Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 699 700 701 702 703 704 705 706 707 708 709 710 711 712 713 714 Next
Comments 35301 to 35350:
-
Composer99 at 02:17 AM on 16 July 2014Joseph E. Postma and the Greenhouse Effect
JPostma:
Your response to my comment shows up the blatant falseness of your claims.
Witness such gems as:
In fact, real greenhouses demonstrate that they do not get hotter than the solar input. This contradicts the radiative greenhose hypothesis while supporting the trapped-warm-air hypothesis of why greenhouse interiors are warmer than outside.
and
as real greenhouse temperatures contradict the radiative greenhouse postulate of being able to induce a higher temperatre than the solar input.
The behaviour of artificial greenhouses are irrelevant with respect to the existence of the atmospheric greenhouse effect. As KR notes, it is a red herring fallacy.
Or how about this:
That some molecules in the atmosphere scatter/absorb radiation, does not mean that they heat the surface. In fact, low emissivity is what leads to higher temperatures than otherwise, and O2 and N2 have basically zero emissivity, meaning that they hold on to and trap heat already...they being 99% of the atmosphere.
Per Kirchhoff's law of thermal radiation, it is in fact the case that low emissivity equals low absorption at equilibrium (say, the atmosphere with an effectively constant incoming solar flux). If, as you say, O2 and N2 have low emissivity, it follows from this law that they have low absorptivity, and cannot on their own trap radiated heat in the amounts required to maintain the observed Earth surface and atmospheric temperatures. By your own words you contradict yourself.
Several of your other comments suggest you are ignorant of, or unwilling to consider, the Stefan-Boltzmann law, from which the average Earth temperature sans atmospheric greenhouse effect is derived.
So much for rational, logical, and physical argument on your part.
-
mbryson at 01:36 AM on 16 July 2014Rupert Murdoch doesn't understand climate change basics, and that's a problem
I've encountered 'stubborn clinging' in just about all age groups— after all, if one argument defending your view doesn't work, you can always imagine there's another... So I don't think it's about age.
But there's another big reason why Murdoch is so misinformed and ineducable: he's wealthy and powerful (and an aggressive businessman). Who, of all the people around him, would tell him he's wrong? If you depend on him for your position, it would be downright imprudent to say anything like "oh, by the way Rupert, all of recent warming is due to humans, and high-emissions scenarios project much larger temperature increases than what you've said"?
Funglestrumpet is right: the influence of his views is magnified by his glorious wealth and power— when people like that say something, it's automatically respectable no matter how false and self-serving...
-
JPostma at 01:11 AM on 16 July 2014Joseph E. Postma and the Greenhouse Effect
Yes, the point is that if the 1-D model is a teaching tool, then what is being taught is wrong.
It is the 1-D models which misrepresent physics. As many people have been taught by this tool, their idea of how things might work will likewise misrepresent physics. The initial conditions and the boundary conditions of the physics have all been messed up by that model. Better physics such as absorption, scattering, etc., does not equate to a source becoming warmer because its radiation is absorbed somewhere else. And indeed real greenhouses do not demonstrate the radiative greenhouse postulate.
-
JPostma at 01:03 AM on 16 July 2014Joseph E. Postma and the Greenhouse Effect
"The atmospheric greenhouse was demonstrated experimentally by Tyndall in the mid-19th century, and as Tom Curtis has shown, has been documented empirically on multiple occasions."
In fact, real greenhouses demonstrate that they do not get hotter than the solar input. This contradicts the radiative greenhose hypothesis while supporting the trapped-warm-air hypothesis of why greenhouse interiors are warmer than outside.
"Further, the fact of its existence follows, necessarily, from the radiative properties of greenhouse gas molecules in the atmosphere."
That some molecules in the atmosphere scatter/absorb radiation, does not mean that they heat the surface. In fact, low emissivity is what leads to higher temperatures than otherwise, and O2 and N2 have basically zero emissivity, meaning that they hold on to and trap heat already...they being 99% of the atmosphere.
"It is, in short, a real 'thing'."
This is only a statement of claim. I have demonstrated physical, mathematical, and logical reasons for why the radiative greenhouse effect is erroneous.
"(1) persevering in your make-believe notion that the simple 1-dimensional model is the basis of scientific acceptance of the atmospheric greenhouse effect, rather than its actual status as a high school or undergraduate teaching tool;"
I have stated that adding more layers or higher dimensionality does not actually fix the mistake of getting the solar input wrong. The 1-D model is not an approximation but an outright error, an outright mistake. It should not be used for a teaching tool at all, and any idea of a radiative greenhouse effect which comes out of it is entirely, completely wrong.
(2) from (1), persevering in arguing that your rebuttal of this teaching tool constitutes a rebuttal of the actual atmospheric greenhouse effect whose existence has been experimentally and empirically confirmed; and
But it has not actually been experimentally and emirically confirmed, as real greenhouse temperatures contradict the radiative greenhouse postulate of being able to induce a higher temperatre than the solar input. To continue to argue that the 1-D model is a teaching tool is to make the point that what is being taught is wrong.
(3) re-asserting your argument without any new counter to the rebuttals raised either by the OP or by comments, which IMO constitutes sloganeering.
The same can be said for you. However, I have actually been making rational logical physical points while the common slogans of the radiative greenhouse effect which originate out of that erroneous teaching tool keep on being presented over and over as if that teaching tool has any legitimate claims to reality, which it does not.
-
funglestrumpet at 01:01 AM on 16 July 2014Rupert Murdoch doesn't understand climate change basics, and that's a problem
Murdoch is a wealthy man and he can't take it with him when he pops his clogs, so to speak. So, seeing that this side of the fence believes the evidence shows that climate change is going to challenge those who inherit his wealth, perhaps he might like to satisfy himself that we are wrong and that they will have as secure a lifestyle as he obviously thinks they will.
As he believes in his view of climate change so much, let him put his money where his mouth is. Invite him to fund a repeat of John Tyndall's 1859 experiment (With Royal Society oversight to ensure the integrity of the results) that proved the greenhouse effect and then explain scientifically, with whatever help he can muster (Lawson, Monckton, Abbot, Python (and the rest of the circus), etc.), why he thinks it is all balloney (well, most of it according to him). Dare him to publish his results (prominently) in his U.K./U.S.A national media channels/newspapers with this side's response. Both sides should be constrained to a set number of words (to be agreed). (Perhaps the Guadian might like to sponsor this side of the debate with exclusive rights to publish the correspondence and outcomes.)
Daft as the above might be (it is more intended as a thought-starter than a finished, completely thought through idea), let's face it, anything is worth a try. As thing are, Murdoch is going to continue spouting his erroneous opinions and editors, enjoying their freedoms, are going to take the view: "It's only an idea, but look whose idea it is!" and faithfully walk to heal, fetch the stick when its thrown and enjoy their "Whose a good boy, then?" bonuses, no doubt saying "No worries, sport" as they do so.
-
wili at 01:00 AM on 16 July 2014Rupert Murdoch doesn't understand climate change basics, and that's a problem
"People of privilege will always risk complete destruction rather than surrender any material part of their advantage." - John Kenneth Galbraith
-
KR at 00:56 AM on 16 July 2014Joseph E. Postma and the Greenhouse Effect
JPostma - I'm sorry, but your entire argument is a strawman fallacy. The 1-D model you discuss is simply an explanatory tool, not the justification for the understanding of the radiative greenhouse effect.
This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because attacking a distorted version of a position simply does not constitute an attack on the position itself. One might as well expect an attack on a poor drawing of a person to hurt the person.
The scientific understanding of the radiative greenhouse effect is based upon spectroscopy, radiative physics, atmospheric composition, and observations of (among other items) lapse rates, evaporative exchanges, convection, TOA and surface IR, etc. Not on a simplified model used in classrooms - a model that is simplified, but correct in that it relates some important factors demonstrating the effects of changing effective surface emissivity.
It doesn't help that your geometry is wrong, and thus is your estimate of insolation, that glass greenhouses are a red herring with respect to radiative phsyics, etc. You have presented exactly nothing of substance.
Your whole argument is based upon a misrepresentation of the science. As such, it's not even wrong.
-
JPostma at 00:52 AM on 16 July 2014Joseph E. Postma and the Greenhouse Effect
Just as an example of something interesting when you consider latent heat of liquid water rather than ignoring all such other physics in an attempt to make it all about radiation, consider the effect that latent heat has at the surface - the result below was calculated using real-time, actual solar input at the surface of the Earth:
Above you can see that latent heat from liquid water prevents the temperature from dropping below zero, which will thus give a daily-averaged temperature reading which is higher than you would expect, because the curve doesn't drop below zero when basic daily input energy considerations would make you think it should. Latent heat is like a heat battery than turns on at 0C and keeps it there. Of course, latent heat from water vapour releases out of the atmosphere at a temperature higher than 0C.
This shows that latent heat keeps the surface warmer than otherwise, as a function of the mass of water on the surface. And that's just for liquid on the surface. The atmosphere releases the latent heat of water vapor too, which will bump the temperature anomaly up higher still. Integrated over all mass quantities, the integrated temperature anomaly offset is about +60C.
So the point is, making the surface temperature all about atmospheric radiation and a radiative greenhouse effect is wrong.
The 1-D models aren't a useful approximation, they are an anti-physics error, a massive wrong way to think about the physics. They are a fiction which produce a cognitive "scientific" landscape totally divorced from reality.
Check out this data from a temperature measurement station with sensors going to .86m into the ground, and up to 1.5m altitude. This data was collected over a few months:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AoJM4taoNFo
You need the 2D heat flow PDE to model something like that, and that is what needs to be modeled if you want to understand heat flow in the atmosphere and surface. (Though we'd need data going deeper into the ground, and higher into the air, and for longer time.) The 1-D models are simply 100% divorced from being able to explain what is seen in that data sequence...they contradict it in fact. The point being that the 1-D models need to be completely rejected as fictional, and hence, any of the type of thinking associated with them or commonly referred back to them, such as the radiative greenhouse effect, likewise must be rejected.
-
Composer99 at 00:39 AM on 16 July 2014Joseph E. Postma and the Greenhouse Effect
JPostma:
The atmospheric greenhouse was demonstrated experimentally by Tyndall in the mid-19th century, and as Tom Curtis has shown, has been documented empirically on multiple occasions.
Further, the fact of its existence follows, necessarily, from the radiative properties of greenhouse gas molecules in the atmosphere.
It is, in short, a real 'thing'.
In your attempt to "disprove" the greenhouse effect, you are engaged in three ongoing misbehaviours on this thread:
(1) persevering in your make-believe notion that the simple 1-dimensional model is the basis of scientific acceptance of the atmospheric greenhouse effect, rather than its actual status as a high school or undergraduate teaching tool;
(2) from (1), persevering in arguing that your rebuttal of this teaching tool constitutes a rebuttal of the actual atmospheric greenhouse effect whose existence has been experimentally and empirically confirmed; and
(3) re-asserting your argument without any new counter to the rebuttals raised either by the OP or by comments, which IMO constitutes sloganeering.
-
wili at 00:37 AM on 16 July 2014Deep Decarbonization Pathways Project (DDPP) Presents Interim Report to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon
California just put restrictions on water use for the first time.
Humans can't survive more than about three days without water, yet we are willing in these circumstances to outright restrict its use.
Humans lived for almost all of their time on earth with essentially no use of fossil fuels, so it is obviously not as vital to human survival in the same way that water is.
So why can't we directly restrict the use of these substances, substances that are in the process of destroying the systems that support complex life on earth, including human life.
This is an existential issue.
As Churchill put it: "The era of procrastination, of half measures, of soothing and baffling expedience, of delays, is coming to its close. In its place we are entering a period of consequences.”
-
One Planet Only Forever at 00:32 AM on 16 July 2014Rupert Murdoch doesn't understand climate change basics, and that's a problem
I agree with the comments that Murdoch is l very likely to be aware of the best understanding of this issue, but is chosing to not help others better understand it.
He certainly has the capacity to properly understand this issue, as do his media creators. So it is highly likely that Murdoch is in the make-believe business for the benefit of himself and a collective of unacceptable characters he hangs around with. His job in the gang is to try to 'make' people 'believe' what is in the interests of that unacceptable group rather than have more people be more aware and actually better understand how unacceptable they are.
And people who are inclined to want to get more benefit for themselves any way they can get away with are easy targets for the make-believe stories created and disseminated by the likes of Murdoch's mouth-pieces of myths, including his own mouth.
This is a group of people who have no interest in developing a sustainable better future for all, especially if doing so means reducing their ability to benefit from thinigs they have been able to get away with - those unacceptable activities they relied on getting away with.
Their problem is they have locked themselves into attempting to succeed by getting away with unacceptable actions. They stand to lose a lot if their deception is unconvincing. They are threatened by any information that contradicts their 'way to wealth'. So they pour a lot of effort into prolonging popular support for the unacceptable unsustainable actions their personal success relies upon.
That group really needs the likes of Murdoch to be successful for as long as possible. The development of the best future for humanity needs the likes of Murdoch and the gang he hangs out with, to fail to succeed, as quickly as possible.
-
JPostma at 23:42 PM on 15 July 2014Joseph E. Postma and the Greenhouse Effect
Well, there is no other way that the radiative greenhouse effect is actually postulated. The 1-D models are its source. And as we've seen and had agreement on, the 1-D models do not correspond to physical reality in any way.
The Earth is not flat.
Solar input flux heating is not -18C.
If it were -18C it wouldn't be able to melt ice, create clouds.
The solution to that problem is not to postulate a radidative greenhouse effect, but to get the initial conditions right: the Earth is not flat and solar input is not -18C.
There is a minimum level of complexity required for a model to have any meaninglful correspondence with reality. The 1-D models do not satisy that. All they state is that energy in = energy out, and that's fine and obvious.
Therefore, the idea that radiation from the atmosphere heats the surface needs to be discarded, because that idea only comes out of the postulate required to save a bad model, a postulate which is itself therefore wrong. We see people agreeing that the 1-D models do not correspond to actual reality, but then they immediately turn around and try to justify the postulates from the 1-D model. This is not the way to go about things.
It doesn't matter if you add more layers or have higher dimeniosnality models. The postulate of the radiative greenhouse effect still has no basis. And we have been looking through the IPCC models, and there is no actual greenhouse effect in them, anywhere. Neither Spencer nor anyone else can identify it and say where in the models it is, or how it originates. What they will do however, is always refer back to the 1-D models! It's kinda crazy.
The 1-D model is not a simplified model. It is a wrong model which violates very, very basic, in fact fundamental features of the actual physics occuring at the surface. Such as sunshine melting ice and creating clouds. It is a wrong starting point, initial approximation - not a close one.
The fffective temperature is not an actual temperature measurement, but an inference given energy conservation and assuming unit emmisivity. For Earth, this is ~255K, corresponding to the expected ~240 W/m^2 average output from the globe. This temperature should not be expected to be found at the ground surface since for radiation, the surface is not the ground surface, and also, because of the natural lapse rate gradient of -g/Cp (can also factor for latent heat release which lessens the slope, as I showed in that paper) which mathemtically necessitates that the average will not be found at either extremity (ground surface or TOA), but somewhere in the middle, thus automatically making the surface warmer than the average.
A spectral plot is not evidence of a greenhouse effect. It is evidence of spectral absorption and scattering. You get spectral absorption and scattering when you have a cooler gas in front of a warmer source. The cooler gas does not cause or induce the temperature of the warmer source. As we have seen, solar input is actually much higher than -18C, latent heat release will hold the surface at a warmer temperature than otherwise, and the lapse rate gradient automatically necessitates a warmer bottom-of-atmosohere than middle and top. The 1-D model as designed by climate scientists is indeed, exactly and directly, about the attempt to use the spectral absorption of a cold gas as a way to make up for the erroneous "solar-heating deficit" produced by those very models. Yes the surface can warm the colder gas via absorption in that gas of "warm" surface radiation, but this does not translate back to a requirement that the surface must increase in temperature, because it is heating that gas. And such a scheme completely dismisses the existence of the lapse rate, of latent heat, and real-time physics where the sunshine actually does induce behaviour that the averaged solar input of -18C does not have the power to achieve.
And finally, let us be reminded that a real botanist's greenhouse should be able to function by that math and logic of the 1-D model and by the same of the spectral absorption argument: this should induce a higher temperature inside a greenhouse "glass box" than the maximum solar input is providing. The glass roof serves the role of the layers of the atmosphere and of miles of spectral absorption and scattering. But it doesn't happen - the maximum temperature is only equal to the solar input. Empirical measurement demonstrates that spectral absorption and/or layers of atmosphere absorbing radiation from the surface do not cause the surface to become warmer. When you factor in the fact that setting the solar input to -18C is not going to be able to reproduce any of the significant physics that actually occurs in real-time from actual high-power "hot" sunshine, then the rest of the thoughts and postulates which have ever extended from that likewise be extinguished. You should start over. The models aren't working anyway, the temperature isn't increasing like it was predicted. It is a good reason to reevaluate. Start over using actual heat flow physics in real time with the heat flow PDE, and show people all the work.
-
climatelurker at 23:18 PM on 15 July 2014Rupert Murdoch doesn't understand climate change basics, and that's a problem
There's a new book out ('Sons of Wichita') about the Koch's. If you want a look into the world of these "titans" you should definitely read it. Murdoch fits RIGHT into what's described about the Kochs. I'm willing to bet he expends 90% or more of his brainpower thinking about how to beat his competition, get under their skin, spy on them... play the 'great game'.
He's clearly not dumb, or he wouldn't have built the empire he sits on top of, but he's one person with one brain, and only so much time to spend his thoughts on. These guys are so focused on the dramas they create that they have no more brain cells left to focus on anything else. And I'd bet they NEVER slow down enough to stop and honestly think about the alternatives to their own worldviews.
-
shoyemore at 17:51 PM on 15 July 2014Rupert Murdoch doesn't understand climate change basics, and that's a problem
Murdoch's views would be just commonplace ignorance if he was not such a powerful individual.
His power may be judged from the fact that Tony Blair called him every day in the week leading up to the Iraq invasion in 2003. He is a powerful man whom even the powerful kowtow to.
He is a real threat when his misconceptions and confusions become the core agenda of a massive news organisation, and he has the ears of the elite in every country. Correcting Murdoch and his minions is what Skeptical Science is all about, and well done with this post.
-
Larry E at 16:21 PM on 15 July 2014Deep Decarbonization Pathways Project (DDPP) Presents Interim Report to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon
This 2006 article in The Economist (Aircraft emissions - The sky's the limit) may be dated in some respects; however, its observations on how comparisons of emissions from air travel and other travel modes are worth consideration.
http://www.economist.com/node/7033931
-
foolonthehill at 16:15 PM on 15 July 2014Deep Decarbonization Pathways Project (DDPP) Presents Interim Report to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon
Rob
'Again, the solution to the problem is pricing carbon.' No argument from me there buddy.
'If he is the best person for the job, should he not be doing that work?' That is a decision he must make. I would hope that he does so in full recognition of his contribution to climate change. Not taking the job may result in a worse result for the environment - he would be the best judge of that. I just hope that his loan repayments and the company profits don't unbalance his decision process. Less painful decisions are often the simplest to make.
I am intrigued by the carbon neutrality of many buildings touted by developers. The prospect of greenwashing always seems close at hand. From my limited knowledge, the embedded carbon seems to be conveniently overlooked (such as your friends travel emissions).
Auckland has numerous buildings that have sprung up recently which quote fantastic efficiencies in their operations. They invariably have replaced similar sized buildings that have stood for many years and that would have continued to do so. Their replacement is justified on the basis that they 'don't function to todays corporate requirements' or 'the floor plate didn't allow sufficient flow' or other seemingly specious factors.
The main reason for replacement seems to be that the newer buildings can command a higher rental for the developer. Is that the best we can hope for in the future?
Gotta love the occupants of this 'green' building -
-
Sam martin8679 at 16:12 PM on 15 July 2014Rupert Murdoch doesn't understand climate change basics, and that's a problem
Hi DSL i was referring to giss and hadcrut which both show something pretty similar. Those coloured dots from figure 10.1 are hard to make much sense of without a mean but it looks to me like a mean would have pretty well the same appearance as giss and hadcrut.
-
Larry E at 15:43 PM on 15 July 2014Deep Decarbonization Pathways Project (DDPP) Presents Interim Report to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon
Rob said "If he is the best person for the job, should he not be doing that work?" Maybe it falls under the category of essential travel, which both wili and I left room for. However, you did say earlier that he (or she) was doing it to pay the mortgage and raise the kids. I hope he is training local architects so he can travel less. Where is he located and what countries does he have projects in?
-
Larry E at 15:35 PM on 15 July 2014Deep Decarbonization Pathways Project (DDPP) Presents Interim Report to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon
Rob, I agree that aviation is a hard nut to crack, but it is essential that we do crack it. It is the only major economic sector that is not reducing its emissions, while the other sectors are. Accordingly, under current trends by 2050 tourism could account for 40% of global GHG emissions, and as an indicator aviation presently accounts for 75% of tourism emissions. (See refs A & B below). For the World Cup, aviation GHG emissions amounted to 98% of the total. Refs A through C concern travel habits and impact, particularly on climate. Ref D contains Ref C and other info pertinent to the discussion in this comment thread.
Ref E is a thorough study of airliner efficiency and emissions over the decades, and the prospects for further improvement.
@wili referenced a statement by climate scientist Kevin Anderson that an annual reduction of 10% in emissions from all uses of energy is needed, and discussion by others followed. The explanation behind Anderson's conclusion is quite simple and compelling. See Ref F below (video of his 2011 presentation at UK DFID), in which he also answers the question of why his analysis is different than those by others. Here is a summary of that:
1. EMISSIONS GROWTH RATES ARE NOT LOW-BALLED. Virtually all other climate pathway studies assume a 1-2% per year emissions growth rate to the emissions peak, but the actual rate has been 3-5% per year.
2. REALISTIC EMISSIONS PEAKING DATES ARE USED. Virtually all other analyses use an emissions peak between 2010 and 2016. The Stern report was 2015; the UK Committee on Climate Change's work is based on 2016; the recent ADAM report for the EU had 2015. Wherever you look, people are assuming very low growth rates to a very early peaking date. "And you can look around you. You can see the emissions that are occurring globally. And you can think, 'Is any of that in any way, shape or form a good illustration of the real world in which we live?' And if not, then you might start to think, 'Why is this analysis different?' Even the UK's Committee on Climate Change, which is doing much more than many countries around the world, embedded a 2017 peaking date for China and India in its report. But no one's ever talked to the Chinese or the Indians about that."
3. SO, THE PROBLEM IS AN ORDER OF MAGNITUDE WORSE THAN RECOGNIZED, AND TECH ALONE CAN'T FIX IT. Supply technologies cannot be put in place fast enough to bring you off the peak quick enough. "That's not to say better supply technology is not important - in fact, it's a prerequisite to getting to a low carbon future. But, it will not do it in and of itself. You have to have radical reductions beforehand, and technology cannot deliver those, particularly the supply technologies. Perhaps the demand side can do that and certainly behavioral can move you much faster, but you simply cannot put the big supply technologies in place fast enough in the wealthier parts of the world."
4. SOCOLOW'S WEDGES "ARE THE WRONG WAY AROUND." Socolow "has us starting with small reductions from the pointy ends of the wedges and progressing to larger reductions at the big end. That might have worked if we had started earlier, but because we are so late in addressing climate change we need to get the big reductions almost immediately," and we $can back off decades later to a tapered finish. (See: Socolow et al. 2006).
Reference G is a link to the conference "Radical Emissions Reduction," held in December at the Royal Society, London. From the webpage a program and a book of the abstracts (101 pp.) can be downloaded.
--------------
A. Cohen S., Higham J., Peeters P., Gossling S. (2014). Why tourism mobility behaviours must change. Ch. 1 in: Understanding and Governing Sustainable Tourism Mobility: Psychological and Behavioural Approaches.
B. Cohen S., James E., Higham J., Gossling S., Peeters P. (2014). Understanding and Governing Sustainable Tourism Mobility: Psychological and Behavioural Approaches. Routeledge, NYC. ISBN: 978-0-415-83937-2.
C. Gössling S.; Upham, P. (eds) (2009). Hypermobile travellers. Ch. 6 in: Climate Change and Aviation: Issues, Challenges and Solutions.
D. Gössling S., Upham P. (2009). Climate change and aviation: Issues, challenges and solutions. http://www.gci.org.uk/Documents/Aviation-and-Climate-Change_.pdf
E. Peeters et al. (2005). Fuel efficiency of commercial aircraft: An overview of historical and future trends. (Netherlands National Aerospace Lab).
F. Anderson K. (2011). Climate Change: Going beyond dangerous — Brutal numbers, tenuous hope, or cognitive dissonance? Video of presentation at UK DFID.
G. The Radical Emissions Reduction Conference, Dec. 10-11, 2013. Venue: Royal Society, Carlton House Terrace, London.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 15:06 PM on 15 July 2014Deep Decarbonization Pathways Project (DDPP) Presents Interim Report to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon
Wili... "Is the economy more important than the planet?"
What is important is solving the global warming problem. We're going to need a working economy to do that. It's not an either/or choice. We need both.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 14:50 PM on 15 July 2014Deep Decarbonization Pathways Project (DDPP) Presents Interim Report to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon
If he is the best person for the job, should he not be doing that work?
No, actually, I don't think you can just relay the work to a local architect since that's already an inherent part of the process.
And what I'm talking about relative to carbon neutral buildings is, they build high rises that, with a certain level of mixed use, can generate as much energy as they consume.
Again, the solution to the problem is pricing carbon. Creating additional restrictions does not address the fundamental problem.
-
DSL at 14:38 PM on 15 July 2014Rupert Murdoch doesn't understand climate change basics, and that's a problem
Sam, I'm not sure what you mean when you say "half of that." See IPCC AR5 WG1 Ch. 10, especially section 3, and to the point figure 10.1. What are you measuring from? There's been roughly 0.7C warming since 1960 with virtually no contribution from solar variation.
-
DSL at 14:23 PM on 15 July 2014Joseph E. Postma and the Greenhouse Effect
And not only satellites but direct surface observation. That is, downwelling longwave radiation has been instrumentally measured at the surface (see Wang & Dickinson 2013 for a review of observation-based studies).
-
Sam martin8679 at 13:40 PM on 15 July 2014Rupert Murdoch doesn't understand climate change basics, and that's a problem
About the nearly 1 degree that we have already caused- what is the proposed mechanism for the nearly half of that which occured between ~ 1910 and 1940? I was under the impression that was not thought to be co2 related warming.
-
foolonthehill at 13:22 PM on 15 July 2014Deep Decarbonization Pathways Project (DDPP) Presents Interim Report to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon
Rob
'And so, you think my architect friend who is developing carbon neutral high rise buildings around the world should stop doing his work?'
Is your friend the only person capable of doing this work? Can he not relay the relevant information to a local architect?
(I dont think i'll get into the 'carbon neutral' aspects...)
-
Rob Honeycutt at 13:02 PM on 15 July 2014Deep Decarbonization Pathways Project (DDPP) Presents Interim Report to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon
Larry E...
"...yet growth in average distance traveled and number of trips are increasing consistently at an unsustainable rate. Airliners today are negligibly more efficient that piston-powered ones of the late 1950s."
Yes, your first statement is correct but I think that addressing the demand side through carbon pricing would change that trend.
Your second statement is incorrect. When early jet engines were introduced in the 1950's then were less fuel efficient that prop engines of the time, and those prop engines were not so efficient either. But modern high bypass torbo fan jets are more efficient. And the carbon emissions for long distance travel are actually lower per passenger mile than other forms of transportation.
"Yes, but scope for improvement is limited..."
The scope for improvement is limited in the nearer decades. Again, avaition is a big nut to crack. As I linked in one of my first comments, there are ideas like super cooled ducted fan systems that have the potential to be carbon free. As well, there is a lot of work being done in non-food crop biofuels.
"For your friends who feel trapped, the need for a smaller house and more frugal lifestyle, is indicated."
Really? And so, you think my architect friend who is developing carbon neutral high rise buildings around the world should stop doing his work?
"Aviation is a great place to start."
I'm sorry but I'm just going to have to disagree here. When surface transportation accounts for 40% of emissions and when buildings also account for almost 40% of emissions... why would you want to "start" with the industry that generates 6% of emissions? It's a serious question. I don't understand this thinking.
"A nice touch, but involving a minor lifestyle change."
My point being that small incentives can go a long way. Don't use a sledge hammer when a smaller tool can get the job done.
-
Lloyd Flack at 12:54 PM on 15 July 2014Rupert Murdoch doesn't understand climate change basics, and that's a problem
Non-scientist,
I doubt very much it is his age. Plenty of older people have a healthy curiousity and can change their minds.
I think ubrew12 is much closer to the mark. He does seem to be extremely, perhaps obsessively, competitve and society wide cooperation of the sort required to deal with climate change gets in the way of his games. I think a lot of denialists are game players who want the fun of putting down opponents. This makes them want to see opponents as dishonest and deserving of mockery and put-downs. Think of people like Mark Morano, Tim Blair and Andrew Bolt, all malicious game-players addicted to sneering at opponents.
But I think there is something else. I think billionaires for whom their business is everything can unintentionally attract an echo chamber of flatterers who tell them what they want to hear. Their advisors do genuinely see them as the great man or woman. If you aren't curious and don't seek knowledge from outside your inner circle you can end up out of touch with reality. I think this has happened with Murdoch, with Gina Reinhart and with the Koch brothers.
-
wili at 12:37 PM on 15 July 2014Deep Decarbonization Pathways Project (DDPP) Presents Interim Report to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon
Is the economy more important than the planet?
-
Rob Honeycutt at 12:24 PM on 15 July 2014Deep Decarbonization Pathways Project (DDPP) Presents Interim Report to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon
foolonthehill... My original post was suggesting that aviation is a harder nut to crack and that there are other issues to address like surface transportation, buildings and efficiency that offer much bigger emissions reductions for far less money. I'm not saying that aviation emissions shouldn't be addressed; it's a very important issue to address. But the question is how to address it in the most effective and timely manner and how we address it in ways that fit into the larger goals of getting to zero emissions in a time frame that keeps us below 2C.
-
foolonthehill at 12:10 PM on 15 July 2014Deep Decarbonization Pathways Project (DDPP) Presents Interim Report to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon
Larry E
"For your friends who feel trapped, the need for a smaller house and more frugal lifestyle, is indicated." - even wiser words!
-
foolonthehill at 11:56 AM on 15 July 2014Deep Decarbonization Pathways Project (DDPP) Presents Interim Report to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon
Whilst I have said I agree with wili on many of his points, I am not wholeheartedly behind him. I certainly feel that his last comment doesnt enhance either his position or the conversation. Civility costs nothing.
Rob - I was more intrigued with your stance on the aviation issue. Your initial post seemed to intimate that the aviation industry was not a concern in the bigger picture. You praised the improvements in fuel efficiency. I would be keen to know if these improvements have led to a lower overall output of greenhouse gasses into the environment? That would be the result you are hoping for no doubt.
From my observations these efficiency improvements are based on stabilising the bottom line in an industry facing fuel price increases. There appears to me to have been a substantial increase in air travel in recent years with the developing nations rapidly adopting our first world tourism fetish. Can we afford to keep on in the same fashion? Or should we be discouraging this growth through all means possible? (note I said discourage - not restrict). I agree with you that carbon pricing will be the major tool in this endeavour. We really need to stop the current practice of hopping on a plane at the merest whim. A cultural change is essential.
From a New Zealand perspective we have a national carrier that is investing in the latest fuel efficient aircraft. They, along with our government, are encouraging large increases in long haul traveller numbers from Asia in particular. Great for our economy and GDP figures. But will our shiny new 787-9's reduce the amount of CO2 at the end of the day?
-
jenna at 10:59 AM on 15 July 2014Rupert Murdoch doesn't understand climate change basics, and that's a problem
@Non_Scientist
Wow, dude, biased against the elderly much? Fwiw, I am the youngest member (by far) of an crack IT team working in a large East coast datacenter. The average age of our NOC team is about 58 years old, with a few over 60. I imagine most of them are well past that "certain age" to which you refer so smartly.
IMO, our groupd is one of th most open minded an well educated teams I've been a part of. Open mindedness abounds here with frequent lively debates about all manner of topics.
Maybe you're not meeting the right group of oldies.
Cheers,
Jenna
-
Larry E at 10:56 AM on 15 July 2014Deep Decarbonization Pathways Project (DDPP) Presents Interim Report to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon
WRyan: "reduc[e] CO2 from the easiest targets first ... The real challenge is to make it happen quickly"
An easy target (functionally ) is reducing and then pinching off air travel (and freight) except for what is truly essential in the societal sense. Humanity did without air travel for centuries until quite recently; we can do so again. The only thing that makes it difficult is that the affluent people of the world feel entitled to do as much of it as they wish, and these people strongly influence 1st-world governments. However, because nearly all air travel is non-essential, if people can't accept substantial sacrifice here, I think there is no hope for containing climate change below a catastrophic level.
Where to start? Terminate frequent flyer programs (FFPs), because inducements to this kind of travel (whether in terms of "free" trips or elite perks) encourage this source of climate damage. Further, a spin-off is that accumulation of "kilometer" or "miles" encourages additional use of airline credit cards in order to accumulate more. But this amplified credit card use raises merchant's prices for everyone's essentials, including cash customers who are often poor. (A 2.5% CC fee is, say for a business with a 10% profit margin, a 25% hit on the bottom line of the sale that must be covered somehow. A problem when such sales are commonplace.)
Honeycutt: "They are embracing the problem and are working on solutions." But the IATA's goals are "aspirational," and the scope for efficiency improves is actually quite small. Most gains are one-time ones, yet growth in average distance traveled and number of trips are increasing consistently at an unsustainable rate. Airliners today are negligibly more efficient that piston-powered ones of the late 1950s. The good-sounding comparisons are against the fuel-hog jets of that era.
Honeycutt: "The industry has every incentive to work really hard to try to use fuel as efficiently as possible." Yes, but scope for improvement is limited, and the higher incentive is for steadily increasing passenger volume and distance traveled. New planes designed for, say, 1940s-era cruising speeds could help somewhat; however, the business model (affordable fares) depends on maximized seat-miles per plane per day, meaning high speeds to amortize the plane's high capital cost and crew cost.
Honeycutt: "... for long distance travel, aviation has a low carbon footprint compared to other forms of suface transportation ..." But it is "long distance" and ease (effort and especially time) in traveling long distances by plane that is the biggest part of the problem. Longer and more frequent trips become more and more commonplace. Most long distance travel would not happen with out planes.
Honeycutt: "... a good friend of mine is a lead partner in an architechure firm that does major projects all over the world. He has to fly around the world on a monthly basis. I'm sorry, but it would be utterly impossible for him to do these projects via Skype. I have a number of other friends who are product designers and they frequently have to fly to Asia to work through new products with factories." Seems to me all the rest of us are subsidizing (via climate impacts, with tangible harms as well as with real present or future economic costs) your friends' poorly advised business models or careers. Globalization is a big part of the climate problem, and both aviation and shipping emissions are at the heart of that. Please ask your friends to convert rapidly to a domestic business model. After all, you said they "all want to do the right thing." You added later, "But, they have mortgages and kids and they have to get their respective jobs done each week in order to keep paying their mortgages and supporting those kids." Supposed barriers such as this, population-wide, are what keep us on the BAU track. For your friends who feel trapped, the need for a smaller house and more frugal lifestyle, is indicated.
Honeycutt: "We don't have to get to zero emissions by 2018." We will wish we had. That isn't possible now (waited to long), but we have to decide that the party is over and it's time to hit the brakes hard. Aviation is a great place to start.
Honeycutt: "There's a ton of low hanging fruit to get that going. Efficiency is the cheapest ..." We need all the low-hanging fruit we can get. Aviation is among the lowest, and no investment of resources (materials) is needed to accomplish it. It is simple reduction, with immediate benefit.
Honeycutt: "... a 10 cent surcharge on paper and plastic shopping bags. Almost overnight everyone, and I mean everyone, starting bringing their own bags."
A nice touch, but involving a minor lifestyle change. Air travel is much different, and getting a truly effective carbon tax on it will be quite difficult (e.g. the EU ETS saga). "No non-essential air travel" needs to be one of the options on the table, so that there is a full playing field before the public for discussion.
Foolonthehill: "(personal no-fly decision) it is a minor sacrifice I am making for the sake of future generations. I believe I will need to make many more such sacrifices." Wise words!
Further thoughts: (In a future comment; apology for the length.)
-
Tom Curtis at 10:34 AM on 15 July 2014Joseph E. Postma and the Greenhouse Effect
JPostma:
1) A one dimensional model is a model expanding (most typically) a zero dimensional energy balance model by showing different lattitudes. What you use is a one layer energy balance model, a model only used in climate science for purposes of instruction. It is usefull for instruction because it allows the introduction of relevent equations in a simple form, but those equations are not used in one layer models in any actual scientific work.
2)
"The problem is that the solar input is not actually -18C, and the Earth shouldn't be modelled as flat (because it isn't flat), and in physics it is wrong to mathematically "destroy" physical factors such as rotation and geometry."
In physics, it is standard procedure to use simplified models for initial, or approximate calculations. The classic example is from Newton, who initially calculated the planetary motions based on his theory of gravity using the assumption that the Sun and the Earth were point masses. So, even if you were actually correct about the use of one layer models (which you are not), your criticism would only be a stipulation that in climate physics, standard methods of physics should not be used.
3) Historically, the model that was used to show the existence of the greenhouse effect was the zero dimensional energy balance model, which calculates that:
T(e) = (S*(1-A))/(f*σ))^(1/4)
Where T(e) is the effective temperature, S is the insolation at the planets orbit (1361 W/m^2 for Earth), A is the bond albedo (0.3 for Earth), f is a geometrical correction factor (4 for Earth), and σ is the Stefan-Boltzman constant.
For rapidly rotating planets with strong redistribution of energy at the surface, f is set at 4 (effectively assuming a constant temperature across the planets surface). It is calculated as the ratio of the surface area of a sphere to the surface area of a circle of the same diameter (ie, of the Earth's surface area relative to the area of sunlight it intercepts).
Uneven heat distribution, such as actually obtains, reduces the effective temperature. So, if we expanded this model to a one dimensional model, it would predict a cooler effective temperature. The heat flow from the tropics to the poles therefore warms the Earth on average, even though it always represents heat flowing from a warmer to a colder place. It cannot heat the Earth to more than the effective temperature, however, and hence the estimate of a 33 C greenhouse effect is an underestimate. Latent heat also evens out heat extremes, and therefore also warms the Earth, but again cannot warm it above the effective temperature calculated by the zero dimensional energy balance model. And when I say cannot, I mean that it would contradict conservation of energy if it did.
4)
"A hopefully final clarification: the 1-D, one-layer model is not "my" model, it is "their" model, and I've copied it directly with references as to source.
"They" use it to justify and explain the origin of the greenhouse effect, but as we have seen, no such model can actually produce anything corresponding to reality for the simple fact that it has nothing to do with reality. You can't "go around saying" that the solar input is only -18C at the surface, and then create some postulates based on that, because the solar input factually isn't that and because if it were that it wouldn't reproduce otherwise known physics at the surface."
Again, scientists do not use the one layer model (which you incorrectly name) to justify belief in the greenhouse effect. They only use it as a simple model to explain the greenhouse effect. When justifying beliefs they use evidence, and three dimensional models that take into account all the complex factors of climate (within the limits of resolution required by limmited computer power).
First, the evidence:
Scientists have observed using instruments in planes, balloons and satellites, the upward long wave radiation from the Earth. Here is one such observation compared with a Line By Line (LBL) radiation model calculation of the upward radiation:
The area under the curve represents total outward energy. Because the outward energy at 660 cm-1 (Wave Number) is low, energy at other wave numbers must be higher to allow a given amount of radiation to escape the Earth. Because the reduced outward radiation at 660 cm-1 occurs everywhere on Earth (as determined by observations for all locations on Earth), overall radiation in other parts of the spectrum must be higher for a given amount of energy to escape. Because the radiation is thermal, for the radiation to be greater the temperature must be greater. Therefore, because of the oberved effect of CO2 on outgoing radiation, the temperature of the Earth's surface must be greater than it otherwise would have beeen.
That is the greenhouse effect - something which has therefore been directly observed by satellite based instruments hundreds of thousands of times.
Second, GCMs also show that without well mixed greenhouse gases in the Earth's atmosphere, the Earth's surface would be cooler by about 33 C. That, again is an underestimate in that the GCM was constrained to not allow expansion of ice sheets (and the consequent increase in albedo). Further, that even allows for the small remaining natural greenhouse effect from water vapour. The GCM involved happened to be the GISS model ER, which has a climate sensitivity around 2 C.
The use of this model to demonstrate the effects of greenhouse gases shows your continuing use of the one layer model to be the deliberate use of a strawman. Climate scientists have been using far more complex models than the one you use for decades. Further, they do not use the model you use for research, but only for teaching. Your persistence criticizing a teaching aid and treating that as if you were actually criticizing the theories of scientists would be on a par with a polar explorer "proving" that geographers were totally mistaken about the Earth's shape because pictures of the poles do not show large metalic cylinders about which the Earth rotates are represented on globes in classrooms through out the world.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 09:34 AM on 15 July 2014Deep Decarbonization Pathways Project (DDPP) Presents Interim Report to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon
Exactly. And it really takes far less than people might think to have a significant impact.
One small example is, just this past year a law passed in the SF Bay Area for a 10 cent surcharge on paper and plastic shopping bags. Almost overnight everyone, and I mean everyone, starting bringing their own bags when they went shopping.
I think carbon pricing is going to be similar. Once it's in place, the overall effect is going to be significant even at a low cost per ton.
-
scaddenp at 09:16 AM on 15 July 2014Deep Decarbonization Pathways Project (DDPP) Presents Interim Report to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon
I'm with Rob on this. Constriction on supplyside is too blunt an instrument. Rather like reducing oil production. You get a massive price spike because demand remains high. The poor miss out. Carbon pricing schemes by comparison are fiscally neutral, allow for targeting and distributes money from high FF users to low FF users. You want to kill FF from the demand side, not supply side.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 09:06 AM on 15 July 2014Deep Decarbonization Pathways Project (DDPP) Presents Interim Report to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon
foolonthehill...
Without such sacrifices are we not on a BAU track? Or do you see technology as our saviour?
You know, it's interesting to me. This is sort of like discussing sea level rise on the other side of the debate. These are non-linear situations. Just as you can't look at annual sea level rise today to determine how much SLR we will see in 2100, you also can't look at BAU emissions scenarios and say that where we're going to be in 2100. All factors are not going to stay the same over time regardless of a personal sacrifice.
I do not see technology as the savior. Technology is going to, and in fact already is, playing an important role in solving the problem. But again, efficiency is the lowest hanging fruit and can have the largest impact. Properly pricing carbon into the market holds a hugely important role in solving the problem, since that is going to spur both technological development and make efficiency more cost effective.
I do think there is going to have to be an overall contraction of the aviation industry but I believe that will come from from carbon pricing having an increasing impact on fares. Believe me, if fares go up 30% less people are going to fly. But I think that is the correct way to approach the problem over any form of restrictions. Why? Because restrictions merely reduce activity without any additional benefit. Carbon pricing means that those who do choose to fly are actually paying into the system. Instead of a vicious cycle ending in collapse, with carbon pricing we create a virtuous cycle where problems can be solved.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 08:29 AM on 15 July 2014Deep Decarbonization Pathways Project (DDPP) Presents Interim Report to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon
But... I would still hold that it's the wrong way to get to the goal of zero emissions.
If you say to industry that they are only allowed to emit 90% of the carbon emissions they put out last year, that's a non-starter. The only way to achieve that is to cut every aspect of modern society by 10%. It means your starting year involves a massive economic contraction because the only way to achieve that is through less economic activity. A 10% contraction in one year would mean that nearly all investment monies would dry up. And then you'd be asking the same thing the following year. And the next.
This is a recipe for major economic stagnation and potential worldwide economic collapse. That means there is no capital to invest in the solutions that can solve the problem. There is no capital to invest in wind farms or solar panels. No new electric vehicles. No new grid technologies. Everything hits the wall. End of game.
Both the DDPP interim report and the AR5 RCP scenarios are saying we take the opposite approach. Bend the curve. Do what's actually achievable today, tomorrow and next year, and move the ball forward aggressively.
I would suggest the DDPP/IPCC approach has a far greater chance at success.
-
AuntSally at 08:13 AM on 15 July 2014Rupert Murdoch doesn't understand climate change basics, and that's a problem
Tom@6 — Yes, the CMIP3 v CMIP5 distinction is important. Still, from a risk managment perspective, it's worth pointing out the potential scale of change we're talking about.
Additionally, WGIII clarifies that this projection "includes, in addition, the carbon cycle and climate system uncertainties as represented by the MAGICC model..." I'm not clear how this squares with the projections from WGI. But it doesn't sound good...
-
scaddenp at 08:09 AM on 15 July 2014Joseph E. Postma and the Greenhouse Effect
And perhaps you would like to respond to Roy Spencer on the idea that IPCC uses 1D models, which he thought "border on the ludicrous."
-
Rob Honeycutt at 08:03 AM on 15 July 2014Deep Decarbonization Pathways Project (DDPP) Presents Interim Report to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon
10% cuts per year, every year, starting now means zero carbon emissions by 2024. - you may want to reconsider that statement.
Yup. Brain fart on that one.
-
scaddenp at 08:01 AM on 15 July 2014Joseph E. Postma and the Greenhouse Effect
Just curious then. As Chris says in his article, the 1D model is a teaching tool, not the understood phyics. He points to the papers which deal with the real complexities.
Secondly, the criticized model does a remarkable job for predicting the radiation, including the spectral signature, measured at both TOA and ground surface. Can a Postma alternative do that?
-
Tom Curtis at 07:58 AM on 15 July 2014Rupert Murdoch doesn't understand climate change basics, and that's a problem
Aunt Sally @3, due to the requirement that IPCC working groups issue their reports more or less simultaneiously, and due to the fact that working group 3 calculations on mitigation are dependent on working group 1 projections, working group 3 is currently based on CMIP3 projections of the older type (A1, B2 etc) scenarios. Based on more current CMIP5 projections of the current RPC scenarios, the RCP 8.5 projections are for 2.6-4.8C above the 1986-2005 average. That is the 5-95% confidence interval. Consequently the 4 C "worst case scenario" mentioned in the article is an understatement, but not by as much as quoting the working group 3 figures would suggest.
-
wili at 07:38 AM on 15 July 2014Deep Decarbonization Pathways Project (DDPP) Presents Interim Report to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon
"your position that we need, "...10% cuts per year...' "
That is Kevin Anderson's position. Hansen has similar figures. If you don't know that the IPCC documents are extremely watered down, political documents, there's not much use in further discussion. Your mathematical illiteracy also suggests that useful discussion has come to an end here.
-
foolonthehill at 06:57 AM on 15 July 2014Rupert Murdoch doesn't understand climate change basics, and that's a problem
Non_Scientist
Could you please tell me the location of Shangri-La?
I do hope that you have found this fabled land - otherwise you will find your future to be rather disappointing considering your attitude towards the elderly.
-
foolonthehill at 06:46 AM on 15 July 2014Deep Decarbonization Pathways Project (DDPP) Presents Interim Report to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon
Rob.
10% cuts per year, every year, starting now means zero carbon emissions by 2024. - you may want to reconsider that statement.
I have to agree with wili on many of his points. With regards to air travel, wili suggested that non essential travel be subject to 'very close scrutiny and huge doses of skepticism' - he never mentioned a specific moratorium.
Personally, I have made the decision to stop flying. Doing so makes a massive impact on my carbon footprint. Per capita. I am making a change that has a positive effect.
This was not easy. I loved air travel - so much so that many years ago, I spent an inordinate amout of money on a transatlantic concorde journey. I felt the monetary sacrifice was worth it.
Thanks to my 'no fly' decision, I will never again have the chance to embrace my siblings or ailing parents. Many years ago, I made the choice to emigrate to a land on the other side of the planet - I had always assumed I would be able to 'pop back home' to see them whenever I felt like it. In the light of my concerns about climate change, I now consider that this attitude is a flawed one. I now rely on Facetime or Skype for communicaton. I have no intention of forcing such a decision on anyone else but I also have no qualms about telling people of my choice and offering advice and opinions on their personal travel choices. This is my version of wili's 'scrutiny and skepticism'. As you can imagine, this does not go down well with many people. Fortunately, I have broad shoulders and a thick hide.
I don't feel that my choice has forced me into a 'hair shirt' existance. As pompous as it may sound, it is a minor sacrifice I am making for the sake of future generations. I believe I will need to make many more such sacrifices. Without such sacrifices are we not on a BAU track? Or do you see technology as our saviour?
-
Composer99 at 06:11 AM on 15 July 2014Joseph E. Postma and the Greenhouse Effect
JPostma, suffice to say that if you really are trying to say that one-dimensional models are the reason scientists conclude the atmospheric greenhouse effect exists, which is what I read from statements such as
So, there is no a-priori reason to postulate a radiative greenhouse effect any longer because the models which are typically used to do so, the 1-D models, don't actually have anything to say about the actual physics reality occuring on the surface.
then you are wasting everybody's time, including yours, coming on here and posting nonsense.
-
ubrew12 at 05:39 AM on 15 July 2014Rupert Murdoch doesn't understand climate change basics, and that's a problem
Clearly, there is more going on here than someone misinformed. At this point, it's just not credible that Murdoch 'doesn't know' what the vast preponderance of Scientific opinion is. His inability to accept it indicates it conflicts with his core values. Many conservatives, when pushed on CC, will same something like 'Earth is huge. Humans are tiny. We can't possible affect it'. That's not a statement of fact: its a statement of a core value. I believe people like Murdoch Need Earth to be huge, unlimited in extent. It has to be a place that challenges us daily and forever and never, ever stops doing so. People like Murdoch will say 'I don't have to outrun the bear, I just have to outrun you.' What they mean is that the bear is the malevolent, all-powerful 'other' that challenges us to race. It's mythic in power: it cannot 'run out'. Hence, they can focus on winning the race and nothing else. So, the race is between people, and the Earth is just an all-powerful environment that sets up the race. Whatever else he is, Murdoch is a supreme competitor. I think his ability to assume the malevolent environment extends in all directions, forever, gives him an edge over other competitors: he can focus all his energy on beating them. He Needs Earth to be huge and unending. It's a core value that motivates him, and conservatives like him, and CC inconveniently calls that into question.
-
AuntSally at 05:32 AM on 15 July 2014Rupert Murdoch doesn't understand climate change basics, and that's a problem
Actually, Working Group III of the IPCC AR5 is quoting projections for 2100 GAT rise as much as 7.8º C (above 1850-1900 baseline), or about 7.2ºC above 2000 baseline. See, for example, Table SPM.1 in the Summary for Policymakers. Make sure to read footnote 7...
-
Rob Honeycutt at 05:05 AM on 15 July 2014Deep Decarbonization Pathways Project (DDPP) Presents Interim Report to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon
wili... Reading through some of the Representative Concentration Pathways (RCP) materials, I'm just not seeing anything that suggests what you're saying. The most agressive RCP scenario states,
RCP2.6 assumes 'aggressive' mitigation strategies that cause global greenhouse gas emissions to start decreasing after about a decade and to reach near zero levels around 60 years from now. This scenario is unlikely to exceed a 2°C increase in global mean temperature since pre-industrial times.
[My emphasis]
And if you look at the charts for RCP2.6, even aggressive mitigation still includes putting as much carbon into the atmosphere as we've burned so far since the industrial revolution (see page 15 here).
I don't see this agreeing with your position that we need, "...10% cuts per year every year starting right now (even this is to have a chance to stay within 2 degrees C, which he admits is far too high)."
Think about it... 10% cuts per year, every year, starting now means zero carbon emissions by 2024. That's a completely irrational scenario. It's a non-starter.
Prev 699 700 701 702 703 704 705 706 707 708 709 710 711 712 713 714 Next
