energy storage such as batteries (currently pre-orderable from Tesla, see 11:50 on the video); Pumped Heat Storage (at the prototype stage and likely to be commercialized within a few years); or pumped hydro (currently commercially available but geographically limited). The OP mentions other potential storage methods.
When this was pointed out to Superposition, he simply ignored it.
More concerning he cites as appropriate communication an article by Leo Smith that says:
"We have the necessary ideas in place to demonstrate that renewable energy by dint of its intrinsic nature is big, and hence expensive, impracticable, and environmentally unpleasant in its use of space, that it increases problems for conventional power stations, rather than replacing them altogether, that it can't exist alone, but only in partnership, that all of the ideas that are touted to render it effective are either impossible or totally impractical ..."
Those claims are, of course, complete nonsense. The ideas Leo Smith considers to be "impossible or totally impractical" are currently being commercialized. Yet Superposition apparently considers Smith's propoganda piece as a model of accurate communication; but I would take the OP here over Smith's piece for accuracy any day of the week.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 03:28 AM on 24 June 2015The latest global temperature data are breaking records
Wili... On RealClimate, Dr Stefan Rahmstorf makes a strong case that the 2C limit is not too high and is still achievable.
Limiting global warming to 2 °C – why Victor and Kennel are wrong
-
SuperPosition at 03:28 AM on 24 June 2015Renewables can't provide baseload power
CBDunkerson @130.
SuperPosition, it seems like you are misreading the text.
You object that, "I'm sorry but what the above article descibes is the definition of somwething that is variable - The fact that storage (if it existsed) or spinning reserve (which uses fuel) could 'step in' does not magically make RE base load supplies."
My primary concern is the description of it as a myth.
Personally I find the description out of step in a publication that strives to debunk bad science.
Surely it is, at the very least, confusing to the reader who may conclude that the site is biased.
For instance, It would be wrong of me to claim that my car can or could fly - unless that is, I specifically stated that for it to do so would require the addition of wings and further noted that they cost more and were not commercially available at this time and even if they were.
I would certainly be accused of over egging the claim unless I agreed to re-phrase my claim as "it has the potential to fly." - and then explained why.
Intermitaant/variable RE is not baseload and it is utterly incorrect to class that as myth.
The fact remains that even though technology may be deployable to accomodate large scale variation on the grid generators does not mean that variable o/p sources are baseload sources or indeed that the issue is not an issue and I would also point you to my comment ref 127.
The issue of the unknown cost to the consumer of the correcting mechanisms, interconnects and grid changes to accomodate variable RE sources.
It's not like nobody will notice.
-
Tom Curtis at 02:52 AM on 24 June 2015Eight things we learned from the pope's climate change encyclical
chriskoz @77, the "fossil fuel waste heat" you cite includes all non-renewable resources including nuclear power.
To a close approximation the waste heat from nuclear industries cannot be less than the waste heat from total power consumption. Thus, if human energy consumption rises to 600 TW, waste heat will generate a forcing of at least 1.176 W/m^2 averaged over the Earth's surface. That low value assumes 100% efficiency in energy generation, with the only waste heat being the unavoidable waste heat from end use. Because this is a forcing on top of any excess CO2 retained in the atmosphere, over the next several thousand years it would lift global surface temperature very close to the 2 C target even if we ceased all emissions now. On the other hand, if return emissions to preindustrial levels that would represent about half of the current anthropogenic forcing.
With respect to the difference between fusion and fission waste heat, fission waste heat is partially compensated for by the reduction in geothermal heat by removal of radioactive ores from the natural ore bodies. That, however, is compensated by the generation of short lived radioisotopes that mean the waste heat of the waste is greater than that of the original ore body. Whether this balances I do not know, but the balance is likely to be small relative to the additional waste heat from inefficiencies in energy generation. Because current fusion designs require a large energy usage to maintain the reaction, fusion reactors would likely be less energy efficient but some of the waste heat from energy used maintaining the reaction may be usable to generate power. Consequently, if anything I would suspect fusion reactors would generate more waste heat for a given power output, but that is by no means certain.
Finally, I made a mistake in my energy calculations above (for which I apologize). Specifically, I described 600 TW as sufficient for 10 billion at 5 times current US per capita energy usage when it is actually 20 times. I translated that mistake through to my estimate of nuclear waste heat. Correcting for that, nuclear waste heat for total energy generation for 10 billion people at current US per capita levels would be about that of the current forcing of CFC11 (0.06 W/m^2). Consequently it would not be a problem for nuclear power supply at that level, but waste heat is a limiting factor on sustainable nuclear power supply unlike the case with traditional renewable energies (solar, wind, wave etc).
-
PhilippeChantreau at 02:30 AM on 24 June 2015Renewables can't provide baseload power
Superposition's argument has some validity. This article is very much on point and does not downplay the intermittency of specific RE sources. It clearly identifies that solar and wind do not provide baseload now and are not expected to do so. However, it classifies the claim "renewables can't provide baseload power" as a myth. Unfortunately, the oversimplification imposed on any debate by the mind manipulators who inevitably hijack it has come to equate rewable with wind and solar for the general public, even though there are many other sources, some that are not affected by intermittency.
Nonetheless, I believe that Superposition's point is that most people would come to this page in order to addess the claim that wind and solar can not provide baseload power, a claim that is, in fact, true. Perhaps the article should have an introduction emphasizing that "renewable" does not mean exclusively wind and solar.
Personally, I think that the potential for geothermal is immense and has been barely tapped at all. Considering the treasures of ingeniosity that have gone into drilling for oil and gas, I believe that we have quite a margin of improvement for tapping into heat that's there, completely free and with little to no side effects.
-
wili at 02:10 AM on 24 June 2015The latest global temperature data are breaking records
So let me get this straight:
Not only is the 2 degree target almost surely set way too high;
Not only is the 2 degree target almost surely unattainable now;
But we also will not even be able to tell when we hit or exceed the 2 degree target, nor accurately track our 'progress' toward that dreaded goal?
Wow, I knew we were pretty totally lost, but I didn't realize how lost we were in even determinging how lost we are.
So all the people deciding to set a goal of two degrees have not come around to agree on one standard to measure our progress toward that limit? That just seems at ones unbelievable and all too typical. Yes there are difficuluties, but you pick one measure and stick with it unless it is found to be woefully inadequate, it seems to me.
In any case, by all of the three measure that Tom has so kindly provided, we seem to have passed the one degree mark now.
I know this is just an arbitrary place on the number line, but to most of us this looks like a pretty significant milestone, much lie the 400ppm mark, not to be wasted in minutiae of figuring what proxy is used for historical temperatures.
We need as many wake up calls as we can possibly get at this point, and it just seems to me that the climate communications community is squandering an important opportunity here.
Am I crazy?
OK, I know, yes, I'm crazy, and histrionic as well, apparently '-).
But is this idea wacko for some reason that I'm not seeing?
-
Daniel Bailey at 01:30 AM on 24 June 2015CO2 measurements are suspect
It's not. Temperature measurements began in 1659. Stations were added throughout the centuries since then, becoming a truly global network beginning in 1880. Multiple proxy records extend that record literally millions of years into the past.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/instrumental.html
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/1998/anomalies/anomalies.html
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/ghcnm/v3.php
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/data-access/paleoclimatology-data/datasets
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/data-sources/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumental_temperature_recordMultiproxy reconstructions are now commonplace. For example, per the PAGES 2000 reconstruction, current global surface temperatures are hotter than at ANY time in the past 1,400 years, and that while the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age are clearly visible events in their reconstruction, they were not globally synchronized events.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/pages2k-confirms-hockey-stick.html
From the peak temps and CO2 at the height of the Holocene Climatic Optimum some 7,000 years ago, temps and CO2 went into a long, slow decline, until about 100 years ago. Global temperatures dropped about 0.8 degrees C.
Over the past 100 years we have entirely erased that 5,000+ years of natural cooling (Marcott et al 2013), with global temperatures rising a full degree C:
http://www.realclimate.org/images//Marcott.png
http://climatedesk.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/marcott-B-1000.jpg
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/09/paleoclimate-the-end-of-the-holocene/
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/339/6124/1198Given that orbital forcing is still negative, and will continue to be negative for the next several thousand years, natural forcings are not responsible for this current warming period.
Please place relevant comments and questions on the pertinent thread.
-
John Hartz at 01:14 AM on 24 June 2015New study links global warming to Hurricane Sandy and other extreme weather events
@willi #1:
I believe the answer to your question is contained in an article by Chris Mooney about the same Trenberth et al paper that is summarized by John Abraham in the OP.
Here are the relevant sections from Mooney's paper:
More particularly, Trenberth and his team are arguing, while changes in atmospheric dynamics are very hard to blame on climate change at the present time, thermodynamic changes involving heat and moisture are relatively easy to attribute — the world’s air and oceans are, after all, warmer. So to understand what they’re arguing in the new paper, you first have to understand this distinction that is fundamental to atmospheric science — between dynamics and thermodynamics.
Dynamics governs the large scale motions of the atmosphere — the way in which the fluid flow of air molecules on a rotating planet leads to major patterns, such as gigantic cyclonic storms or the jet stream. In effect, dynamics governs the arrival of a given weather event in a given place, at a given time.
Thermodynamics, in contrast, involves how temperature and moisture shape atmospheric events. Here, hotter temperatures can lead to more evaporation of water — and are also directly related to the ability for more retention of water vapor, or humidity, in the air. (“The water-holding capacity of the atmosphere goes up exponentially at a rate of about 7% per degree Celsius,” noted Trenberth and his colleagues.) Meanwhile, hotter ocean temperatures can also have a variety of effects, such as strengthening storms like hurricanes.
Study sees a ‘new normal’ for how climate change is affecting weather extremes by Chris Mooney, Energy & Environment, Washington Post, June 22, 2015
-
One Planet Only Forever at 00:29 AM on 24 June 2015New study links global warming to Hurricane Sandy and other extreme weather events
wili,
I believe the answer is provided in the following statements near the end of the article.
"This new study reconciles past conflicting studies where very little evidence of a climate link was found of general circulation changes, but evidence is clear in the thermodynamics."
"In summary, human warming affects weather in two ways. It changes the odds that any given extreme event will occur. But more importantly it makes the events more severe".
-
CBDunkerson at 23:27 PM on 23 June 2015Renewables can't provide baseload power
SuperPosition, it seems like you are misreading the text.
You object that, "I'm sorry but what the above article descibes is the definition of somwething that is variable - The fact that storage (if it existsed) or spinning reserve (which uses fuel) could 'step in' does not magically make RE base load supplies."
All true, but irrelevant. The article does not say that these types of RE (e.g. wind and solar) can supply base load electricity. The problem is that you are assuming the words, "this is simply untrue" refer to "some types of renewable energy do not provide baseload power". They clearly do not. That phrase is preceded by the word "because"... an explicit acknowledgement that these types of RE do not provide baseload power.
Rather, what the text is saying is untrue is the next clause, "they require an equivalent amount of backup power provided by fossil fuel plants".
Yes, solar&wind are variable and do not provide baseload power. No, that doesn't mean that an equal amount of fossil fuel power needs to be on standby at all times.
-
APT at 22:18 PM on 23 June 2015CO2 measurements are suspect
Hello,
Can somebody please explain why only ice core data is used for the pre-instrumental measurement period? I understand that stomatal index data has certain problems, but then so does ice core data. Fossilized stomata data is used for the more distant past, and some Holocene studies seem pretty robust and use multiple locations, e.g. Steinthorsdottir et al. (2013).
Surely any issues with the stomatal data could be taken into account and it could be combined with ice core data to make a more accurate reconstruction of past CO2 levels. Is there simply not enough of it?
Stomata studies showing high levels of CO2 in the relatively recent past are being used to suggest that current levels are not unusual in human history, even though this contradicts ice core data. I understand the obvious problems with the Beck (2007) work for example, but what about studies suggesting higher CO2 at the end of the Younger Dryas? -
chriskoz at 21:43 PM on 23 June 2015Eight things we learned from the pope's climate change encyclical
Tom@74Supply of energy by nuclear technologies (fission or fusion) is less efficient because waste heat becomes a relevant climate forcing at that level of production, limiting the sustainable energy supply for a 10 billion population...
How much "relevant" climate forcing is nuke waste heat? Can you be more specific and tell us the actual numbers backed by relevant references? I think fusion WH would be somewhat different (much smaller) than fission WH because background radiation be smaller.
We know that FF waste heat (defined as all energy from FF burning converted to equivalent heat) is 100 times less that the anthropo change in greenhouse effect and still 10 times less than e.g. solar variations, so indeed irrelevant.
-
SuperPosition at 20:54 PM on 23 June 2015Renewables can't provide baseload power
Thank you for your reply.
I'm afraid that I must disagree -
Whilst I am not a electrical systems engineer, I have worked as a scienctific consultant and in particular, a Green energy consultant for the UK DCMS (gov media) and the London 2012 Olympics.
Not once did I ever see or hear of a manufacturer or developer of the types of RE we are talking about discuss them in terms other than of none base load, variable output.
The Industry does not regard them as BL, nor does the national grid operators of any country that I am aware of.
This is a wholly unnecesary contradiction that may turn people away from your site and perhaps even your cause, simply because your definition and characterisation of variable o/p as 'myth' contradicts far too many accepted sources including Grid Operators, ETSO, IPCC, SDSN, DDPP and even GreenPeace for it to be credulous.
Yes I think most if not all would agree that variability/intermittancy can potentially be corrected for either by demand side management, spinning reserve or storage the fact is that those are external mechanisms which, with the sole exception of [inefficient] spinning reserve, we do not have yet.
This point is made by Leo Smith MA [Limitations of Renewable Energy] and it is not untrue as is claimed elsewhere on SKS.
As with addressing AGW denial, it requires a nuanced technical rebuttal of the bits that are wrong, not a dismissive gainsay or attack on the author.
Afterall, you are not writing for people who accept AGW/ACC, you seek, do you not, to convince undecided or lay individual with fact based knowledge and logic and if a simple wiki search of the term is at odds with you then that should be addressed.
I suggest that you accept that variability is NOT a myth, but explian that technical (and regional) solutions exists that may, over time, help mitigate/address the issue and can compensate for the variability and that these solutions need investment tio the point where it becomes irrelevent.
Alternately and with the greatest of respect for SKS motives, I suggest that it reference DDPP (par exemplar) and then remove all mention of Green energy alternatives to concentrate on the climate science only.
-
Tom Curtis at 19:51 PM on 23 June 2015The latest global temperature data are breaking records
wili @58, while the IPCC expresses targets in terms of degrees C above the preindustrial temperatures, it reports temperatures as anomalies with respect to various multidecade periods in the 20th century (depending on which temperaure record they are using). There is a very good reason for that. Nobody really knows what the temperature was in 1750, although we can make a reasonable guess.
MA Rodger @55 makes a guess based on the BEST 1750 land only temperature, but BEST land only in 1750 amounts to a few European thermometers only, and is a poor index of global temperatures. Consequently the errors on that temperature determination are approximately as large as the difference between 1750 and 2000 temperatures in that index. Treating the land only temperature as a global (land and sea) index would only increase that error. This just illustrates that there were simply not enough temperature records kept in the 18th century to reasonably estimate the temperature difference between preindustrial temperatures and modern temperatures.
An alternative approach is to use "natural thermometers" in the form of paleotemperature reconstructions. Of this, probably the best current global reconstruction in Mann 08 (EIV). That is expressed in terms of temperature anomalies indexed to the HadCRUT3 temperature series. Because of the method used to correlate reconstructed temperatures with the instrumental record, and because of the slight differences between different instrumental records, using a different instrumental record will result in a different estimate of 1750 temperatures relative to modern temperatures. This is true even if the records use the same base period. The difference will approximately scale with the difference in the trend over the calibration period (1850-1995), but an exact determination would require replicating the reconstruction with the different temperature index. Unfortunately, the NCDC and GISS temperature indices do not extend back past 1880 and so cannot be used in such a replication.
The upshot is that even using reconstructed preindustrial temperatures, we cannot determine the difference modern temperatures in general, and preindustrial temperatures. The most we can do is determine an temperature index specific comparison which can give a rough idea, but no precise values. And that is restricting ourselves to a particular set of paleo data for the reconstruction, and a particular methodology.
Given these difficulties, it is unsurprising that nobody has in fact made a determination of the difference between preindustrial and modern temperatures in precise enough a manner that the IPCC WG1 considers worth citing. Given that the role of SkS is to communicate the science, that means SkS should not give specific values for the difference no matter how convenient it would be to have them. To do so would be to go beyond the science.
Having said that, it is possible to make educated guesses as to what the difference is. Based on Mann 08 EIV, my best guess as to the difference between the 1741-1760 average and 2014 is, for three different temperature indices:
HadCRUT4: 1.01 C
NOAA: 1.06C
GISS: 1.04 CThe error for HadCRUT4 is on the order of 0.4 C, and due to the inability to determine an approximate calibration for NOAA and GISS, is likely over 0.5 C for GISS (although I have not calculated it explicitly). So, a 1 C temperature difference is a reasonable estimate, but the error is too large for differences of +/- 0.1 C to be meaningful in the estimate.
Addendum: I should note that the SkS team are volunteers, with none of them being paid for their contributions. In addition to the problem of not having an accurately determined scientific value for the figure you want reported, it should be recognized that volunteers have limited time. I, for one, am thankful for the amazing resource the volunteers have managed to provide. While constructive criticism and requests to improve articles are always appropriate, they should be made in the recognition that any response is in the nature of a favour, not something that can be demanded as a right.
-
wili at 15:17 PM on 23 June 2015The latest global temperature data are breaking records
One last gasp...
Look good and wonderful people.
We need to have the whole world...the entire freaking world...riveted, glued, fixed fast to...just two or three numbers:
1) The concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere (just passing 400ppm)
2) The resulting global average temperature, which has generally and most publically been expressed in terms of degrees C above pre-industrial levels, as expressed in IPCC, major international agreements, books like "6 degrees," etc., etc...
If a major new finding came out about CO2 concentrations and people decided to express it in, I don't know, drams per stone or something rather than in parts per million like everyone else, wouldn't you expect, from the writers trying to publicize such finding, that they would at the very mininmally least somewhere translate their peculiar (to most) measure into the much more widely used one??
Please tell me what I'm missing, here, if I'm missing something glaringly obvious (it wouldn't be the first time).
-
wili at 15:06 PM on 23 June 2015New study links global warming to Hurricane Sandy and other extreme weather events
"...there are two potential ways a warming climate may lead to weather changes. The first way is through something called thermodynamics..."
Did I miss it somehow, or did the other shoe never drop in that article. What's the other 'way' besides thermodynamics? -
wili at 14:47 PM on 23 June 2015The latest global temperature data are breaking records
purveying
-
wili at 14:46 PM on 23 June 2015The latest global temperature data are breaking records
MA Rogers @ #55 worte: "So your question @1 wasn't rhetorical then."
No, apparently, I'm just not that subtle! '-)Really, I'm sorry if it came off as self righteous. But it was actually intended to be a fairly sharp criticism of the whole thread and the whole site.
This site is supposed to be about c o m m u n i c a t i o n, right?
Well, everyone has heard about the '2 degrees C' that is the supposed limit that everyone in the world has agreed that we are not supposed to cross.
Well, if you are going to have a major article on where we are in the march toward that limit, it just kinda sorta seems like it just might be a tiny bit reasonable to expect someone sometime to connect the temperatures you are reporting to this universal baseline. Idn't it?.
If you don't do this, you just are not _com-mu-ni-ca-ting_.
Yeah, I could try look it up and guess at an interpretation as michael bravely tried to do above, and probably end up perveying some inaccuracy...
But really, really, shouldn't we have a very, very clear idea of the basic base line that most of us are using, and then shouldn't we always, always refer back to that base line if we are actually actually trying to communicate something consistent to the world here???
/rant
Delete if you can't tollerate any spec of criticism. It is aimed at me as much as anyone. I'm as guilty as all y'all.
ps. I really do appreciate the work everybody does here. But I think we do need to have a further discussion about some ground rules about priorities when presenting some of this most basic and most crucial information of all time!
Now I'm sure I will banned from this beautiful site forever. Best wishes to all. --wili
Moderator Response:[JH] Spare us the histrionics and all will go well.
-
Tom Curtis at 07:25 AM on 23 June 2015Renewables can't provide baseload power
SuperPosition @126, there are two versions of the myth that I have encountered. The first is that renewable energy cannot provide baseload power. The second version also states that because of this, and because power stations capable of baseload power cannot quickly respond to changes in load, all renewable energy must be backed up by generators capable of providing baseload power operating at near the capacity of the renewable energy component but with the energy going to waste. The claim is that not only the renewable energy unduly expensive because of the requirement of backup, but that it also does not reduce emissions because the back up generation must run continuously regardless of whether the energy is used or not.
The paragraph that you quote clearly rebuts the second form of the myth. Further, the rest of the article goes on to show how renewable energy can be used to provide baseload power, either because the renewable energy in question is not innately variable (geothermal energy, hydro energy), or because the variable renewable energy can be coupled with various means of energy storage to even out the variations. Thus even though variable renewable sources (wind, solar) are not "base load dispachable generators" (something not claimed in the article), such generators coupled with appropriate storage can generate baseload power.
So, while I agree that the phrasing of the paragraph you quote is a little awkward, the article is not wrong in its claims.
-
SuperPosition at 06:37 AM on 23 June 2015Renewables can't provide baseload power
Furthermore the undoubtedly large costs of storage and grid changes to accomodate it should be accounted for as integral, indivisible part of RE generation.
-
SuperPosition at 06:27 AM on 23 June 2015Renewables can't provide baseload power
A common myth is that because some types of renewable energy do not provide baseload power, they require an equivalent amount of backup power provided by fossil fuel plants. However, this is simply untrue. As wind production fluctuates, it can be supplemented if necessary by a form of baseload power which can start up or whose output can be changed in a relatively short period of time.
I'm sorry but what the above article descibes is the definition of somwething that is variable - The fact that storage (if it existsed) or spinning reserve (which uses fuel) could 'step in' does not magically make RE base load supplies.
For your organisations credibility _whose aims I approve of) I strongly suggest that you re-write the above and accept the fact that variable/intermittant RE are not base load dispachable generators.
Moderator Response:[JH] Your suggestion is duely noted.
-
Tom Curtis at 06:02 AM on 23 June 2015Eight things we learned from the pope's climate change encyclical
wili @76, here is the quoted section in context:
"Again, the loss of any species is a loss to us all; but it is not necessarilly a significant loss. In terms of genetic diversity, 26% of human genes can be found in yeast. 92% can be found in mice, and 98% in chimpanzees. Humans are by no means unique in the degree to genetic similarity to other species. Consequently the loss of any given species is likely to result in the loss of very few, and in some cases no, genes from the total global genetic diversity.
In terms of ecology, many species occupy niches occupied ..."
(Emphasis added)
The bolded words clearly mark out that my discussion considered two distinct aspects of the loss related to species loss. Further they clearly mark out the discussion immediately following each bolded phrase as being relative to those terms, ie, genetic diversity and ecology respectively. Ergo they made no claim to reduce the value of life to just one of those terms as you claimed I was doing. So in this particular case, the misunderstanding clearly is an example of your ignoring the clear import of my words. In effect you treated my post @19 of consisting of just one paragraph, ignoring the rest of the content in order to accuse me of genetic reductionism.
Trying to avoid responsibility for your misinterpretation by suggesting that I always blame others for any misinterpretation rather than accept responsibility when it is due is rather contemptible.
-
wili at 04:34 AM on 23 June 2015Eight things we learned from the pope's climate change encyclical
Tom Curtis #50, I'm glad to hear that you did not intend to equate life with DNA. This was the passage that mislead me as to your position on the subject (@#19):
"In terms of genetic diversity, 26% of human genes can be found in yeast. 92% can be found in mice, and 98% in chimpanzees. Humans are by no means unique in the degree to genetic similarity to other species. Consequently the loss of any given species is likely to result in the loss of very few, and in some cases no, genes from the total global genetic diversity."
If people are constantly mis-interpretting your position, is it possible that some of the blame at least some of the time is with your presentations of your positions? Or is it always someone else's fault, in your mind?
-
Tom Curtis at 04:05 AM on 23 June 2015Climate's changed before
Andreya @486, with AGW, conditions on planet Earth are on average getting wetter, not drier. This is complicated by the fact that the Hadley Cells are extending to higher latitudes resulting in the band of dry descending air at the zone between the Hadle and Ferrel Cells to also move to higher latitudes, drying those areas previously under the Ferrel Cell but now under that zone of dry descending air.
It is further complicated by greater evaporation, which means that dry spells will more rapidly result in drought conditions.
The net effect of this is that agriculture is likely to be disrupted in many locations, but we will not experience anything like universal desert conditions. In fact, the political disruption caused by uncertain food supplies is likely to be more dangerous to humans than the uncertain food supplies itself. And those uncertain food supplies are as likely to be from conditions becoming too wet, or too warm for traditional crops as from their becoming too dry (and will mostly come from year to year variation being less predictable making adaption of agriculture very difficult). Apart from the top end risks of that political disruption (ie, nuclear war), there is no risk of AGW making humans extinct.
Finally, there is zero risk from AGW of the Earth's atmosphere becoming as thin as that of Mars, or in fact varying noticably from its current thickness. Risks on that score are only possible from massive repeated planetary bombardment by infalling meteors (so unlikely as to not be meaningfully expressible as a risk factor); or eventually the gradual warming or possibly the expansion of Sun over time (for which it is not a threat for billions of years).
AGW is a grave risk for which we should immediately take suitable measures of mitigation. It is not armageddon.
-
Phil at 03:44 AM on 23 June 2015Spoiled ballots, spoiled views: an election snapshot from Powys, Wales, UK
With regard to the comments about wind turbines up thread, I recently came across this article which I thought I'd share. It discusses a new design of turbine without blades, which is, apparently, cheaper to manufacture, kinder to birds, and works better when units are placed closer together. Whether or not they are more aesthetically pleasing or not is, of course, subjective !
They are crowdsourcing at the moment, should you wish to encourage them. Or, of course, they may be snake oil ...
-
MA Rodger at 03:09 AM on 23 June 2015The latest global temperature data are breaking records
wili @51.
So your question @1 wasn't rhetorical then.
Further to the comment following #51, the pre-industrial temperature is strangely seldom given a number which is remarkable given how often it is given as the baseline temperature. Then how do we know the global temperature in 1750?
The usual take on pre-industrial is to take the earilest part of the instrument record that is available, which for GISS (as in the graph in the post) yields perhaps an extra 0.3ºC on top of the 1951-1980 anomaly base (as per the centre of the green 'error bar' in the graph). I have seen this 0.3ºC inferred by the IPCC, but rather obscurely so. And the BEST land temperature record back to the mid 1700s (graphed here - usually 2 clicks to 'download your attachment') suggests 1880 isn't greatly misplaced as representative of pre-industrial. So 0.3ºC below a 1951-1980 average seems reasonable.
Therefore, if the last 12 months of GISS average +0.72ºC or 2015 so far averages +0.766ºC, that would put us +1.02ºC or +1.066ºC above pre-industrial respectively.
-
Tristan at 02:46 AM on 23 June 2015The latest global temperature data are breaking records
@michael
Because GHGs aren't the only climatic influences. All you have to do is overplay the role of the sun or unicorns or whatever and blame that for the warming.
-
Tristan at 02:43 AM on 23 June 2015The latest global temperature data are breaking records
wili
Confusingly, there are several baselines that get used, and no single standard for pre-industrial temps (the chaps at the met office use 1861-1890). A reference in the IPCC's 2007 report gives numbers in respect to both 1961-1990 and pre-industrial baselines, and they differ by 0.3C.
Because HadCRUT uses the 1961-1990 baseline, If you want an officialish estimate of current temps with respect to pre-industrial times, just get the latest HadCRUT data and add 0.3C.
-
michael sweet at 02:34 AM on 23 June 2015The latest global temperature data are breaking records
Wili,
Perhaps others think you should do your own homework.
Going to the data linked in the first line of the OP, 1880-1900 averages about -.25 degrees (I used my calibrated eyeball). The first 5 months of 2015 are about +0.75C. Adding those together results in about 1.0 total increase since 1880-1900.
How can anyone suggest that climate sensitivity to CO2 can be as low as 1.5C per doubling when an increase from 270 to 400 gives us 1.0C without coming to equilibrium??
-
Andreya at 02:09 AM on 23 June 2015Climate's changed before
Climate change?In human terms and gong by conditions on this planet , our place is getting warmer and drier .Species are disapperaring by the day and very quickly going extinct as a result.While some humans will make it through desert conditions , the majority will disappear. It may have to take the genius of a genetic engineer to produce our successor . Humans are pretty smart and some will live to tell the tale. Scientifically, we are facing unprecidented and some man made microcosmic changes in an already hostile environment .Up to now it is not obvious how much time we have for life on earth .We need to consult on how much time the energy or plasma from the sun will last , how many magnetic cycles it will take earth before the atmosphere starts to dissipate like happened on mars, what our chances are for a second life assuming we can beat cosmic radiation effects. Anyway we need to deal with many factors just looking at climate change .Details are welcome.
-
cunudiun at 02:08 AM on 23 June 2015The Skeptical Science temperature trend calculator
@ Tristan
Thanks for clearing that up so quickly! (I was going to try to play with WoodForTrees but mistakenly abandoned the effort when I saw that it didn't have Karl's data.)
With this big gap between the pre- and post-1999 trend lines, why should the presence or absence of a "pause" have depended on making the two slopes the same? But that was the chief talking point about Karl's paper: that it dispatched the "pause" to oblivion by making the two trends match up. That was the thing from Karl's paper that made deniers' heads explode, almost Papally.
Karl: "[T]here is no discernable (statistical or otherwise) decrease in the rate of warming between the second half of the 20th century and the first 15 years of the 21st century." Karl certainly performed a great service by improving the accuracy of the data, and this is a very interesting fact, but it's clear even from your graph based on HADCRUT4 data that there was no pause, even without Karl. Neither trend line, pre- nor post-, captures the big jump in temperature around the great 1998 El Niño, and so an analysis simply by comparing the two trends just ignores this surge.
I'm actually a little embarrassed that I didn't pick up on this without your help, being the author of this Tamino-inspired Monckton takedown: https://a.disquscdn.com/uploads/mediaembed/images/2095/6070/original.jpg
-
wili at 01:04 AM on 23 June 2015The latest global temperature data are breaking records
50 comments later and no one has bothered to address my initial question.
Thanks a lot everybody. Really helpful.
Moderator Response:[JH] Self-righteous comments like the above are not likely to encourage readers to respond to your questions.
-
Tor B at 22:06 PM on 22 June 20152015 SkS Weekly News Roundup #25B
In the 3rd paragraph, do you mean: (Typically, when exceeded, these records are exceeded by smaller margins of only 0.01 or 0.02 degrees Fahrenheit.)
-
Oriolus Traillii at 22:00 PM on 22 June 2015Corals are resilient to bleaching
There seems to be some good news on the coral front.
Moderator Response:[RH] Shortened link.
-
Tristan at 20:36 PM on 22 June 2015The Skeptical Science temperature trend calculator
@cunudiun
It's a bit unintuitive, because we imagine the 1950-1999 and 1999-2015 lines to run end to end. However, when we put them on the same graph, we can see what's happening -
Tom Curtis at 16:57 PM on 22 June 2015Eight things we learned from the pope's climate change encyclical
Returning to the population discussion, MA Rodger conveniently links to a paper by Daily, Erhlich and Erhlich (1994). They write:
"A scheme that might possibly avoid such a collapse was proposed by John Holdren of the Energy and Resources Group at the University of California, Berkeley. The Holdren scenario (Holdren, 1991) postulates expansion of the human population to only 10 billion and a reduction of average per-capita energy use by people in industrialized nations from 7.5 to to 3 kilowatts (kW), while increasing that of the developing nations from 1 to 3 kW. The scenario would require, among other things, that citizens of the United States" cut their average use of energy from almost 12 kW to 3 kW. That reduction could be achieved with energy efficient technologies now in hand and with an improvement (by most people's standards) in the standard of living.
While convergence on an average per-capita consumption of 3 kW of energy by 10 billion people would close the rich-poor gap, it would still result in a total energy consumption of 30 TW, more than twice that of today. Whether the human enterprise can be sustained even temporarily on such a scale without devastating ecological consequences is unclear, as Holdren recognizes. This will depend critically on the technologies involved in the future as reserves of fossil fuels, especially petroleum, are depleted. Perhaps through funkier development and widespread application of more benign technologies (such as various forms of solar power and biomass-derived energy), environmental deterioration at the peak of human activities could be held to that of today."
They go on to suggest that more than 9 TW global energy consumption is incompatible with sustainable development, requiring not only an equalization of resource consumption at lower than western levels of affluence, but actual population reductions to achieve a sustainable target - but transparently (and as they state) the appropriate target depends "...critically on the technologies involved in the future...".
Consider the situation in which all energy is supplied by renewable energy sources. Even limiting ourselves to just 0.5% of total available renewable energy (excluding tidal energy) allows 600 TW of global energy consumption. That is, if we successfully convert to renewable energy consumption, and limit human population to 10 billion or less (ie, less than current projected peak population), we can successfully provide around 5 times the current per capita energy needs of a US citizen to all citizens of the world. Supply of energy by nuclear technologies (fission or fusion) is less efficient because waste heat becomes a relevant climate forcing at that level of production, limiting the sustainable energy supply for a 10 billion population to below current US per capita consumption levels, but at levels consistent with global affluence at US levels given current trends in energy intensity. The upshot is, on current technological development pathways, energy ceases to be an environmental constraint on human population within this century, provided we seriously tackle global warming and given the reasonable accuracy of current population projections. In short, Daily, Erhlich and Erhlich have been rendered obsolete by new technological developments.
Energy use is not the only limit on population growth and affluence. SkepticalinCanada has earlier linked to Daly and Townsend (1993) who argue for limits on growth based on the fact that humans already appropriate 40% of Net Primary Production (NPP) and that it is impossible that they should appropriate more than 100%, and inconsistent with healthy ecosystems to appropriate even that 40%. Again this analysis is obsolete. Using a more justifiable definition of Human Appropriation of Net Primary Production, it is seen that only 23.8% of NPP is appropriated (Haberl et al, 2007, Erb et al, 2009). Further, NPP can be expanded (by irrigation schemes, for instance) so that it is not strictly true that we cannot go beyond 100% of currrent NPP. HANPP can be increased without reducing NPP available to natural ecosystems. In addition, as Haberl et al show, some of the NPP "appropriated" by humans is returned to local ecosystems in the form of animal waste, and "waste" plant matter.
To maintain a healthy global ecosystem we certainly should not significantly reduce the absolute NPP currently available to natural ecosystems. Fortunately human food consumption does not increase with affluence at anything like the rate of human energy consumption (differing by only a factor of 2.4 between the lowest and highest national averages). More importantly, there is evidence that we may be able to increase NPP for human consumption without any reduction of NPP for ecosystems, either by more intensive farming of current low value agricultural land, or changes in pastoral practises.
Terrestial Net Primary Production is only part of the human food chain, and there are genuine risks that we are over fishing the ocean. We certainly overfishing particular fisheries. Given that, however, assessments of the risks of global overfishing from as little as two years ago have been rendered obsolete by the discovery that there are 10 times more fish in the ocean than previously estimated.
There are also genuine risks about loss of access to fresh water, but again new technologies have the potential to make this a risk of the past.
The upshot of all this is not that there are no ecological risks. Rather it is that there are good reasons to think that those risks can be addressed with currently available, or likely near future technologies along with some changes in behaviour, management and governance. Good reasons are not guarantees. You can have good reasons to choose a particular strategy, and have that strategy still fail. But that is no reason to not try those strategies, and certainly no reason to adopt alternative strategies (massive GDP reduction and population decreases on scales only achievable by totalitarian persecution) that appear to aim at failure of the human project.
Finally, consider this graph of the global ecological footprint from the WWF:
In principle, if we had an ecological footprint of one or less we could support the global population without species losses, or other degradations of the environment. In practise that is not quite true, but an ecological footprint of one or less would certainly allow us to come close to that ideal, and meet it with appropriate management practises and (in some instances) changes of behaviour.
Currently the global ecological footprint is approximately 1.5, but 53% of that footprint comes from carbon emissions. Put another way, if we could solve the problem of global warming, the global ecological footprint would be approximately 0.75 giving us leeway to live in an ecologically sustainable way in principle, and with suitable conservation laws (including protection of fisheries), in practise as well.
SkepticalinCanada in his parting shot trotted out that old staple of deniers, the conspiracy theory. In this case, however, he requires that the conspiracy include the WWF. Perhaps he needs to consider why he is basing his theories and policies on obsolete minority views among scientists.
-
cunudiun at 14:44 PM on 22 June 2015The Skeptical Science temperature trend calculator
Karl's paper states: "Our new analysis now shows the trend over the period 1950-1999, a time widely agreed as having significant anthropogenic global warming (1), is 0.113°C dec−1, which is virtually indistinguishable with the trend over the period 2000-2014 (0.116°C dec−1)."
The Temperature trend calculator's "Karl(2015)" option correctly duplicates the first trend (0.113) using start and end date inputs 1950 and 2000, but inputs 2000 and 2015 give a result of 0.118, not 0.116. To obtain the paper's 0.116, a start date of 2000.33 (2000 plus four months) needs to be used along with the 2015 end date. So it's curious that the calculator and the paper agree only if less than a complete year is used at the start of the period.
But this is minor when compared the following problem. Something seems to be seriously amiss with the calculator. A check of Karl's data for the entire period 1950 through 2014 (i.e. with start and end dates 1950 and 2015) produces a trend of 0.131°C dec−1. This simply cannot be correct. With the trends from 1950 through 1999 and 2000 through 2015 being 0.113 and 0.118, how can the trend over the combined periond possibly be as large as 0.131? This doesn't make sense. Or am I missing something obvious?
-
One Planet Only Forever at 07:53 AM on 22 June 2015Eight things we learned from the pope's climate change encyclical
The discussion about population distracts the focus of action away from rapidly curtailing the burning of fossil fuels. Curtailing the benefiting from burning fossil fuels (not reducing) clearly needs to be achieved. And that means dramatic rapid reduction of benefiting from the burning by the most fortunate (the biggest trouble-makers have the most capacity to reduce their impacts), with the most fortunate also helping the less fortunate develop to better ways of living with the least possible amount of burning along the way (and the most fortuate not expecting top personally benefit from those actions).
So, the curtailing of the burning of fossil fuels is what is required regardless of any action to limit the total population.
Ryland @2 claimed “It is an undeniable fact that humans all over the world want the best life possible and cheap, reliable energy is an essential element in attaining this.” I am proof that that can actually be denied. As I posted, the humans who focus on getting more of anything cheaper are a sub-set of the human population. Ryland may have been projecting a personal preference onto all others, sort of like the way that deniers who try to use twists and tricks to create claims that may be believed by some people think that that is what everyone else does. And it is done to try to diovert attention from the required rapid reduction of benefit that already fortunate humans get from burning fossil fuels. The most fortunate humans should be required to behave better.
-
Tom Curtis at 06:35 AM on 22 June 2015Eight things we learned from the pope's climate change encyclical
bozza @70, in a nutshell, to a significant risk of dangerous climate change, we need to avoid warming greater than 2 C relative to preindustrial temperatures. As seen in the figure below, that means we need an emissions pathway approximating to the RCP 2.5 scenario, as shown in the left hand panel:
-
PhilippeChantreau at 02:13 AM on 22 June 2015Eight things we learned from the pope's climate change encyclical
Lots of valid points and valid concerns here. Eventually, it will be inevitable that a range of living standards be defined that will be sustainable at the scale of the total world population, or to have airtight barriers between the affluent places and the rest. Right now the flow of reugees show an almost osmotic kind of pressure drawing in the poor where the rich are, it is quite interesting. Screams about one world government will ensue no matter how much our thinking has evolved by the time we get there.
I do agree with some here that overpopulation is likely one of the most important problems faced by our species. We are even less well equipped to tackle this problem than AGW. It is also a much more difficult problem to treat scientifically. It may be where our psyche and emotional make up lacks the most far behind the reality of our situation.
As for reproductive decision making being the single most important factor on population increase, it is true, but only because we have immunizations and antibiotics. The main reason why the human population has increased so much in the past century is because humans don't die at anywhere near the rate they used to. The chief cause of death for people, at any time in our short history, always was infection. Not so long ago, in the Western World, the rule was that people had 7 to 12 children, of which 4 or 5 reached reproductive age, and perhaps 2 or 3 achieved some reproductive success. Almost everybody else died of some sort of infection.
The population is not increasing because women don't have enough of a say in their reproductive role but because virtually everyone reaches reproductive age. Women had even less of a say in the past when the population was not increasing at the rate we have seen lately. I am not proposing anything here, just stating a fact.
Heart disease and cancer were once luxuries affecting only those who had managed to escape infections for long enough to develop them. Now we throw enormous resources in prolonging the life of people terminally ill with chronic cardiovascular or pulmonary diseases, keeping them alive for weeks in the ICU just so that the families can wrap their minds around the inevitability of the end. One of these ICU stays cost enough money to feed an entire village for year in Africa. Food that's only for thought on our end...
-
bozzza at 01:02 AM on 22 June 2015Eight things we learned from the pope's climate change encyclical
@51
but after 37 years China's policy still entails a growing population when on the same time scale we need to reduce emissions by 50% (at least).
Why, exactly, do we need to reduce emissions by 50% (at least) circa 2050?
-
ryland at 00:51 AM on 22 June 2015Eight things we learned from the pope's climate change encyclical
Discussions over will humanity breed itself out of existence are akin to discussions in earlier years of how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. No one relly knows with certainty. What is certain however if there were to be a reduction in population that would be beneficial to the terrestrial ecosystem Of course so would a reduction in materialism. It is fascinating reading opinions here which are from humans who are alive and who enjoy access to the internet. By definition the latter suggests all posters have a relatively affluent and enviable lifestyle. How many posters here drive cars, have fridges, air conditoners, take plane trips are not starving, have access to clean water and efficient health services and state pensions? I suspect pretty much everyone including of course myself. So are we going to get rid of our cars and fridges and air conditioning and our stop taking our plane trips? Others consider overpopulation is the major problem
In the Factoids and Facts on World population (http://www.overpopulation.org/faq.html) it is stated:
What do you think is the main factor(s) that contribute to overpopulation?
and answered:
Anything that gets in the way of a woman's ability to control her own reproduction. This would include: patriarchal traditions, lack of contraceptive choices, lack of education, child or forced marriages, banned or unsafe abortions, disenfranchisement, misinformation about birth control, doctor's ill-informed or prejudiced attitude, and use of a less effective method of birth control, such as the pill, condoms, or withdrawal - the three most common methods in the U.S. Some commenters here have said they approve of abortion. Personally I don't but accept it is a valid option for any woman but as they say prevention is better than cure. This is not a view shared by all.
Moderator Response:[PS] "will humanity breed itself out of existence" sounds like strawman rhetoric. As far as I can see no commentator has proposed such a thing nor am I aware of any scientific arguments in support of such a notion.
-
SkepticalinCanada at 00:20 AM on 22 June 2015Eight things we learned from the pope's climate change encyclical
So, what does the peer reviewed science say about the contribution of human population level to global warming?
So far at this website, I have very clearly stated where I do not have answers and have pointed to a few places where I believe the answers are starting to take shape. I have requested evidence to support the repetitive and vague handwaving responses that are typical of overpopulation deniers. I have seen evidence of the same arrogant anthropocentricism that is clearly evident among AGW deniers. I have been met with "there's no consensus about overpopulation" but no numbers or studies of the peer-reviewed science from the experts on our impact on the planet. I'm guessing (!) that the amount of money behind the "there is no overpopulation" campaign (official or unoffial) far exceeds the funding of the AGW denialist organizations (and I expect you know to whom I refer) with very little funding for actual research.
In short, all along I have been saying that we don't know, but there is evidence that it is imperative that we do know. Otherwise, it's entirely possible that "what peer reviewed science has to say about global warming" is missing a crucial element. The very fact that the Pope brought up this issue in the encyclical indicates that there is a significant level of discourse that might at some point be addressed from a scientific perspective. Is all the work we are doing to combat the most urgent threat - AGW - pointless if sheer human numbers mean that we have an unsustainable presence on this one planet that we have forever, or at least until the planet is gone?
In any case, it's abundantly clear that I am wasting my time here trying to bring this issue to the level of meaningful discussion. This is my last comment at this website, and I will not be returning. Moderator, feel free to delete my account.
Moderator Response:[JH] Sory, but you do not get to define what constitutes a "meaningful discussion" on this website.
-
MA Rodger at 19:54 PM on 21 June 2015Eight things we learned from the pope's climate change encyclical
skepticalincanada @66.
Your accusations of denial cannot be merited as the discussion you seek is more one of philosophy than one of science. Indeed, your attempts to discuss here 'sustainable population' is not really in tune with what SkS is about which is specifically "The goal of Skeptical Science is to explain what peer reviewed science has to say about global warming."
I would also say that your 'links' @60 do not at all adequately prepare the ground for a general discussion of 'sustainable population'. (And I wonder if perhaps the Daly link you should have used is not Daly at all but GC Daily et al (1994) ). The links you provide are certainly entirely inadequate to lay the basis for discussion of the specifically-cllimatological implications of global population size.
Do bear in mind that many would see such a discussion here as a distraction, deflecting attention away from the urgency of addressing/discussing AGW and onto a plethora of other urgencies, major and minor. It is a whole different ball game you attempt to kick off here.The questions you pose @60 are mainly not trivial at an academic level. They are not trivial even at a logical level. For the sake of illustration, consider the following.
It is of course true in a simplisitic sense that were global population smaller, then the stress inflicted by humanity on its ecosystem would be smaller. It is also true that the present use of many global resources by humanity greatly exceed the natural re-supply of those resources.
Yet a more thorough consideration shows this sustainable population question is in itself a pretty intractable one.
The world food supply impacts very greatly on our ecosystem. Historically food supply was the big limiting factor on all humanity. The future suggests human population will reach a peak level but will that level inflict unacceptable damage to our ecosystem? Will there be enough food to go round? And if these were intractable problems, what do we do about it?
Even consideration of mineral resources is not easy. Simplistically, digging a bucketful of iron ore from the ground is unsustainable on today's earth as the processes that layed down that iron ore no longer occur. A more sensible approach perhaps would be to estimate how long before such resources would run dry given present-day usage. The results from this are usually quite scary but, as with this graph based on 1992 data, prove to be not entirely sensible. The same difficulties are encountered with the concept of 'peak' resource.
The resources we actually use depends not just on population but also technology and lifestyle. Daily et al's calculation of 2 billion being sustainable depends solely on assumptions of global sustainable energy production (6TW) and an accceptable average per capita energy use (3kW). The latter is less than a third of North American per capita usage (and that's ignoring the imported goods) and is taken from Holdren (1991) who projects a reduction of economic energy intensity 2000-2050 to achieve a 3kWpc usage in North America. I think this example well demonstrates the speculative nature of such sustainability assessment which is quite apparent as soon as you scratch the surface of this subject. -
SkepticalinCanada at 10:23 AM on 21 June 2015Eight things we learned from the pope's climate change encyclical
Can I suggest a solution? More informed people that I already have, per the links I have provided. I hope that people actually read them, and even further, think about them. Unlike you, I do not assume that there is no significant consensus is about overpopulation among the experts on the impact of humans on this planet, but I do not have the experience or the means to do such an analysis. And assuming that the problem is intractable...doesn't that just fit another of the denialist responses?
-
michael sweet at 09:38 AM on 21 June 2015Eight things we learned from the pope's climate change encyclical
Skeptical in Canada,
The questions you ask do not have answers that are a consensus of scientists. You are asking questions where the answers depend on personal choices. For example, it may be possible to support 15 billion people on Earth if 90% of other species are wiped out. I might choose that because I value humans most (that is not my choice). OPOF may not think that is a good choice and to preserve more species (s)he chooses a lower number of humans. These are not scientific choices but personal, moral choices. Science cannot determine which is a better choice.
The impact of a given number of humans depends on many factors. If everyone used as much carbon as current Americans, the total that could survive would be much less than if everyone used as much carbon as the Tuvalu islanders. How will we all live? Ca nenough renewable energy be made to supply the other needs of billions? Your citations, while interesting, are not scientific consensus. Others have different conclusions.
Overpopulation is a big problem. As Tom pointed out above, it is difficult to make the math work without a lot of starvation. Can you suggest a solution that is more moral than China's one child policy and forced abortion? I doubt the world would agree to that. While I care a lot about overpopulation, it is difficult to see a good solution everyone would implement.
AGW has a scientific consensus about the problem and what needs to be done to work toward a solution. Attaching another big, intractable problem does not seem to me to be a good way to resolve AGW. Overpopulation needs to be dealt with separately. SkS works on the problem of AGW.
-
SkepticalinCanada at 08:58 AM on 21 June 2015Eight things we learned from the pope's climate change encyclical
@62 I prefer to look to the experts in the field of the human impact on the planet. To this point, I have provided references to the works of Daly, links which lead eventually to Cornell University ecologists, the work of soil scientists (more than one), and others. It seems that all I get are responses reminiscent of the responses from deniers of human-caused global warming. So, I'll leave this thought, and I realize that it wanders into an area that is really not the topic of this website, but it is related to the objectives: is it a myth that human overpopulation is contributing to global warming, and that we cannot hope to live sustainably on this planet - in terms of energy and resource use; and in terms of emissions, the waste we produce, and our impact on the climate and the planet in general - unless we reduce human numbers. Is overpopulation denial hindering our progress toward solving our problems?
Does anyone care to add that to the list of climate myths, even in modified form?
Prev 570 571 572 573 574 575 576 577 578 579 580 581 582 583 584 585 Next
