Climate Science Glossary

Term Lookup

Enter a term in the search box to find its definition.

Settings

Use the controls in the far right panel to increase or decrease the number of terms automatically displayed (or to completely turn that feature off).

Term Lookup

Settings

All IPCC definitions taken from Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Working Group I Contribution to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Annex I, Glossary, pp. 941-954. Cambridge University Press.

Home Arguments Software Resources Comments The Consensus Project Translations About Support

Bluesky Facebook LinkedIn Mastodon MeWe

Twitter YouTube RSS Posts RSS Comments Email Subscribe


Climate's changed before
It's the sun
It's not bad
There is no consensus
It's cooling
Models are unreliable
Temp record is unreliable
Animals and plants can adapt
It hasn't warmed since 1998
Antarctica is gaining ice
View All Arguments...



Username
Password
New? Register here
Forgot your password?

Latest Posts

Archives

Recent Comments

Prev  52  53  54  55  56  57  58  59  60  61  62  63  64  65  66  67  Next

Comments 2951 to 3000:

  1. One Planet Only Forever at 09:38 AM on 7 January 2023
    Don’t get fooled: Electric vehicles really are better for the climate

    Doug Cannon,

    You may be unaware that your argument leads to the conclusion that energy use in the US, and other over-developed nations, needs to be reduced, not be allowed to increase.

    The argument you present, especially the answers provided to the questions I asked in my comment @21, are not consistent with an understanding of what is required to limit harm done to future generations. It is especially inconsistent with the knowledge learned from the item I linked to in my question 3.

    Rapidly ending fossil fuel use to limit the overshoot of climate impacts is ‘needed not desired’. A parallel requirement is the ‘need’ for rapid removal of the excess emissions, even if that is unprofitable. Your proposed future with an increased number of fossil fuel burning personal vehicles will almost certainly result in a peak climate impact that far exceeds the 1.5 C value, especially if the coal and gas burning electricity generation is not regulated to be rapidly replaced by less harmful energy generation. It is easier for regulation to shut down fossil fuel electricity generation than to end the use of existing fossil fuelled vehicles. So the path you propose, new vehicles being gasoline burning rather than battery electric, is more likely to result in more climate change harm than is ‘necessary’ (also note that the CO2 impacts of producing gasoline have to be counted). And there would be the added future harm of the ‘need’ for more unprofitable removal of unnecessary excessive impacts.

    The reduction of ‘unnecessary’ energy use, especially by the highest per capita energy users, is a very effective action to limit the climate change harm. I fully support that action, even if the belief about the need for it is due to a misunderstanding about the possible future of electricity generation and consumption.

    I am skeptical of your claim that EVs would be the consumers of any remaining extended coal fired electricity generation. I can argue that other electricity uses, not EVs, are the cause/consumers of unnecessary fossil fuel generation like:

    • cryptocurrency
    • 5G or streaming of data like HD video streaming on phones
    • use of AC when daytime highs/overnight lows do not make AC use ‘essential for health’.
    • unnecessary EV use.

    Believing that the future of increased energy demand in the USA will require continued significant fossil fuel use leads to the logical understanding of the need to rapidly curtail unnecessary energy consumption, and limit the fossil fuel use in that reduced energy consumption to ‘essential needs that cannot possibly be met without fossil fuel use’ (continuing developed desired, but understandably harmful, ways of living is ‘not essential’).

    The governing objective to limit harm done cannot be bypassed by beliefs that harmful unnecessary developed desires are justified by the benefits believed to be obtained. Therefore, the conclusion to ‘reduce energy use’ also applies to people who want to believe that all energy generation and use can be done without fossil fuels. All artificial energy systems will be harmful in different ways and to different degrees. Limiting harm done, not excusing harm done, is the logical governing objective. And that logically leads to the conclusion that ‘energy consumption, and other material consumption, should be limited to limit the harm done'.

  2. Don’t get fooled: Electric vehicles really are better for the climate

    Regarding the idea that coal plant closures will be based on scheduled end of life retirements, that is not true. One report last year listed 26 coal plants either closing early(21) or switching to gas(5). The impetus is due to regulation and its associated cost, not necessarily CO2 regulation. The other reason for reduction in coal is the fracking revolution. To date the economics of gas over coal has been the major reason we can reduce coal.
    But the other important reason is the addition of renewables which will continue to grow. In their best case for renewables eia projects this growth in renewables can allow us to meet a flat demand with no added natural gas plants through 2050 and beyond. Additionally, we can reduce use of coal by half and reduce annual CO2 emissions by 500 million metric tons. This has little to do with economics. It is driven by the desire to reduce CO2 emissions. It's actually costing more. The amortized cost per Mwhr for renewables is more than the reduction of the variable cost of existing coal plants. But it's worth it considering the climate change risk.
    I'll repeat this one more time: Any added load during this period extends the use of coal. I suspect that if it weren't for the EV issue most people would accept this logic. If some bit coin miner wanted to add 20 terawatthours to mine coins I think most would be opposed because it would require extending coal that could otherwise be reduced. But for some reason there's an EV love affair that allows some to believe that the whole mix of electrial generation can somehow make things look better.
    Sayonora.

  3. Don’t get fooled: Electric vehicles really are better for the climate

    Rob
    MPGe is a good way of comparing different EV's. And the manufacturers like it because it makes them look good. But it's not an apples to apples comparison to ICE or hybrids. It assumes the kwhrs just appear out of nowhere without considering the source of the energy. If the source is from a traditional fossil/steam powered central station the thermal efficiency of that source is probably closer to 33% at best. The most efficient fossil/steam plant in the U.S. Is designed for 40% thermal efficiency but only achieves 38% in operation. The rule of thumb is a further loss of 10% in transmission (i.e. 3.8%).
    That drops the thermal efficiency of a Tesla to about 40 MPG when comparing it's energy use ICE or hybrid. But of course fossil/steam plants don't use gasoline so we would have to look at the btu equivalent for coal. Then we would need to convert all that to CO2 emitted.
    All of that gets a bit a hairy, but I avoided that by determining the CO2 emissions per kwhr produced for each fuel, gas or coal. The result for coal is .001012 metric tons per kwhr. The other data is pretty straight forward and results in annual emissions of 4.08 metric tons of CO2 for EV's. But that should increase to 4.5 metric tons to account for transmission losses. That compares to 2.2 metric tons for non plug-in hybrids based on the CO2 emissions in a gallon of gasoline. Even cutting MPG by a third for hybrids from my 52MPG would still make them cleaner than EV's

  4. Don’t get fooled: Electric vehicles really are better for the climate

    Doug Cannon @15 has a point. EV’s will increase electricity demand, which should be met by increasing renewable energy else the advantage of EV’s is reduced. However, given the opportunity to increase renewable energy, the first priority should be to shut down fossil energy. The problem is that economics and contractual obligations do not allow simple substitution of large, capital-intensive power plants. Changing the dynamics of the power supply infrastructure to accelerate would require strong incentives.
    Some studies, including the EEA Report cited by Philippe Chantreau @16, use the current regional energy mix for their evaluation. EEA Report Section 4.5: “Due to the high carbon intensity of coal, WTW GHG emissions of typical BEVs charged exclusively with coal-generated electricity are at least as high as for an equivalent ICEV.” The ICCT White Paper (Bieker, 2021) reported in the ARS Technica article cited by Philippe does include projections for energy mixes that decarbonize over time.
    Innovative approaches can help. EEA Report Box 4.2: “Flexible charging of BEVs can help to balance supply and demand in all cases, either by shifting demand to off-peak periods where supply is less flexible or by absorbing excess generation where supply is variable.” California has a situation where solar meets most of the demand in June when days are long and relatively cool, so added solar generation could be used during the day for charging EVs. Maybe build employee parking lots covered by panels. However, in August, days get shorter and hotter and demand for air conditioning increases. Then it may be better to reduce peak demand by charging EVs at night, though solar is not available without storage.

  5. Don’t get fooled: Electric vehicles really are better for the climate

    To put a fine point on this... Think of it this way: In 2034 no one is going to build any coal plants where in 2035 somebody walks in and says, "Okay boys, time to shut 'er down!" The industry has the time, skills, and ability to do proper forecasting of costs and energy demand to know how to best utilize their investments.

  6. Don’t get fooled: Electric vehicles really are better for the climate

    Doug @25... You state, "We plan to add 50 Twhrs of renewables during the year. What do we do? We cut back coal by the equivalent the of 50Twhrs of CO2. That's basically the model we've been following for years except that the addition of natural gas has allowed us to cut back coal even more."

    Again here, you make erroneous assumptions. This is not "basically the model." As I stated in a previous thread, coal is phased out at end of life. The operating costs of a coal plant at the end of its useful life, after paying off all capital expenditures, is very low. Those plants continue to be used as long as the cost of fuel allows them to sell electricity competitively against other sources. 

    What's happening is, almost no *new* coal plants are being built. The phase out of coal is a function of scheduled facility retirements. The replacement of coal and NG is a function of investors building out renewables *instead of* coal and NG.

  7. Don’t get fooled: Electric vehicles really are better for the climate

    Doug @29... I'm curious, why do you think the MPGe for a Tesla is 124, whereas a comparable ICEV sedan is gets about 30-35 MPG? And why do you think even a small PriusC gets only around 50 MPG.

    I'm asking because everything I've read on this subject has been very clearly stating that EV's have lower carbon emissions regardless of the source of the electricity. Nothing I've read has ever stated that the better strategy to carbon emissions reductions would involve transitioning from ICE to hybrid and then later to EV's, rather than just trading straight to an EV on your next vehicle purchase. 

    Given the high efficiency of EV's and the fact that the grid is rapidly shifting to renewables, the simple logical thing to do is get an EV.

  8. Don’t get fooled: Electric vehicles really are better for the climate

    Rob Honeycutt #28

    No, I've taken it into account except for the transmission loss. Best thermal efficiency coming out of fossil electrical generation plant approaches 40%. But that's all taken into account when considering actual watts generated per lb of CO2 emitted, which I did.

    According to MDPI,gasoline engines have a thermal efficiency of between 30% and 36% while diesel engines can reach a thermal efficiency of almost 50%. But, again, that's all taken into account with mpg.

  9. Don’t get fooled: Electric vehicles really are better for the climate

    Doug... I get the sense you're forgetting the relative efficiencies of electric over thermal energy, both with vehicles and source electrical generation. 

  10. One Planet Only Forever at 14:05 PM on 6 January 2023
    Don’t get fooled: Electric vehicles really are better for the climate

    Doug Cannon @25,

    The reality of my Alberta comment actually contradicts the mental experimentation you have presented.

    Less than 10 years ago the expectation for the future generation of electricity in Alberta was that it would be far more gas and coal burning than it has actually turned out to be. And that has also been the reality throughout the USA. By 2035 it is likely that the few regions with poor electricity generation in the 2018 Forbes report will have improved electricity generation that makes the most efficient hybrids more harmful than an EV (just like the case I presented about Alberta).

  11. Don’t get fooled: Electric vehicles really are better for the climate

    to Bob and Philippe

    Thanks for your explanation.

    I got a little longwinded.

  12. Don’t get fooled: Electric vehicles really are better for the climate

    One Planet...#21
    To repeat one of your Paragraphs
    “I live in Alberta, Canada. Several years ago I was looking into buying an EV. Tesla was the only EV with a decent range. I was thinking about being less harmful, not saving money. But I did not buy the Tesla. At the time, the Alberta electricity generation included a lot of coal generation. And the government intentions indicated coal might be burned until 2040. And the burning of natural gas was going to be the major replacement for coal. I did my homework and determined that the most efficient hybrid available at the time would produce far less harmful emissions than an EV powered by Alberta electricity.”
    That's exactly the point. And it's what is happening in the U.S. The same logic applies in my support of hybrids.
    Do a mind experiment: It's 2035 in the U.S. . We're producing electricity at the rate of 4800 terawatthours per year........1500 Twhrs from renewables at their resource constrained maximum, 1700 Twhrs from natural gas at it's optimum capacity factor of 86% and 700 Twhrs from coal The balance by nuclear, hydro, etc., essentially “base loaded”. The demand is constant. We plan to add 50 Twhrs of renewables during the year. What do we do? We cut back coal by the equivalent the of 50Twhrs of CO2. That's basically the model we've been following for years except that the addition of natural gas has allowed us to cut back coal even more. The eia
    Now do another mind experiment with a twist. All factors are the same except the demand increases by 20 Twhrs due to the addition of charging for EV's. What do we do? We only cut back coal by 30 Twhrs because we need the other 20 Twhrs for EV charging. So we forego CO2 reduction by the equivalent of 20 Twhrs.
    That CO2 from coal has to allocated to EV's because that is why we have to extend the use of coal.

    In answer to your questions:
    1. Yes. That is why I support a strategy that minimizes CO2 emissions which is the use of non plug-in hybrids in lieu of EV's until we get the electric industry cleaned up.
    2. I'm not proposing that we prolong the use of fossil fuel. The reduction in the electricity sector will more than compensate for some continued useage in the transportation industry.
    3. I understand it very clearly and that's why I'm willing to consider a quicker way to end fossil fuels regardless of the financial investment and ideological commitment to EV's.

  13. Philippe Chantreau at 11:03 AM on 6 January 2023
    Don’t get fooled: Electric vehicles really are better for the climate

    Comments occasionally get lost if too much time goes by before clicking the submit button. I have lost a number of them like that, and sometimes for unknown reasons. It's an incentive to keep it short and to the point, in my opinion.

  14. Don’t get fooled: Electric vehicles really are better for the climate

    I just submitted a reply to One Planet....and it disappeared even though I'm logged in. 2nd time this happened. Is there a delay or does it go through some filter because I'm persona non grata?  Or is it just lost?

    Moderator Response:

    [BL] No comments from you have been deleted. There should not be any delay before they appear.

    As Phillippe has said, the web site will tend to log you out after a time period. Typing does not affect this - you will not know you have been logged out until you click "submit" and find that your post has disappeared. This is most likely if you spend a long time preparing a comment (i.e., when it will frustrate you the most. This is not "by design".)

    Keeping a copy of your text on the clipboard will help. You can then log back in and paste it. Or open a new window/tab on a Skeptical Science page to see if it has you still logged in. If not, log in via that other window, and then Submit should work.

    You will only become persona non grata if you repeatedly violate the Comments Policy. It exists to guide you.

  15. Don’t get fooled: Electric vehicles really are better for the climate

    Doug @20 ,

    the small Prius type cars are certainly quite good, but that is not where the bulk of the market is.  Nor is likely to be, in future, it would seem, owing to the perversities of fashion & human nature.

    You may indeed have the impression you're preaching to closed minds, but I think you are confusing closed with skeptical minds.  Skeptical minds see a lot of holes in your thinking.  You seem rather unaware of the holes.

  16. One Planet Only Forever at 07:21 AM on 6 January 2023
    Don’t get fooled: Electric vehicles really are better for the climate

    Doug Cannon @20,

    Please explain your belief better than "They propose the same theory of lying to ourselves about using the mix of fuels to generate electricity as do many other reports. It just doesn't work that way."

    I live in Alberta, Canada. Several years ago I was looking into buying an EV. Tesla was the only EV with a decent range. I was thinking about being less harmful, not saving money. But I did not buy the Tesla. At the time, the Alberta electricity generation included a lot of coal generation. And the government intentions indicated coal might be burned until 2040. And the burning of natural gas was going to be the major replacement for coal. I did my homework and determined that the most efficient hybrid available at the time would produce far less harmful emissions than an EV powered by Alberta electricity.

    Things are different today. My hybrid still produces less emissions than an EV powered by Alberta electricity (which is similar to the worst US locations). However, the last coal burning in Alberta is expected to be ended by the end of 2023 (but that will be converting the last coal burners to burning natural gas - meaning less harmful but still very harmful).

    The future, however, looks much better. The plan is for new electricity generation in Alberta to primarily be wind or solar. If the developments go as planned, by 2030 my very efficient hybrid will be more harmful than an EV powered from the Alberta grid.

    You may be lacking imagination regarding the future of electricity generation.

    Some relevant questions:

    1. Were you aware that the use of fossil fuels is causing harmful climate change impacts?
    2. If you were aware of that, how are you justifying more harm being done by the promotion of prolonged fossil fuel use?
    3. Do you understand the need to end fossil fuel use to stop making things worse for the future generations? (refer to Overshooting climate targets could significantly increase risk for tipping cascades which is the Story of the Week in the 2022 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #52)
  17. Don’t get fooled: Electric vehicles really are better for the climate

    One Planet Only Forever #17

    Eclectic #19

    The Forbes article is simply wrong. They propose the same theory of lying to ourselves about using the mix of fuels to generate electricity as do many other reports. It just doesn't work that way. If EV ideologists would use the same imagination in promoting non plug-in hybrids the debate would be over.

    Here's a link to true mpg of hybrids

    https://www.whatcar.com/news/true-mpg-most-efficient-hybrid-cars/n19166#2

    Yes, they include small cars. But the weight issue is a bit of a red herring. EV's have a penalty of adding hundreds of extra pounds compared to hybrids.

    Even theoretically adding 50% more fuel consumption puts Hybrids at 3.3metric tons vs 4.

    Somehow I get the impression I'm preaching to closed minds.

     

    Moderator Response:

    [BL] Link activated.

    The web software here does not automatically create links. You can do this when posting a comment by selecting the "insert" tab, selecting the text you want to use for the link, and clicking on the icon that looks like a chain link. Add the URL in the dialog box.

    On a more serious note, using phrases such as "is simply wrong", "theory of lying to ourselves", "EV ideologists", "imagination", and "preaching to closed minds" gets  you into inflammatory territory that is contrary to the Comments Policy. Please read it before commenting again.

     

  18. Don’t get fooled: Electric vehicles really are better for the climate

    Doug Cannon @15 ,

    your quote "average modern hybrid gets 52mpg"  may indeed occur at the tail of the bell curve distribution of everyday use.   But that's probably not near what the present day average-weight vehicle achieves in average usage (which contains a large slice of metropolitan).   Try recalculating your ideas using a 50% higher fuel consumption.

    And then it gets complex as the next decade (or two) of technological change occurs.   The non-plug-in hybrid could be a transitional benefit in the short term, and only for a segment of the population.

    Philippe Chantreau's cited reports give a broader perspective.  And in addition to that, we can reasonably expect further change in the situation regarding designs & resource uses. 

  19. Don’t get fooled: Electric vehicles really are better for the climate

    Philippe #16

    I'm familiar with your various references. I don't necessarily disagree with them. In fact some elements of them support my analysis.

    But they don't directly relate to the issue. I would be more interested in your input regarding non plug-in hybrid vehicles.

    Another obvious advantage that I didn't mention is the reduced demand on battery technology and production.

    I didn't even go into the capital investment cost. We're paying a lot to replace fossil. The EV route over hybrid makes it even costlier.

  20. One Planet Only Forever at 04:37 AM on 6 January 2023
    Don’t get fooled: Electric vehicles really are better for the climate

    Doug Cannon @15,

    My comment @5 may help answer your question.

    The 2018 presentation by Forbes linked to in my comment indicates that at that time the average US electricity generation impacts from BEVs would be equivalent to 80 mpg.

    The impacts of vehicle production presented by Philippe @16 do need to be considered. But the generation in every region has been getting better since then, and is expected to continue to improve.

    Note that only a very limited number of plug-in hybrid models perform better than 80 mpg equivalent. So even plug-in hybrids are questionable new vehicle choices in the USA, if being less harmful is the objective. And they become more questionable 'new vehicle choices' with each passing year of electricity generation improvement.

  21. Philippe Chantreau at 03:56 AM on 6 January 2023
    Don’t get fooled: Electric vehicles really are better for the climate

    I believe that this has been looked at already in details by multiple teams:

    arstechnica.com/cars/2021/07/electric-cars-have-much-lower-life-cycle-emissions-new-study-confirms/

     

    Overall impact is highly dependent on battery manufacturing processes, and the ones made in Asia have an overall higher adverse impact:

    www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0048969721079493

     

    By far the most comprehensive analysis I have seen on the subjects is that of the EEA:

    https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/electric-vehicles-from-life-cycle

    From section 6.1, summary of key findings, climate change impacts: ". In general, GHG emissions associated with the raw materials and production stage of BEVs are 1.3-2 times higher than for ICEVs (Ellingsen et al., 2016; Kim et al., 2016), but this can be more than offset by lower per kilometre use stage emissions, depending on the electricity generation source (Figure 6.1). Hawkins et al. (2013) reported life cycle GHG emissions from BEVs charged using the average European electricity mix 17-21 % and 26-30 % lower than similar diesel and petrol vehicles, respectively (Figure 6.1). This is broadly in line with more recent assessments based on the average European electricity mix (e.g. Ellingsen et al., 2016, Ellingsen and Hung, 2018."

    The referenced papers are available, Hawkins et al (2013) is probably a little dated but not as European specific as others cited.  Neugebauer, Zebrowski and Esmer (2022) has a variety of models that show benefits in most situations. Ellingsen and Hung (2018) is more specifically focused on the European generation mix. In general, CO2 emissions favor EVs, unless the EV would replace a still operational ICE car that is driven less than 5000miles/year. This holds even for generation mixes that are heavily reliant on coal.

  22. Don’t get fooled: Electric vehicles really are better for the climate

    It would be good to have an unbiased source determine whether “driving using electricity is cleaner than gasoline even with the current mix in the United States”. Data from eia supports the idea of non plug-in hybrids as being better for total CO2 emissions in the U.S.
    The average modern hybrid gets 52mpg. Assuming an annual mileage of 12,500, that results in 2.22 metric tons of CO2 per year.

    Growth in electricity demand by 2050 is projected to be less than 1% per year. At a best case scenario, solar and wind could represent 36% of electrical generation by then. As a result there would be no need to add any natural gas units during that period. The use of coal would be further reduced in half so that annual CO2 emisions would be reduced by a half billion metric tons. Dozens of coal plants will be retired during that period.

    Solar and wind connected to the grid will be operated at the maximums of their resource-limited capacity regardless of any changes in electrical demand. In the short term (hours) natural gas units will be used for short term variations in demand but will remain fairly constant over time. In the longer term coal will be reduced as much as practical as renewables are added. Any increase in demand will simply slow the reduction of coal. So as EV demand for electricity increases, instead of reducing coal a corresponding amount, we will need some of the electricity that would otherwise be reduced.
    (i.e. the added renewables, instead of replacing coal, would be needed to support EV charging)

    The average usage for an EV is .2kwhr/km. A kwhr from coal produces .001012 metric tons.
    Doing the math, an average EV results in 4.08 metric tons per year. Much worse than a hybrid which requires no new infrastructure for charging.

    We could lie to ourselves and claim that the mix of fuels used to charge would be the actual 36/64 coal/gas split. But that doen't reflect reality. Even so, that would result in 2.48 metric tons per year.

    So, at least for the next few decades, we would be better off encouraging non plug-in hybrids until the clean electricity issue is resolved. I'm not optimistic that will happen. There's a lot of money and lobbying for EV's. And fossil electricity is pretty cheap compared to gasoline in spite of the low efficiency of fossil/steam power plants.

  23. We’ll keep tweeting (for now) but have also started tooting.

    Thank you moderator. Understood, Best D

  24. Skeptical Science New Research for Week #52 2022

    michael sweet @4,

    This document 'Global warming in the pipeline' by Hansen et al does appear to need some rewriting in my view.
    It explains it is the first of a pair (the second being 'Sea Level Rise in the Pipeline') and together they are perhaps akin to Hansen et al (2016) 'Ice melt, sea level rise and superstorms: evidence from paleoclimate data, climate modeling, and modern observations that 2 °C global warming could be dangerous' which was more a discussion document than a piece of science. But given 'Global warming in the pipeline' starts off with our understanding of the greenhouse effect back in the 1800s, its audience is probably not climatologists, so not a discussion document, although it does get a bit 'detailed' in places where a good understanding of climatology is required.

    At 48 pages, it covers a lot of ground and as-yet I haven't read very far through it, down to page 12 which covers the assessment of ECS. But it does read a little odd.

    The Abstract tells us that "improved knowledge of glacial-to-interglacial global temperature change implies that fastfeedback equilibrium climate sensitivity is at least ~4°C for doubled CO2"

    The first thing that I felt odd was reference to Hansen et al (1984) 'Climate sensitivity: analysis of feedback mechanisms' but without a sign that this was such an old paper. The tempersture rise from the LGM used to calculate the ECS in Hansen et al (1984) is said to be +3.6°C, a value said to yield ECS=2.5 to 5°C. For me, that +3.6°C temperature increase is way below that usually quoted elsewhere for the post-LGM temperature rise.

    And 'Global warming in the pipeline' indeed then presents higher estimates of the temperature rise from the LGM: +6.8°C (± 0.8) in Osman et al (2021), +5.9°C (± 0.3) in Tierney et al (2020) and +5.8°C (± 0.6) for land SAT from Seltzer et al (2021).

    These are in keeping with values I've seen in literature for recent decades which usually sit +5°C to 6°C, perhaps the +6.8°C (± 0.8) in Osman et al (2021) a little higher than normal while some of those lower values have also persisted.

    And using such LMGR temperature increases, 'Global warming in the pipeline' then calculates ECS concluding "Thus, while the LGM-Holocene climate change implies ECS =3.3-5.1°C for 2×CO2, the PGM-Eemian implies ECS ~ 4-6°C. We conclude ECS is at least approximately 4°C and is almost surely in the range 3.5-5.5°C."

    What goes unsaid is that the literature used to source LGMR the temperature rise from the LGM also developes ECS values with ECS = 2.2°C to 4.3°C in Tierney et al (2020) (Fig 4 from this paper below, the RAE accounting for 'mineral dust forcing') with Seltzer et al (2021) concurring with the central value of this, 3.4°C. For 'Global warming in the pipeline' to ignore these ECS values is entirely unscientific as we now have two values for ECS derived from LGMR which are at odds with each other.

    Tierney et al (2020) Fig 4

    And the use of the PMG-Eemian temperature rise to calculate an ECS value is a novel and perhaps rather too adventurous as I don't know of such a use previously. 'Global warming in the pipeline' references Rohling et al (2017), a long paper which does not itself address ECS.

    So that is not a good start for a work which presents such startling findings.

  25. One Planet Only Forever at 07:24 AM on 5 January 2023
    We’ll keep tweeting (for now) but have also started tooting.

    Moderator,

    I agree that discussing population and nuclear is not on-topic here.

    The best location to discuss nuclear energy appears to be the following SkS Blog Post by scaddenp: Is Nuclear Energy the Answer?

    That post and comments provide a wealth of relevant information. My only comment regarding nuclear energy has already been stated: To be lasting improvements, solutions to the harmful unsustainable fossil fuel climate change impact problem need to 'not be harmful and unsustainable alternatives'.

    I did not find a 'population' discussion location in SkS. Maybe there isn't one. And there probably shouldn't be one.

    Discussion regarding global population and development is part of the bigger UN Development Programme. Climate science regarding human climate change impacts is a subset of that larger issue. There is lots of great information available from the UNDP, including the annual UNDP Human Development Reports (one of my favorites is the 2020 HDR). 

  26. We’ll keep tweeting (for now) but have also started tooting.

    HI One Planet,

    Some really good and deep drilling down, and I appreciate the basic quest of common sense. As some of this line of thinking is not greatly established with data. We are noodling this out.

    There is an urgent need to alter our dependence on fossil fuel. I am finding mere lifestyle change to be questionable though. That could slow or unlikely halt the co2 increase if we could apply ourselves. But a real knockout punch is nuclear. I hear even Gretha is talking nuclear.

    I looked in to why the population has rocketed up to our current 8 billion. 

    NUmber one is medicine and health advancments. To drill down, number one of that is infant mortality decreasing and also life expectancy increasing overall. Specifically, upon the introduction of pennicillin in the early 1950's; worldwide life expectancy we went from 48 years in 1950 to about 69 now, going up in to the 70's for life expectancy soon worldwide. The links below also shows fertility rates dropping slowly, and specifically in USA while greatly increasing in Africa. This will present a shift from high producing locates to the low locates for co2 production over time, all else considered. https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2015/04/02/main-factors-driving-population-growth/

    As a landlord, I am very aware of the utility and products use of children and infants. One initially thinks, they are smaller, they use less! Far be it! As in population increase causing the increasing use of fossil fuels, which are the producers of co2, the children cause the adults to consume very large additional amounts of energy to care for thier babies. Every form of increased waste and product use comes in to play, right up to selling the small sedan and buying an SUV, with no concern about much of anything except the best for caring for the babies. We do become a bit crazy, about babies.

    I think your premise of SkS's mission is correct, while we look to a solution the size of this sunami od human development. The increase of pressure of population is predicted to continue through this century, then abate. There is an overly simplified page from UCBerkeley about population increase:

    https://ugc.berkeley.edu/background-content/population-growth/

    https://ourworldindata.org/world-population-growth

    Using the second link above, there is a highly useful chart built, where one can sort in many important ways. China emits twice our output of co2, and they are villified for it. However, they are at 1/2 the per capita than the USA. So they are 4 times larger than the USA and we emit 1/2 their level, as the USA is at 15.52 per capita and they are at a pretty low 7.38. If we cut our use down by 1/2, to 7.38, we would reduce global emissions of co2 by 7% and that reduction would exactly match the 7% we are expected to increase in population of adding the next billion in 14 years. Again, population is expected to balance about the end of this century and stop increasing (I have not explored why).

    I do not know what would be the lifestyle change that can make emmisions drop by 50%. More gain would be possible with worldwide reductions. There are 15 countries higher emitting than the USA, including Canada and Australia (which must have pretty good PR depts as they sound like they are on cutting edge!). The higher emitters total about 1/3 our population so the USA is the earliest target for sure, where the largest gain could be seen. And if a true worldwide effort succeeded, there is a chance to slow, stop and also reduce.

    But nuclear and continue using electric which is only a delivery method and not an energy source would do it. Nuclear would allow us to stop another problem, which is the villian making which is happening among the people. People are not getting it. For whatever reason. Note the shift of sedan sales flipping to SUV's about 2015, and now pickup trucks and SUV's sell double low emitting sedans. And shaming, goading, hampering, I hear mocking and debasing and endless ways of fracturing the peace being presented from all sides on this important topic.

    If. If it is a formula of population growth, bought on by historic medical discovery and advances, this is not any persons fault. Continuing awareness is appropriate, but will not produce the goals desired without running in to political opposition ( kill babies, reduced family sizes, really dramatic lifestyle changes, etc). And there is damage to the global psyche when peoples feel attacked. I categories much of the inappropriate responses to the horror approach of this ( folks are not explaining the problem and then asking for cooperation, for instance), and one could find explainations of any one responding badly when cornered. But I dont think people caused this by wanton debauched lifestyles. They are growing a lot of babies, which use a huge new amount of energy.

    Nuclear would be a response about on the scale of pennicillin coming on the scene, and handle this in the shortest time, with the greatest impact and stop this shaming and blaming of peoples as a response. This is urgent and important. We could feed the world with the surplus value of the current plans.

    A large part of this treatise is just noodling. It helps me think about it to write as I go. I appreciate the chance to drop this here. This is just my opinion, forming. Thanks all, D

    Moderator Response:

    [BL] This discussion is becoming increasingly off-topic. If the two of you wish to continue these discussions, please use the Search function to find a suitable place.

  27. One Planet Only Forever at 15:15 PM on 4 January 2023
    We’ll keep tweeting (for now) but have also started tooting.

    Peppers @91,

    The population issue may be better understood by performing the mental exercise of considering a case where the global population did not increase above 800 million.

    If, by today, the 800 million developed to be as harmful ‘annually in total’ as the current most harmful 800 million are, then the magnitude of harm done so far, and rate of harm done, would be less than the current problem of the 8 billion today. More people being harmful, even if they are less harmful people, will produce harm more rapidly. But the continued increase of harm done at a lower rate would eventually produce a similar level of harmful results.

    Once the harm being done was recognized (understandable) as something that had to be ended and undone (in spite of harmful efforts to promote misunderstanding, and ask questionable questions that have understandable answers, to delay the awakening of that understanding – prolonging understandably harmful misunderstandings that delay the reduction of harm being done), if each of the 800 million had developed a reasonably comparable level of harmfulness then they would all have a comparable responsibility for reducing their harmfulness. However, if the distribution of harmfulness was similar to the current distribution (refer to my comment @82 - the top 10% of the 800 million being as harmful as the top 1% of 8 billion, and the top 1% being like the current top 0.1%) then the common sense would be that the more harmful people, all of them, would need to more rapidly and more dramatically lead the learning and correction of behaviour.

    The problem is the examples being set by the supposedly more advanced portion of the population, combined with the development of desires in more people to develop to live that way (as you say “they too want to live as full a life as possible” incorrectly believing that ‘desiring to be more harmful’ is ‘Living fuller’ or that ‘living fuller’ excuses the harm done). That harmful result is unjustified and relies on harmful misunderstandings like the following (refer to my comment @90 for an alternate presentation of the same point):

    • those who are first to develop more harmful ways of living get to be more harmful
    • harmfulness has to be accepted, because some people desire things that are understandably harmful

    My point, unaltered by anything you have presented, is that unless there is a systemic ideological change that establishes the common sense that it is unacceptable for ‘desires’ to be obtained harmfully then any ‘solutions’ will likely be harmful and ultimately unsustainable.

    Fundamentally the developed common sense understanding includes:

    • the harmfulness of people continuing to ‘pursue desires (not needs)’ via harmful fossil fuel use is now undeniable because of climate science.
    • the development and proliferation of misunderstandings about climate science, including questionable questions related to the need for the most harmful people to most rapidly limit their harmfulness, is undeniably harmful because it delays the limiting of the harm done.
    • pursuing ‘solutions’ without acknowledging that only ‘meeting everyone’s basic needs’ is allowed to be harmful (with as little harm done as possible) will not produce sustainable solutions.

    The problem is not solved by the development of new technology or 'other solutions' in a system that does not recognize the need for ‘desires beyond the basic needs of living’ to be harmless. The desire for people to maintain and increase developed perceptions of ‘fuller’ living does not justify the added harm done while they try to delay the understanding of the growing urgency for their desired harmful actions to be more rapidly ended.

    Also, harmful climate change impacts due to fossil fuel use were the result of the pursuits of status through technology development competition in a system with success measured by popularity and profit. It is also common sense that some people harmfully resist learning about the harmful results of persistent and prolific presentations of misunderstandings regarding climate science. Even without the harmful delay of persistent misunderstanding, it is understandably unacceptable to ‘wait for the obviously harmfully inclined competition to end the harm it developed’. There is abundant evidence that limiting of harm done by activity related to fossil fuels (and other activities) has almost only ever happened through ‘regulation and restriction by Others who govern based on the pursuit of increased awareness and understanding of what is harmful’. Examples abound including: ending lead in gasoline, reduction of sulphur emissions, reduced particulate emissions, and improved fuel efficiency.

    As for your point “I cannot censor others because I now want to call their opinion harmful misunderstandings”. That is a version of an already pointed out misunderstanding/misrepresentation of my presented points. One more time, stated a different way:

    • the most serious population problem related to ‘climate science and understood to be harmful climate change impacts of human activity’ is the most harmful impacting portion of the population.
    • the harmful portion of the population is not excused by claiming that ‘others want to be like them’.
    • the small percentage who are most harmful are not excused by claiming that large numbers of other less harmful people are a bigger concern.
    • continuing harmful activity that is unnecessary for decent basic living is not excused by claiming that harmless ways to do the desired things ‘will be developed’. Maybe they won’t be developed. Maybe harmful replacements, only a little less climate change harmful or harmful in other ways, will be used. Note that stopping unnecessary harmful activity would limit the harm done ‘and’ motivate the development of harmless ways to meet those unnecessary desires.
    • it is harmful to maintain a misunderstanding that evades learning that fossil fuel use must be rapidly ended by the people who cause the most harm due to their harmfully over-developed ‘unnecessary’ fossil fuel use.
    • the real root of the problem is the development of desires for over-consumption including energy over-consumption.

    You say “Yet we have let 11 million (from lower per capita impact nations) in to our 15.52 per capita USA.” That is an argument against yourself. You have essentially stated that it is expected and OK for lower impact people to develop higher impact ways of living. Also, people moving to the USA would not be a problem if all of the USA, not just some portions of its population, were leading the awakening of the understanding of the need for a rapid transition away from the ideology that harmful ways of obtaining ‘desires’ are excusable.

    In conclusion, I believe it is important for SkS to continue to raise awareness (awaken people) regarding the climate science understanding that results in people learning to be less harmful, including voting for representatives who will be less harmful and more helpful leaders. That includes efforts on Twitter until it becomes clear that there is no longer a significant number of people remaining on Twitter who are interested in developing the common sense understanding of the need to rapidly end fossil fuel use and curtail other harmful ‘desired activity’.

  28. We’ll keep tweeting (for now) but have also started tooting.

    HI One Plant,

     

    I really appreciate discussing this w you. Much of this topic of population is to be based in common sense. The new input taking us from 1 to 8 billion now, it happened all across the world. America tripled, China tripled adding a billion. The starving areas represent about a billion, just under I hope, and once they get past finding food security, they too want to live as full a life as possible. So I think there is a narrowing as new tech makes more available, more will step up wanting it and being able to access it. Many examples of tech/competition working toward that. And as we get back on track to solve world hunger, there is another original billion, as the number we started with in 1900 again, ready to add thier consumerism, for a better life, for the same reasons we chose it as well.

    I think a larger solution needs considering, and atomic would fill that bill.

    The fossil fuel is why the co2 has increased, and mostly its manmade. But we cannot undo 8 billion, going to 10 they say.

    This is my opinion, and it is where all ideas begin, as opinions. I cannot censor others because I now want to call their opinion harmful misunderstandings. Thats the primary point I had. Its that you cannot say you are right and all others are wrong, because we cant do that. Its not aggresive or meant to down anywhere. But we have to keep thinking to work on anything, and freedom to think and express is very much desirable. If you say I am right and all else are harmful misunderstandings. Well.

    Mexico is a per capita rate of 3.58 for Co2, Venesuela 5.89. Yet we have let 11 million in to our 15.52 per capita USA. Political is against us. Natural thriving is against. This is only for me Forever, but an approach that can address this has me running in to all these factors, as I try and understand it to formula a solution.

    But this does not make me a harmful misunderstander.

    Thanks tons, D

  29. Skeptical Science New Research for Week #52 2022

    Hairy BUtler,

    I read the Hansen et al preprint and Manns response.  THe Hansen paper is long and technical.  To evaluate the claims is beyond my pay grade, but I can summarize Hansen's claims.

    1) Hansen et al claim that studies of Paleoclimate (the climate in ages past) are the best way to estimate climate sensitivity.  The current estimate of the Charney equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) is 3C per doubling of carbon dioxide.  The ECS is the equilibtium temperature from rapidly changing thngs like atmospheric temperature and the ocean surface.  It has been 3C for a long time.  Recent papers have made new estimates of the last glacial maximum (LGM) global temperature that are about 3C lower than older estimates were.  This results in the ECS increasing to about 4 or 5C.  Mann cites the old papers to contradict Hansen.  If the ECS is really 4C instead of 3C than the expected warming is significantly greater.  Scientists often argue about whether or not new estimates are correct.  This can take years to resolve.

    2) Hansen has felt for decades that aerosol effects on climate have been underestimated.  Hansen claims that current Global Climate Models (GCM's) overestimate ocean mixing and underestimate aerosol cooling effects.  He provides new data to support this claim.  The net effect is to lower the calculated ECS.  As more and more energy comes from renewable sources the amount of aerosols in the atmosphere will decrease.  Since aerosols cool the Earth the net effect is greater warming than we have already experienced.

    3)  Hansen defines the Earth System Sensitivity (ESS) as the final temperature reached when slow responding functions like the melting of global ice caps reach final equilibrium.  This is significantly higher than the ECS, perhaps as high as 10C per doubling of carbon dioxide.  The generally accepted wisdon is that ESS will take thousands of years to reach equilibrium.  Hansen argues that It will be much faster.  Perhaps as much as 80% of final heating in a centuary.

    4) The net effect of higher ECS and ESS combined with higher aerosol effects means that there is a lot more heating in the pipeline (heating caused by carbon dioxide already in the atmosphere) than is currently believed to be the case.

    5) Since Hansen expects warming to be greater than the current consensus, much more heating is already in the pipeline and that it will happen much faster than currently expected, he argues that governments need to act much faster to contain this emergency as soon as possible.

    Hansen has made the argument for many years that aerosols are underestimated, ESS is higher than the current consensus and more warming is in the pipeline.  He has new data in this paper to support his claims.  This paper claims that the much more rapid increase in temperature he predicts will be obvious by 2050 and strong indications of his predictions will be measured in about 10 years.

    Mann basically says that he doesn't buy Hansens' argument.  Hopefully Gavin Schmidt at Real Climate will write a summary that will tell us the consensus view of what Hansen thinks is new data.  I expect Dr. Schmidt to agree with Dr. Mann.  I cannot evaluate Hansens claims, it is too technical.

    In my view, Hansen is a great scientist who has been correct several times before when he stuck his neck out.  He has also missed the mark on occasion.  It is worrysome to have someone so talented make such a grim argument.  This argument is not that different from his previous position but it has some new data to support his case.  I imagine that this paper will be discussed a fair amount online but that the IPCC consensus will not change until it is 2050 and his forecasts have proven correct.  Pray to whatever Gods you have that Hansen is incorrect. 

    If anyone else reads Hansen et al I am interested in your thoughts and/or additions on what I have posted here.

  30. Veganism is the best way to reduce carbon emissions

    Even if anyone is adamant that climate change is not anthropogenically induced, it is just one vertex in a multi-pronged polygon, so to speak. Even if scientists were to say all over the world tomorrow: “we we were wrong! Carnivores had it right all of this time! Mea culpa! mea culpa!”, you’d be still tragically wrong overall. See, as humanity becomes more and more numerous, more and more land has to be cleared for grazing animals, because most people eat bluish animal carcasses—the bright red you see at the store is because the meat is infused with carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide and nitrogen to make it look appealing, otherwise it turns darker, ‘deader’)—and this in turn brings a host of very negative consequences.

    How anyone can be incapable of understanding that producing 60 billion land animals for consumption is unsustainable is beyond me.

    But it is impossible for one’s mind to imagine this mind boggling quantity. So, I will help the reader visualize it. Imagine you have 1 billion dollars in the bank and suppose that every single second one dollar is spent. In order to spend your billion dollars, 32 years would have to pass. Now multiply this 60 times. That is what 60 billion means in numbers.

    These 60 billion land animals need water, land, and food to grow before they’re killed for human consumption. There’s already scarcity or lack of access to in each of these areas. More people equals more meat consumed equals more of:

    1. Zoonotic diseases
    2. Methane emission
    3. Ecosystem degradation
    4. Effluent caused poisoning
    5. Environmental inequality (poor countries give up their land to farm animals who end up on the dinner plate of wealthier countries instead of using it to feed their own citizens).
    6. Deforestation
    7. Mono-cropping
    8. Heat/cool & transport cost & emissions
    9. Food poison/pathogen
    10. Water scarcity
    11. Antibiotic resistance
    12. biodiversity loss

    And all of this is not just a matter of crucial public interest, this also includes the immorality of inflicting bloodcurdling pain to animals. The suffering they go through is unspeakable. It is a true, on-going, endless animal holocaust.

  31. CO2 effect is saturated

    Searching for keywords in comments, I found that the Zhong & Haigh (2013) paper has been referenced several times in this thread, including in Jan 2019 @ 489, Sept 2019 @ 527, and others. I found excellent responses by MA Rodger and others to critiques about the paper by some who either didn’t understand the article or the physics, or just dismissed it with subjective superlatives. As I mentioned previously, it takes serious study to sort through the discussion. It helps to have a solid understanding of energy balances, fundamentals of radiant energy transfer, and basics of atmospheric physics.

    I also found several references to Univ of Chicago’s free, online version of MODTRAN Infrared Light in the Atmosphere. It is an excellent educational tool for self-study, and can be used to create the radiative forcing curves for CO2, as was done @609, and other GHGs (less rigorous than a line-by-line model using the HITRAN database, but still quite adequate for educational purposes). While learning about the greenhouse effect myself over the past few years, it was so helpful to me that I wanted to share it with my peer chemical engineers. To that end, I wrote an article for Chemical Engineering Progress, May 2022, “Introduction to an Atmospheric Radiation Model,” with Dr. David Archer (whose book is referenced in Zhong & Haigh) and Dr. Valerie Young as co-authors. It would be a good start for someone interested in learning-by-using the model. It offers background and step-by-step instructions for some example problems including the saturation effect. Unfortunately, Chemical Engineering Progress is not open access, but it might be found at the library or from a friend who is a member of the American Institute of Chemical Engineers.

  32. Skeptical Science New Research for Week #52 2022

    @HairyButler

    Michael Mann has tweeted against the conclusions in this paper (see these whole threads):

    https://twitter.com/MichaelEMann/status/1603437412272726017
    https://twitter.com/MichaelEMann/status/1603446912073764865

     

    Reading Hansen's piece, I was wondering why he never mentioned literally at least dozen papers (going back to before the AR5) plus the most recent assessment, the AR6 (I had a hard time believing that his entire author team also missed it, too).

    This illustrates the need for peer review by non-affiliated experts prior to making things public...and to rely upon primarily the major scientific assessments and the published, peer-reviewed science.

    This is the salient portion of the Lunt paper from 2010 that Mann references:

    "Our combined modelling and data approach results in a smaller response (ESS/CS∼1.4) than has recently been estimated using palaeo data from the Last Glacial Maximum, 21,000 years ago (ESS/CS∼2). This is probably due to the fact that transitions from glacial to interglacial conditions in the Quaternary involve large changes in the Laurentide and Eurasian ice sheets (see, for example, ref. 36), which result in a significant large-scale albedo feedback in these regions that is irrelevant for climates warmer than present. Furthermore, the main driver of Quaternary climate change is ultimately orbital forcing, which is close to zero in the global mean, and is therefore difficult to reconcile with a traditional climate sensitivity analysis."

    Note the expression of the ratio of ESS to CS (Earth System Sensitivity to Climate Sensitivity). If CS=3 C (per doubling), then therefore ESS would be about 4.2 C (and not 10).

  33. 2022 in review: Multi-lingual Cranky Uncle and other happenings at Skeptical Science

    Oops my congratulations emoji didn't print. I see "????". Anyway CONGRATS! :)

  34. 2022 in review: Multi-lingual Cranky Uncle and other happenings at Skeptical Science

    What an amazing year! Congratulations ???? Bärbel, thanks for pulling together links for the successes into this post. A great reference! Happy New Year!

  35. One Planet Only Forever at 12:29 PM on 31 December 2022
    We’ll keep tweeting (for now) but have also started tooting.

    Reviewing all of the comments helped me develop the following response to peppers @86. I hope it is helpful.

    The following questions hopefully establish a common understanding regarding the harm done by the proliferation of misunderstandings on a public-service system like Twitter.

    Note: The harmful results of efforts to delay or diminish the awakening of understanding of harm being done, including the attempts to over-power or threaten people who try to help others learn to be less harmful, is not restricted to climate science.

    Important questions for everyone:

    1. Do you understand how Bayes’ theorem explains the way (perhaps the only way) that humans ‘minimize conflict of interests by developing and improving common sense understanding’? Ideological indoctrination will make people resist following Bayes’ theorem and fail to develop common sense understanding. Problematic beliefs include:

    • cheaper and easier (or more profitable, or more desired) justifies/excuses harm done
    • richer and more powerful people are excused for being more harmful because they can afford to, and are able to, be more harmful
    • harm done (to Others) can be excused if benefits are obtained (by the In Group).

    Ideological beliefs can reduce conflicts within a group (or nation or group of nations). But the resulting group will increase their conflict with Others. Limiting the harm of global conflict requires everyone, or at least all leaders, to apply Bayes’ theorem in pursuit of improved awareness and understanding of what is harmful and how to be less harmful and more helpful to Others (that is the origin of important learning and presentations of understanding like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the IPCC, and the Sustainable Development Goals).

    2. Do you accept that all of the Climate Myths presented under the Arguments tab are misunderstandings that everyone can learn to better understand? If not, revisit the Arguments after understanding the next question.

    3. Do you accept that it is harmful to believe and propagate misunderstandings that would delay learning about the importance of rapidly ending fossil fuel use? Wouldn’t it be easier for everyone to learn to be less harmful and more helpful if there was less repetition of harmful misunderstandings, less temptation to excuse harmful actions? Wouldn’t it be better if there was a public gallery of misunderstandings with comprehensive, open to improvement, explanations everyone could learn from (like the SkS Arguments list)? Wouldn’t it be great if every posting that included a repetition of a misunderstanding directed viewers to the appropriate, already established, educational rebuttal?

    4. Do you accept that a high level Ethical/Moral Rule is “Be less harmful (when possible)”? I admit that being harmless is not possible. To live you have to harm other life. But sustainable living is possible. It requires distinguishing ‘Needs essential to living’ from ‘All other desires’. The harm done by meeting essential needs can only be limited to ‘pursuing the least harmful ways to ensure those essential needs are met – By/For Everyone’. Desires, however, are not necessary. Desires should be screened/governed/limited so that the only desires acted on would be sustainable (without accumulating harm) if everybody did the desired action to the same degree (relates to the problem of developing people being tempted to want to live like the harmfully over-developed who are perceived to be superior).

    That brings us to the population question raised by peppers. More people on the planet does result in more restrictions on ‘desired actions’. It also makes the provision of everyone’s essential needs more harmful. An understood solution is pursuing, and improving on, the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Learning about the SDGs leads to understanding that pursuit of the goals would reduce the harmfulness of the developed and developing populations. And a recent research report in the Lancet “Fertility, mortality, migration, and population scenarios for 195 countries and territories from 2017 to 2100: a forecasting analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study” indicates that achieving the SDGs would also be expected to reduce the peak global population, primarily due to the birth-rate reductions expected to occur in societies with ‘more educated and freer women’.

    Also, the more harmful the climate change impacts are the harder it is to achieve the SDGs. Exceeding 1.0 C of impact has been identified as entering the realm of significant risk of harm. Refer to my comment regarding the Story of the Week “1.5 and 2°C: A Journey Through the Temperature Target That Haunts the World” in the “2022 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #50”

    With the above established, responses to specific statements made by Peppers @86 are as follows:

    Responding to the population question point that “The causation is fossil fuels, the proliferation of them. But if it is the explosion of bodies from 1 to 8B, exactly matching the rise of Co2, is ID'd as the cause, then our solution would be re-thought as well.”

    nigelj’s response @88 is great. But there is more.

    The problem is admitted to be fossil fuels. But there is no admission of the need to ‘end the harm of fossil fuel use’. Not mentioning the harmful unsustainability of the ways of living developed by the ‘supposedly more superior people that Others aspire to be like’ indicates a lack of understanding of the basics of the issue (refer to the questions above).

    Also, saying “An important part of my 8 billion comment goes past the division of consumption calcs, which I understood too...”, indicates more may be going on than a lack of understanding. Claiming that the comment regarding population “looks past” the fact that a small portion of the population has massive harmful impact is questionable. It is looking through, or looking around, or looking away from the understanding that more harmful people have to make more, and more rapid, corrections of how they live and that developing people should be helped to develop more sustainable lives with the least harmful transition through the fossil fuel use phase of development (waiting for technological developments that will be cheaper and more popular to end the harm done will fail without increased awareness and effective governing to limit misunderstanding and related harm done. Technological solutions, like nuclear, could be unsustainable and harmful like the problem they were believed to solve).

    The problem is made worse by people perceiving the more harmful people to be superior. That misunderstanding could cause people to want to develop to be ‘part of that group and live like they do’. Developing a sustainable solution requires all of the ‘perceived to be superior people (not just the ones who care to learn to be less harmful and more helpful to Others)’ leading the rapid transition/correction past (away from) fossil fuel use.

    Responding to the “One Planet, If you can decide your are so correct in defining that more input is deemed impossible to add anything, then you could move forward with the censoring and re-education plan. The world has seen that before however, and they are still reflecting, what were we thinking?”

    Common sense understanding of the pursuit of improved awareness and understanding of what is harmful and how to be less harmful and more helpful to Others is not ‘my decision or definition’. It is common sense ethics/morality.

    Claiming that limiting the influence of the proliferation of misunderstanding is ‘censorship’ is a misunderstanding.
    Using the term re-education rather than saying ‘learning to be less harmful and more helpful to Others’ is a misrepresentation because re-education has negative connotations that do not apply to learning to be less harmful and more helpful.

    What the world ‘has seen before’ is the result of harmful misunderstandings becoming popular and powerful. That results in ideological indoctrination of populations (with nationalism and other selfish interests). And that causes the resulting population to powerfully and harmfully conflict with Others. They collectively resist learning to be less harmful and more helpful to Others. People should reflect on ‘Seeing what happened’ (continues to happen) within many political groups in many nations. Many groups become increasingly resistant to learning about ‘the harmful results’ of fossil fuel use. People should also reflect on and how other harmful beliefs are embraced by those groups as they ‘wrap themselves in flags’ and pursue the ability to have more influence to be more harmful.

  36. How to save on winter home heating costs

    Liberator - actually less complicated micro economics.  In each of the cases/examples you mentioned, the tax credit  and/or subsidy artificially shifts the demand curve upward.  ie the consumer is willing to pay a higher price for the product due the tax credit or subsidy.  The real result, is the seller obtains the benefit of the higher sales price.  

  37. How to save on winter home heating costs

    @David-acct

    What has to be taken in to account in this case, is that a tax credit is only given to some available options, e.g (partly) US-made batteries. Therefore, it is more complicated than the text book example. For example in case of batteries, this should lead to a growth in US-battery manufacturing. It might be more seen as industrial politics, than making it a cheaper for customers. It could furthermore make the switch to EVs quicker, because they get the profitable option in more cases, compared to gas-drive cars, leading to more supply.

  38. Skeptical Science New Research for Week #52 2022

    HairyButler @1

    The paper is a preprint uploaded to Arxiv and hasn't yet been peer-reviewed. Which is why it for example doesn't get picked up for this New Research compilation. You could call it a "work in progress". Arxiv is not a scientific journal but "just" an open access repository where scientists can upload papers.

    It shows the status at the top: [Submitted on 8 Dec 2022 (v1), last revised 12 Dec 2022 (this version, v2)]

  39. Skeptical Science New Research for Week #52 2022

    I came across a new Hansen et al study on ECS which I haven't seen referenced here. I haven't seen any news reports on it either. That's odd, because their estimate for ECS is "at least ~4°C for doubled CO2 (2xCO2), with likely range 3.5-5.5°C". That's a fair bit higher than the long-standing consensus of 3ishC, so it seems newsworthy but maybe I'm missing something. https://arxiv.org/abs/2212.04474

    Moderator Response:

    [BL] Link activated.

    The web software here does not automatically create links. You can do this when posting a comment by selecting the "insert" tab, selecting the text you want to use for the link, and clicking on the icon that looks like a chain link. Add the URL in the dialog box.

  40. Tropical thermostat limits sea surface temperature to 30°C

    31 C is the minimum threshold temperature for supercritical carbon dioxide. This means that if nuclear power plants using s-CO2 as coolant, instead of water/steam, could rely on seawater cooling below this temperature, they could use simplified liquid CO2 pumping in the recuperator, instead of having s-CO2 compressors. This would lower both the cost of the plant, and the amount of waste heat needing to be removed per kilowatt/hour of power produced.

    Moderator Response:

    [BL] The only link to the original post seems to be the temperature of 31C and the mention of seawater. The blog post has nothing to do with nuclear power plants. As such, this comments seems quite off-topic.

  41. We’ll keep tweeting (for now) but have also started tooting.

    NIgelj, I have the very same conclusions for the 8B. It cannot be addressed, if it is relevant. I think there are ideas in the 'if' range of that observation. Nuclear would leap past its impact and most other worries. But its also so political. Thx D

  42. We’ll keep tweeting (for now) but have also started tooting.

    Peppers @86, regarding the population issue. Yes you are right that population growth means more consumers and more fossil fuel use, all other things being equal. And this will presumably apply in places like Africa. But its hardly a big revelation.

    The problem is theres not a lot we can practically do to make huge and short term changes to the rate of population growth. You cant line people up and shoot them and one child policies have huge problems, and you of all people would presumably oppose government having very activist or coercive population policies. Even if the global fertility rate did fall to literally zero tomorrow (which it obviously won't) this wouldn't stop warming getting above 2 degrees because we are left with 8 billion people and it would take several decades before enough died off to even begin to make a difference to warming trajectories. 

    Its expected that human population will peak at about 10 billion people towards the end of this century and then population will gradually fall slowly after that in absolute size and thats probably what will happen. This is based on the most likely fertility rates going forwards which are about 2.2 children family size. I doubt we can chnage that projection. Im going by memory a bit. Refer projections of population growth on wikipedia for the details.

    The point is we are not going to be able to fix the global warming problem with population policies. The best that they would to is soften the problem slightly over the long term, so we are very reliant on renewable energy, electric transport and negative emissions technology. This was apparent to me years ago, and it seems self evident and did not require much thought.

  43. CO2 effect is saturated

    BothoStr and everyone following this thread,

    Thanks to MA Rodger for providing the link to Zhong & Haig. I was not aware of this reference, but I suspect it has been made somewhere in this thread. I highly recommend it for everyone to read or re-read. It is an excellent high-level discussion of this topic. It is 6 pages of dense reading, but is a much better source for learning about the effect of CO2 than wading through hundreds of comments.

    MA Rodger
    I completely agree with your comments on the logarithmic relationships.

    For the power of CH4, I was referring to its Global Warm Potential which is often cited (at least in the U.S.) as being about 28-30. It is defined as the cumulative warming effect over 100 years for one ton of CH4 emission compared to one ton of CO2 emission at current concentrations of 1.9 ppm CH4 and 415 ppm CO2. On a molecular basis, there is a factor of 2.75 difference in like-for-like just due to the molecular weight. The rest of the GWP is due to the starting point of current concentrations, which puts CO2 on a shallower part of the forcing curve shown in Fig 6a. CH4 has a similar forcing curve, but to your point, the values are lower for CH4 than for the same concentrations of CO2.

  44. We’ll keep tweeting (for now) but have also started tooting.

    I apologies all over myself for the poor spelling in 86. The button was hit before a re-read. Normally my socks go on before the shoes. Uuggh.

  45. We’ll keep tweeting (for now) but have also started tooting.

    One Planet, thanks for quoting me.

    An important part of my 8 billion comment goes past the division of consumption calcs, which I understood too; the case load on affecting Co2 is more in the developed nations. But all these new people are not static. They all want how others live as well, once they get past that days meals. 91% of the world having a smartphone just indicates, everyone wants one. And everyone wants to live as involved a life as they can achieve the lifestyle of. The causation is fossil fuels, the proliferation of them. But if it is the explosion of bodies from 1 to 8B, exactly matching the rise of Co2, is ID'd as the cause, then our solution would be re-thought as well. Corobaration of this would involve; has there been a rise in fossil burning vehicles and equipment, the movement of the secondary market of prior technology in to 3rd world areas, etc. As technology progresses to solve these emitters, as anything becomes cheaper and more prevalent, it will also increase in quantity of use as there is a horde of new people waiting to rise in comsumptive activity.  This cannot be a toss away factor. I am interested in this  800% population increase factor.

    Free speech is a nessesity in seeking truth. It may be inconvienient, but I would not want to be wrong because I wouldnt listen anymore.

    NIgelj, your Regarding Hate Speech in 83 nails it. It is deciding definitions that is the core of the concepts problem.

    One Planet, If you can decide your are so correct in defining that more input is deemed impossible to add anything, then you could move forward with the censoring and re-education plan. The world has seen that before however, and they are still reflecting, what were we thinking? There is no solice in numbers. Its an understandable impatience but a wrong conclusion (for me). 

    You have good input about my mention of sueing people who make false statements about someone/something. If categorized as regulating, I would not want more regs to even more regulate an area. Do we need more legal, etc.? To combat disinformation, maybe an action in to journalism, which starkly divides news from editorial. The news area would have to be heavily proved (or not stated there then) and all else can exist in editorial. Disinformation would be harder or not possible to pass as fact then?

    Thx all, D

  46. CO2 effect is saturated

    Charlie_Brown @676,
    The logarithmic relationship between CO2 and climate forcing is an empirical one and somewhere there is set out a ruling that it can be used for CO2 levels between (if I remember correctly) 150ppm up to 1,300ppm.

    A good reference for the CO2-Forcing relationship is Zhong & Haig (2013) which shows the wavelengths of the CO2 forcing up to 12,000ppm and in their Fig6b the total forcing up to levels above 100,000ppm. Note that a logarithmic relationship would appear as a straight line in Fig6b, and the CO2 forcing does climb above that 'straightness' for concentrations above 1,300ppm.

    You also mention CH4. At today's concentrations, the total forcing (from zero CH4) is something like 1Wm^-2. Note on that Fig6b, the forcing for CO2 with a similar concentration (I think it is 1,500ppb) is shown at something like 5.5Wm^-2. Like-for-like, CO2 is by far the more powerful GHG.

  47. From the eMail Bag: the Beer-Lambert Law and CO2 Concentrations

    Charlie Brown's comment about using the Beer Lambert Law "looking down" is an interesting point worth following up on.

    Absorption is a probability thing. When we say that a layer absorbs 1% of the radiation emitted from the surface, we are talking about the average of a huge number of photons. For a single photon, the proper interpretation is that the photon has a 1% chance of being absorbed in that layer, and a 99% chance of being transmitted.

    For the view looking down from the top of layer 200 in Figure 5, reverse the X-axis  so that 200 is on the left and 0 is on the right, and we can re-interpret the graph as "what is the probability that we will see a photon that originated in layer 200? 150? 100? etc. Photons that start in layer 199 have a really high probability of reaching layer 200 and being transmitted through it. Layer 190? Better than 50% for the two absorption coefficients used in the graph. Layer 180? Chances are only 10-35% for the two coefficients.

    So, the IR radiation emitted by CO2 and lost to space more likely comes from the upper atmosphere.

     

    Any "argument" that claims the CO2 effect is "saturated", etc., because surface-emitted radiation won't directly reach space needs to explain why they think the rest of the atmosphere is not emitting IR radiation from CO2.

  48. From the eMail Bag: the Beer-Lambert Law and CO2 Concentrations

    Why, you might ask, did I say "it is much better to interpret the Beer-Lambert Law by looking down"?  Because it determines whether there are enough molecules in the path length to create a layer that emits toward space with an emittance close to 1.0. And it avoids the confusing discussion of absorption and re-emittance, which is unnecessary to understand radiant energy loss to space.
    For example, in the wavelength range of about 14-16 microns, Beer’s Law determines that there are enough CO2 molecules in the very long path length of the tropopause (altitude 10-20 km) to bring most absorption lines in this band to 1.0, even with a low concentration of 400 ppm and even with the low pressure of the tropopause. CO2 creates an effective emitting layer in this wavelength range. Because the tropopause is cold at 217K, this layer emits less energy compared to that emitted in this range from the surface at 288K. In the ranges of 8-9 and 11-13 microns, there are no gas molecules that absorb radiant energy, so the energy emitted from the surface (288K) reaches space. Without CO2 reducing energy escape to space, the earth would be cooler while maintaining the energy balance with solar insolation. With increasing CO2, more weak absorption lines in the ranges of about 13.5-14 and 16-16.5 microns increase toward a value of 1.0 and the absorption band becomes wider, requiring a higher surface temperature to maintain the overall global energy balance.
    Regarding water vapor, there are not enough molecules in the cold tropopause to create an emitting layer. The emitting layer for water vapor in the troposphere is warmer.

  49. CO2 effect is saturated

    BothoStr

    I commend you for wading through the discussion from @587 onwards. I trust that you also reviewed the basic, intermediate, and advanced rebuttals, which are excellent. The comments contain a lot of great information along with some misinterpretation, misinformation, just plain wrong thinking, and quite a bit of misunderstanding about word choices. Being new, it takes serious study and critical thinking to sort it out, although it can become rather simple after some tough concepts are understood. I would be interested in which argument was most convincing to you. In addition to this discussion of “Is the CO2 Effect Saturated”, there is a closely related thread “The Beer Lambert Law and CO2 Concentration” that has more information.

    To your point, reasonable sounding claims often begin with a kernel of truth that are misinterpreted and become distorted. Despite all of the technical explanation and arguments, it seems that almost everyone accepts that the effect of increasing CO2 tends to be logarithmic rather than linear. This means that each additional 100 ppm in CO2 has less effect than the prior increments (e.g., 100 to 200 to 300 to 400 ppm, etc.). It also means that each doubling of concentration (e.g., 100 to 200 to 400 to 800 ppm, etc.) has the same effect. The subjective debate is about whether CO2 is on the steep part of a linear curve or on a plateau. After plotting it, I conclude that it is in the middle. The effect may be diminishing or saturating, but it is not saturated.

    This leads to another interesting observation. Where is methane, currently at 1.9 ppm, on its curve of effect? The answer is that it is on the steep part, and therein lies a reason for its strong power as a GHG.

    Moderator Response:

    [BL] Link added to the text to point to the thread "The Beer Lambert Law and CO2 Concentration".

  50. We’ll keep tweeting (for now) but have also started tooting.

    OPOF @84

    We actually tried the three strikes law in New Zealand for about 10 years  and I initially supported the idea ( but with some reservations). But after ten years there was no evidence that it caused crime to go down or discouraged offending, and it lead to absurdly disproportionate punishments. Judges complained. The law was abandoned recently. 

    Now the right leaning National Party wants to bring it back if elected, and in pretty much the same form, despite the fact there is no evidence that it achieved anything and despite the fact that the  reasons it failed have become apparent. Its the problem Bob mentioned about not being able to identify horse pucky. People need to remember the famous quote by Einstein: "Dont keep on doing the same thing and expect different results" 

Prev  52  53  54  55  56  57  58  59  60  61  62  63  64  65  66  67  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


© Copyright 2024 John Cook
Home | Translations | About Us | Privacy | Contact Us