Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 651 652 653 654 655 656 657 658 659 660 661 662 663 664 665 666 Next
Comments 32901 to 32950:
-
paul11176 at 10:46 AM on 19 November 2014Just how ‘Sapiens’ in the world of high CO2 concentrations?
I am skeptical of this article.
-
Tom Curtis at 09:54 AM on 19 November 2014Just how ‘Sapiens’ in the world of high CO2 concentrations?
Christian Moe @21, thank you. That book seems like a very definitive reference on the subject. Recommended maximum levels are set out in Table 3-3 (page 60):
"TABLE 3-3 Emergency and Continuous Exposure Guidance Levels for Carbon Dioxide
Exposure Level
U.S. Navy Values (ppm)
NRC Recommended Values (ppm)
Current
Proposed
EEGL1 h
40,000
30,000
25,00024 h
40,000
15,000
25,000
CEGL90 days
5,000
7,000
8,000
Abbreviations: CEGL, continuous exposure guidance level; EEGL, emergency exposure guidance level; h, hour; NRC, National Research Council; ppm, parts per million."Formating was not preserved in my cut and paste, so in explantion, the values are in order the current (2001) Navy maximum concentration standards, the recommended new standard by committee, and the National Research Council recommended values for, in turn, 1 hour, 24 hour and 90 day exposures. The report does not some minor adverse effects that are ignored because they clear up on return to normal atmospheric conditions. If atmospheric CO2 levels were to rise to 7,000 ppmv, these minor conditions would not clear up, and may become worse with prolonged exposure. Never-the-less, it seems clear that CO2 will not have direct toxic effects on humans at concentrations achievable in this century, or likely even with BAU in the next. Mild toxic levels could be achieved from a determined effort to burn all fossil fuel reserves (which can raise CO2 concentrations to 10,000 ppmv if carried through) but that is likely not a realistic scenario, nor one that need be considered in the short term even if it were in that there must be a significant time in which that route could be avoided.
I do not think these results challenge those of Fisk et al 2013, however. They types of effects shown by Fisk 2013 are too sutble for consideration by NRC subcomittee, and would fall into the category they considered as not relevant because the effects are not permanent after return to normal (380 ppmv) CO2 concentrations. They would become relevant if normal CO2 concentrations rose to 2500 ppmv or (perhaps) even 1000 ppmv. I think reliance on Robertson 2006 was a mistake, but that the rest of the article is interesting and informative, and has not been challenged by anything you have uncovered.
-
Christian Moe at 09:31 AM on 19 November 2014Just how ‘Sapiens’ in the world of high CO2 concentrations?
The pH graph is from an article by D. S. Robertson in Current Science, which bills itself as India's leading multidisciplinary science journal. For the "data", the graph credits another article by the same D. S. Robertson published in the Elsevier journal Medical Hypotheses in 2001, "The rise in the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide and the effects on human health" ( doi:10.1054/mehy.2000.1256). Scopus suggests this was Robertson's first published article, followed in short order by a further 11 papers in Med. Hyp. on a variety of topics up to 2005, during which period he published nothing in any other journal. It's way past bedtime here, so I'm not reading it tonight, but it sounds speculative at best, and I don't think this was a well-considered post.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 09:13 AM on 19 November 2014President Obama's climate leadership faces the Keystone XL challenge
Russ @8...
1) These are two different issues. Tax and dividend would account for externalities and incentivize low carbon solutions, while returning the costs to tax payers. KXL is a question of whether to leave reserves in the ground.
2) The Forbes article I cited above addresses issues of refining and export.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 09:09 AM on 19 November 2014President Obama's climate leadership faces the Keystone XL challenge
Russ... There's a great deal of support for the position that KXL may likely raise gas prices. Perhaps your analysis of supply and demand doesn't take full account of the economics involved.
Forbes: KXL Won't Lower Gas Prices, It Might Raise Them
Why The Keystone Pipeline Will Actually RAISE Gas Prices In the U.S.
Bernie Sanders Shatters The Big Keystone XL Lie: Pipeline Will Cause US Gas Prices To Go Up
Keystone Oil Pipeline Seen Raising Gas Prices in Midwest: Energy
The Keystone XL pipeline isn’t about lowering your gas prices
-
Russ R. at 08:42 AM on 19 November 2014President Obama's climate leadership faces the Keystone XL challenge
Composer99,
" it doesn't follow that US citizens will benefit in the form of reduced prices at the pumps..."
I never claimed that US consumers would enjoy lower gasoline prices. In all likelihood, the benefit of lower crude oil prices would go to the refiners, assuming that the marginal unit of gasoline supply is being imported.
John Abraham claimed that the pipeline would cause US gasoline prices to rise... not just Midwest prices... US prices. I'd like to know how that's possible, because the laws of supply and demand don't support that conclusion.
-
Russ R. at 08:33 AM on 19 November 2014President Obama's climate leadership faces the Keystone XL challenge
wili,
"But being refined in this country does not mean it will be sold here."
There's a piece missing in your reasoning. Crude oil is already being refined in the Gulf Coast (which is operating at capacity) and the products are already being sold in the US.
If more cheap Canadian crude flows to the refineries on the Gulf Coast, which displaces expensive Mexican and Venezuelan heavy crude, why should domestic sales of refined products (gasoline and diesel) fall?
The only reason that refiners would ship more fuel abroad is if domestic gasoline prices fell relative to export prices.
-
Russ R. at 08:18 AM on 19 November 2014President Obama's climate leadership faces the Keystone XL challenge
beansformilagro,
"The Keystone crude is all earmarked for Latin America and Europe and not for the US." Evidence?
"the pipeline will cause the rerouting of oil destined for midwest USA and that will raise prices of gasoline, esp for the midwest." This has been addressed and debunked... with EIA data.
But even if it was true... the regional reduction in Midwest crude supply would be offset by an equivalent increase in Gulf Coast supply. The net amount of crude oil supply wouldn't decline... rather, it would increase because the pipeline would extend all the way to Canada.
-
wili at 08:15 AM on 19 November 2014President Obama's climate leadership faces the Keystone XL challenge
Russ R--Of course it's going to be refined on the Gulf. That's one of the main reasons to build the line in the first place. But being refined in this country does not mean it will be sold here.
-
Composer99 at 08:14 AM on 19 November 2014President Obama's climate leadership faces the Keystone XL challenge
Russ R:
The Globe & Mail article you quote doesn't claim what you assert it does. The passage you cite confirms only that Canadian tar sands crude is priced attractively with respect to refining firms; it doesn't follow that US citizens will benefit in the form of reduced prices at the pumps unless you can also show that domestic US usage is the designated purpose for Canadian tar sands crude. The Globe & Mail article certainly doesn't.
What is more, unless you have some analysis (i.e. of the factors affecting US gasoline pricing) to back it up, you're not in a position to proclaim with any authority that a carbon tax and Keystone XL can't possibly both cause a rise in average/typical gasoline prices in the US (or in individual regions therein).
-
Christian Moe at 07:57 AM on 19 November 2014Just how ‘Sapiens’ in the world of high CO2 concentrations?
This all seems terribly difficult to square with the performance of the crews routinely enduring significantly higher CO2 levels in submarines and spacecraft. Have a look at chapter 3, "Carbon Dioxide", in Emergency and Continuous Exposure Guidance Levels for Selected Submarine Contaminants (Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2007,
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11170&page=46), from which I take all the quotes below.The OP suggests "dysfunctional" initiative and basic strategy at 2500 ppm CO2. Alert the navy! "Data collected on nine nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarines indicate an average CO2 concentration of 3,500 ppm with a range of 0-10,600 ppm..." (p. 47)
There are studies from the 1990s to suggest a lowest observed adverse effect level of 25,000 ppm for visual effects (p. 53). In a study from 1974, "CO2 at 40,000 ppm for 2 weeks did not affect performance on multiple tests of cognitive function in physically fit young airmen" (p. 54)
As for buffering of blood pH: "CO2 exposures as low as 7,000 ppm can lower blood pH by up to 0.05 units, but even at high exposures, renal compensation seems to occur in healthy subjects. In a 30-day exposure to CO2 at 20,000 ppm, there was an average pH change of only 0.01 units" (p. 51) Again, that is hard to square with the OP's claim that the rise from preindustrial has lowered blood pH by 0.1.
-
Russ R. at 07:48 AM on 19 November 2014President Obama's climate leadership faces the Keystone XL challenge
Rob Honeycutt,
1. Very well then. Given that a carbon tax is desirable because it accounts for negative externalities by raising the price of gasoline and reducing consumption and emissions, and if this claim were true (that the Keystone XL pipeline would somehow raise gasoline prices) then the pipeline would deliver the same outcome as a carbon tax. I'm sure you can appreciate the absurdity of this.
2. "It's my understanding that the oil that would be processed as a result of the KXL is intended for export markets, not the US." Incorrect.
"Heavy Canadian crude, or bitumen in its undiluted form, is practically tailor-made for the massive U.S. Gulf Coast refining complex, which has long been configured to run heavy Latin American crudes arriving by tanker. Thanks to its attractive prices and surging output, Canadian output is displacing crudes from Venezuela and Mexico along the Gulf Coast."
You still need to explain how increased crude oil supply and lower transport costs "will actually raise gasoline costs in the USA". Because this claim defies the most basic laws of economics.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 07:17 AM on 19 November 2014Just how ‘Sapiens’ in the world of high CO2 concentrations?
KR... That's still a far cry from "lifetime toxicity at 426ppm."
-
Rob Honeycutt at 06:58 AM on 19 November 2014Just how ‘Sapiens’ in the world of high CO2 concentrations?
Tom... I didn't think you were making that claim at all. My comment wasn't specifically directed at your comment. What you're saying is exactly what I'm also thinking. The claim of toxicity under lifetime exposure is dubious at best.
I did find one EPA document that discusses toxicity levels as part of comments on the EPA findings to suggest there is no evidence to support that position.
-
Just how ‘Sapiens’ in the world of high CO2 concentrations?
From the reading I've done it appears that there are very few studies of <1000ppm CO2 long term health effects - given that such experiments might have to run for significant portions of a human lifespan, and that brief exposures to ~10,000ppm, while dehabilitating, have reversible effects. Long term exposure to somewhat raised CO2 may, however, have significant health effects due in part to long term acidosis.
Despite the paucity of literature on low level exposure, I did locate Satish et al 2012, Is CO2 an Indoor Pollutant? Direct Effects of Low to Moderate CO2 Concentrations on Human Decision-Making Performance. They studied decision-making performance at in blind tests for several CO2 levels:
At 1,000 ppm CO2, compared to 600 ppm, performance was significantly diminished on six of nine metrics of decision-making performance. At 2,500 ppm CO2, compared to 600 ppm, performance was significantly reduced in seven of nine metrics of performance, with percentile ranks for some performance metrics decreasing to levels associated with marginal or dysfunctional performance.
Business As Usual scenarios point to ~1000ppm by 2100. I would opine that this is not good.
-
John Hartz at 06:45 AM on 19 November 2014President Obama's climate leadership faces the Keystone XL challenge
The impacts that the mining of the Athabasca tar sands are having on Aleberta's ecosystem is elequently presented in:
A Forest Threatened by Keystone XL, Op-ed by Andrew Nikifurok*, New York Times, Nov 17, 2014
*Andrew Nikiforuk is a Canadian journalist and the author, most recently, of the book “The Energy of Slaves: Oil and the New Servitude.”
-
Tom Curtis at 06:22 AM on 19 November 2014Just how ‘Sapiens’ in the world of high CO2 concentrations?
Rob @15 & 16, I am certainly not claiming the toxicity claim to be correct. I have merely pointed out that two "rebutals" of the graph have failed to actually do any rebutting.
My concern with the graph is that it is cited to Robertson 2006, but Roberston 2006 merely claims, "The estimated toxic level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere under lifetime exposure is 426 ppm (Figure 1)4", where reference 4 is Roberston (2001). I have been unable to find a public domain copy of Roberston (2001); and the graph merely shows the fall in blood pH with rising abient CO2 concentrations. While falling pH can lead to acidosis, the argument as to why that should have lifetime consequences at 426 ppmv ambient CO2, and what the level of the purported toxic effects are is not accessible to me. Certainly the graph does not establish it.
-
beansformilagro at 05:51 AM on 19 November 2014President Obama's climate leadership faces the Keystone XL challenge
Russ R.
The Keystone crude is all earmarked for Latin America and Europe and not for the US.
Also, according to a number of sources, including Cornell University and Consumer Watchdog, the pipeline will cause the rerouting of oil destined for midwest USA and that will raise prices of gasoline, esp for the midwest.
-
John Hartz at 05:49 AM on 19 November 2014President Obama's climate leadership faces the Keystone XL challenge
If you want to refresh your memory about the history of the proposed Keystone XL pipeline and related matters, check out this reader article on North America's biggest energy and climate fight.
Keystone XL Pipeline: Everything You Need to Know in 23 Stories by By Stacy Feldman, InsideClimate News, Nov 18, 2014
-
Rob Honeycutt at 05:41 AM on 19 November 2014Just how ‘Sapiens’ in the world of high CO2 concentrations?
One clue here is, if there were a serious human toxicity issue one would think that would have been a key element of the EPA findings on carbon emissions.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 05:38 AM on 19 November 2014Just how ‘Sapiens’ in the world of high CO2 concentrations?
Trying to understand this one better. It does sound like mammals have the capacity to buffer these effects. That's what is bothering me about the graph. The H-H equation sounds pretty standard, and the normal range indicated on the graph also seems to be well accepted. What I'm not yet buying is the idea of long term toxicity at atmospheric concentrations of CO2 over 400ppm.
-
Tom Curtis at 05:00 AM on 19 November 2014Just how ‘Sapiens’ in the world of high CO2 concentrations?
Russ R @13, following your link I found that the equation you refer to as "reality" is in fact an approximation. Further, it is an approximation that is close to linear across most of it range, and where it departs significantly from linearity, it often also becomes very inexact (with real values approximating to linear). Therefore, for you to draw you conclusion you need to show that:
1) the Henderson Hasselbalch equation does not approximate to linarity across the range shown in Fig 1; and
2) If the Henderson Hasselbalch equation does not approximate to linearity across that range, that it is in fact accurate across that range (which is not a given).
Absent that, your comment amounts merely to a slogan.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 04:54 AM on 19 November 2014President Obama's climate leadership faces the Keystone XL challenge
Russ... Okay, first off, there isn't a "green plan." That would be an ad hom comment. A carbon tax would raise the price of fossil fuels by accounting for externalities, which was even an idea promoted by Milton Freedman (who could hardly be labeled a "greenie").
It's my understanding that the oil that would be processed as a result of the KXL is intended for export markets, not the US. It benefits oil companies (particularly Koch Industries) a great deal. The net benefit for the US is nominal. Some short term construction employment and that's about it. The impact on increased carbon emissions is significant.
It's abundantly clear that oil reserves need to stay in the ground. KXL is another step in the wrong direction.
-
Russ R. at 04:41 AM on 19 November 2014Just how ‘Sapiens’ in the world of high CO2 concentrations?
Figure 1 is suspect for more reasons than just its data points and uncertainty.
It depicts a linear relationship between atmospheric CO2 and blood pH, which is entirely at odds with reality.
-
Stephen Baines at 04:34 AM on 19 November 2014More Carbon Dioxide is not necessarily good for plants.
Ooops...meant no point talking about this unless we have a reference.
-
Stephen Baines at 04:33 AM on 19 November 2014More Carbon Dioxide is not necessarily good for plants.
Mauricio...what Nature study are you talking about? No point talking
As a general principle, you must realize those ecosystems that show CO2 fertilization have already been taking more carbon out of the atmosphere during the last 50 years of increasing CO2. And yet, the CO2 has continued to increase. So, all such a study does is provide a post hoc constraint on how we explain the past trends. It doesn't provide much hope for the future with regard to CO2.
In fact, it's worrisome. The CO2 fertilization effect for C-3 plants will effectively saturate once we get near 600ppm, and is already effectively saturated for most C-4 plants. Once that happens, C-4 plants will no longer increase WUE with incereasing CO2 and a larger proportion of the annual CO2 emissions could remain in the atmosphere. If the contribution of plants to drawdown has been increasing with CO2 more than expected in the past, that increase in the airborne fraction could be larger that we currently think.
-
Russ R. at 04:30 AM on 19 November 2014President Obama's climate leadership faces the Keystone XL challenge
Rob,
That entirely depends on the nature and quality of responses.
Moderator Response:[JH] Please note that posting comments here at SkS is a privilege, not a right. This privilege can be rescinded if the posting individual treats adherence to the Comments Policy as optional, rather than the mandatory condition of participating in this online forum.
Please take the time to review the policy and ensure future comments are in full compliance with it. Thanks for your understanding and compliance in this matter.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 02:51 AM on 19 November 2014President Obama's climate leadership faces the Keystone XL challenge
Russ... May I ask, is this going to just be another driveby comment or are you going to stick around and discuss the issue?
-
Tom Curtis at 02:29 AM on 19 November 2014Just how ‘Sapiens’ in the world of high CO2 concentrations?
ianw01@11, Figure 1 has data points in the original version in the linked paper. Further, the range of variation given for 2005 represents the uncertainty in blood pH given the CO2 concentration in that year. Intuitively, projecting that range across the entire graph gives a partial estimate of uncertainty.
-
Russ R. at 02:14 AM on 19 November 2014President Obama's climate leadership faces the Keystone XL challenge
"A pipeline that, if approved, ... will actually raise gasoline costs in the USA,"
How exactly does increasing the supply of crude to the US and lowering its transportation costs (pipeline vs. railcar) result in higher domestic prices for refined products?
And correct me if I've misunderstood something here, but isn't the "Green" plan precisely to raise gasoline prices in order to reduce consumption and GHG emissions?
-
One Planet Only Forever at 01:12 AM on 19 November 2014Fact check: China pledged bigger climate action than the USA; Republican leaders wrong
The set of wealthy and powerful developed nations are working towards collectively limiting the success of tax cheaters globally, rather than nationally. My preference would be for them to also cooperatively and collectively effectively limit the success of the highest impact pursuers of profit and pleasure globally, rather than allowing the game playing of nations that can have leadership that is temporarily under the thumbs of some of those undesirable characters.
-
MAURICIO11346 at 00:57 AM on 19 November 2014More Carbon Dioxide is not necessarily good for plants.
The American and German researchers who worked on the Nature study wanted to test out those models in the real world. Using data collected from forests in the northeastern U.S., they found that as carbon concentrations increased by about 5% per decade over the past 20 years, the rates of water-use efficiency increased by about 3% a year. That’s much faster than computer models would have suggested—it means the improvement in water-use efficiency is about six times as large as the corresponding increase in carbon concentrations. As Trevor Keenan of Harvard University, a lead author on the paper, put it in a statement:
This could be considered a beneficial effect of increased atmospheric carbon dioxide. What’s surprising is we didn’t expect the effect to be this big. A large proportion of the ecosystems in the world are limited by water–they don’t have enough water during the year to reach their maximum potential growth. If they become more efficient at using water, they should be able to take more carbon out of the atmosphere due to higher growth rates
-
ianw01 at 00:21 AM on 19 November 2014Just how ‘Sapiens’ in the world of high CO2 concentrations?
Figure 1 is extremely suspect. It lacks data points and has no indication of uncertainty. I'll bet the particpants in "From Peru"'s reference did not use that figure in advance to extrapolate to determine their likely blood pH! :-) The result is nonsensical, but nonetheless the figure indicates a horrifically acidic blood pH, which of course did not arise.
-
CBDunkerson at 23:17 PM on 18 November 2014Fact check: China pledged bigger climate action than the USA; Republican leaders wrong
Per capita may be the easiest remotely valid method to follow, but it does have many limitations. As OPOF notes, it ignores differences in emissions between individuals / groups within each country. It also ignores the cumulative emissions issue raised by scaddenp. Though, on that, do we need to consider emissions prior to knowledge of the potential harm and/or dangerous atmospheric levels differently than emissions thereafter? Does using a per capita basis discourage wealthy nations from continuing to conduct research on better food crops which have allowed the large populations in some developing nations to survive? Et cetera.
There is no 'perfect' / 'fair' solution. Per capita is a reasonable starting point, but while we structure things to give developing nations a chance to improve their standard of living we should do just as much to allow developed nations to continue improving their standard of living as well. Ultimately, the global targets have to be based on 'units of energy / units of GHG'.
-
longjohn119 at 18:11 PM on 18 November 2014Just how ‘Sapiens’ in the world of high CO2 concentrations?
Comparing exposure over a 75 years span with exposure over a mere 42 days doesn't really tell us anything about long term exposure. For one the effects could be at least somewhat cumulative like we are now finding out about radiation exposure.
I think they should redo this study with Climate Change Deniers and non-Deniers ..... I have a sneaking suspicion the 'stupidity threshhold" Deniers is closer to 350 ppm ..... Just a hunch and it certainly would explain a lot
Moderator Response:[JH] Please keep it civil.
-
From Peru at 15:22 PM on 18 November 2014Just how ‘Sapiens’ in the world of high CO2 concentrations?
I recommend this article:
Toxicity of carbon dioxide: a review
I just began to read it, but I quote:
"Volunteers were exposed to 1.5% CO2 over a period of 42 days, and acid base balance and changes in electrolyte metabolism were studied
(...)
although there were some minor modifications of the pH and serum level of the electrolytes, the experimental conditions were well tolerated"
However, it is said also that intermittent high levels of CO2 are much less well tollerated.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 13:43 PM on 18 November 2014Fact check: China pledged bigger climate action than the USA; Republican leaders wrong
Regarding the debate about per-capita measures of impact, in my earlier comment I indicated that the problem is not created by the 'number of people' as much as it is created by people who live a high-impact lifestyle. A reduction of the impact of the highest-impacting people is required.
There are many wealthy people in nations with high per-capita impacts who strive to be low-impact. They are not the problem. The people who are high-impact livers in a nation full of very poor low-impact people are as much of a problem as the high-impact livers in a richer nation.
Per-person impact evaluation clearly needs to be the focus, with the sharpest focus being on those whose lifestyle and way of profiting produce the largest impact regardless of the nation they are in.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 13:27 PM on 18 November 2014Just how ‘Sapiens’ in the world of high CO2 concentrations?
It is unfortunate that the Berkeley experiment did not include a baseline for behaviour with CO2 concentrations of 400 ppm. That may have provided some evidence regarding the potential consequences for long term exposure to elevated concentrations.
However, 600 ppm may be an appropriate baseline for the potential indoor concentrations when the best quality of 'fresh air' to improve indoor air quality is 400 ppm. And it is clear that capability was diminished on a number of measures when the concentration increased.
So, although the claimed long term consequence of 426 ppm is in question there would be less doubt about the potential negative long term consequences of being indoors too much of the time now that the likely indoor air concentration is above 426 ppm and increasing.
-
PhilippeChantreau at 13:25 PM on 18 November 2014Just how ‘Sapiens’ in the world of high CO2 concentrations?
I also have to voice skepticism on the Robertson paper. What kind of journal exactly is "current science"?
It seems to me that, on severl;a occasions, he starts from a plausible premise but then draw conclusions formulated in drastic language when we are still only in the realm of possibility. I know quite well the effects of a high partial pressure of CO2 in the body, which I have to watch for routinely in my job with various kinds of patients in respiratory failure. However, I do not see that he truly has the data to support some of his assertions.
Nonetheless, it is true that forcing the entire terrestrial biome to endure a spike of 200 ppm in a couple of centuries is one heck of an experiment. I find it extremely irresponsible but that's another debate.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 10:21 AM on 18 November 2014Just how ‘Sapiens’ in the world of high CO2 concentrations?
I'm afraid I'm going to have to side with Russ here. Lifetime toxicity at 426ppm sounds like a bit of a stretch. I just browsed through the paper by Robertson and it doesn't look to me like the research supports such a claim. The paper states:
Such a situation is unlikely to be tolerable for a lifetime by humans (and other mam- mals with the possible exception of seals) without dete- rioration in general health along with serious curtailing of physical activity presently taken as normal.
But I don't see how Robertson can possibly quantify that based on the information he's presenting.
-
uprightsquire at 09:55 AM on 18 November 2014Just how ‘Sapiens’ in the world of high CO2 concentrations?
"man's"?
-
Russ R. at 09:48 AM on 18 November 2014Just how ‘Sapiens’ in the world of high CO2 concentrations?
"Some research suggest toxic effects of carbon dioxide at a constant (lifelong) exposure of only 426 ppm (D. Robertson, 2006).
Even under the most optimistic possible scenarios of emission reductions CO2 concentration in the atmosphere reaches 550 ppm, which is above the safe threshold."
CO2 toxic at 426 ppm? Really? That's a pretty extraordinary claim.
I'm sure you've got some actual evidence to back that up... as opposed to mere speculation, or assertion.
-
John Hartz at 09:03 AM on 18 November 2014Fact check: China pledged bigger climate action than the USA; Republican leaders wrong
[JH] Moderation Comments
Scaddemp & Tom Curtis: Please let Rob Honeycutt do the repsonding to joeygoz from here on out.
Joeygoz: The SkS Comments Policy also prohibits excessive repitition.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 08:39 AM on 18 November 2014Fact check: China pledged bigger climate action than the USA; Republican leaders wrong
...and yes, this is very much a discussion on per capita vs national level emissions. I'm a little surprised that you can't see how this is related.
Let's take another example. If you seem to think that nations should cut equally, how is Bangladesh to tell their citizenry that they must cut their emissions? They certainly can't cut their emissions proportionate the US on a total volume basis since our emissions exceed their's many times over. Even on a proportional basis, can you ask people who are barely living subsistence lifestyles to cut their emissions 50%?
You have to look at this question on a per capita basis. Action has to occur on a govermental level but you have to balance agreements on a per capita measure. And, as I pointed out earlier, even that is complex because maybe China's answer to that will be, "Okay western nations, you can make your own stuff from now on because we don't want your carbon emissions from manufacturing to mucking up our emissions targets."
-
Rob Honeycutt at 08:13 AM on 18 November 2014Fact check: China pledged bigger climate action than the USA; Republican leaders wrong
joeygoze... That's a deflection of a blatantly obvious and essentially rhetorical question. The answer is, no, the US would never agree to such a strategy.
But you're right, this is verging on dogpiling.
-
joeygoze9259 at 07:43 AM on 18 November 2014Fact check: China pledged bigger climate action than the USA; Republican leaders wrong
@ Rob - have no idea what the U.S. gov't would agree, thought we were having a discussion on the merits of determining reductions based on per capita emissions versus quantitative CO2 emissions per country?
@Curtis - If it is the case that "neither the China nor India are sufficiently gullible or virtuous that they will take a policy which will entrench a lower per capita income for their people for at least the next half century just so the US can maintain a higher standard of living by not tackling seriously the problem the US has primarilly caused." - then in my view, no way the U.S. gets on board as there is no incentive to lower the per capita income for Americans as well.
@scaddenp - do not believe anyone is in a position to determine what is an "undue" hardship for another individual. Can not say what U.S., UK, or Chinese citizens can absorb with respect to emissions reductions.
Moderator - how is this not a "dogpile" as outlines in your Updated Comments Policy?
-
Tom Curtis at 07:11 AM on 18 November 20142014 SkS Weekly Digest #45
SteveFunk @2, as best I understand it, John L Casey's theory is that:
1) Solar forcing is much larger than the actual observed solar forcing because.
2) His theory can be trusted because "He is one of America’s most successful climate change researchers and climate prediction experts", the later based on his Master of Arts in administration and his complete lack of peer reviewed publications on climate.
3) There is very strong evidence in support of his theory, and he just needs you to send him some money to explain it.
Is a review of the book of every two bit con artist realy needed?
-
Steve L at 07:06 AM on 18 November 2014Just how ‘Sapiens’ in the world of high CO2 concentrations?
This astounds me! But I'm going put some plants near my desk and try reading it again....
-
scaddenp at 06:47 AM on 18 November 2014Fact check: China pledged bigger climate action than the USA; Republican leaders wrong
I think there are two point to consider here.
1/ The extra CO2 in the atmosphere is the accumulated result from years of emissions. If you look at historical responsibility for total emissions by country, (for instance the table here) then you see US,Europe far exceed China and so should take the responsibility for reducing output first
2/ Countries with very emissions per capita are far better positioned to make big cuts than countries with low emissions per capita. The US energy consumption (at 250kWh per person per day) is around double that of say UK. It seems entirely reasonable that US citizens could manage with a lot less without undue hardship. It's a lot tougher asking for cuts from people (eg Chinese) using only 50 kWh/per person/per day.
-
Tom Curtis at 06:34 AM on 18 November 2014Fact check: China pledged bigger climate action than the USA; Republican leaders wrong
joeygoze @15, it is the total CO2 output that is damaging the climate but:
1) The total CO2 output is reduced whether we set equal %reductions by nation or equal per capita targets with the same % reduction of the total. As either method results in the same overall reduction, pointing out that it is the total CO2 output that is damaging the climate is irrelevant to the discussion.
2) In general, fossil fuel use (and hence CO2 emissions) per capita correlates with per capita wealth. Allowing unequal per capita targets therefor entrenches unequal wealth as a precondition for tackling AGW. It is as though the US (and Australia) were to say to the world that they will refuse to tackle the problem they have primarilly created unless they are subsidized by the rest of the world to do so.
3) Emissions of CO2 are a problem. That means all emissions of CO2 harm everybody to some small extent. Entrenching unequal per capita emissions entrenches a right for US citizens to harm the rest of the world more than they are harmed in perpetuity, so that they can recieve a larger benefit than is available for non-US citizens.
4) As a simple pragmatic matter, neither the China nor India are sufficiently gullible or virtuous that they will take a policy which will entrench a lower per capita income for their people for at least the next half century just so the US can maintain a higher standard of living by not tackling seriously the problem the US has primarilly caused. An effective global agreement to cut back emissions can only go forward based on a reduction program that results in equal per capita emissions in the medium term (or something closely approximating it).
Prev 651 652 653 654 655 656 657 658 659 660 661 662 663 664 665 666 Next
