Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 700 701 702 703 704 705 706 707 708 709 710 711 712 713 714 715 Next
Comments 35351 to 35400:
-
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.
-
MA Rodger at 03:55 AM on 15 July 2014Rupert Murdoch doesn't understand climate change basics, and that's a problem
On the horrors of the average per capita contributions to AGW for individual countries, a new paper by Ward and Mahowald plots per-capita graphs of cumulative CO2(e) emissions against GDP with the contribution of each country to temperature rise over various periods marked as bubble size on different graphs. While Australia isn't labelled, being one of the not-very-numerous 'other' countries, it isn't hard to decide which bubble is Australia (ie the light blue bubble 'in transit' over the US bubble).
-
Dikran Marsupial at 03:52 AM on 15 July 2014Joseph E. Postma and the Greenhouse Effect Part 2
JPostma I would also advise discussing one issue at a time. Very few of us are able to carry more than one conversation at a time and cover the material in sufficient depth to reach the truth, so you are more likely to do yourself justice by following each issue to its conclusion, rather than starting multiple discussions and running out of energy to follow them up properly.
-
JPostma at 03:24 AM on 15 July 2014Joseph E. Postma and the Greenhouse Effect
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.
Notably, adding more atmospheric layers to such a 1-D model doesn't actually correct the mistake: the 1-D model and the -18C solar input is the mistake. The geometry is wrong and the energy levels are wrong. Any postulates which come from such a model will likewise be mistaken, by heredity.
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. This has been partially admitted here by C.C. and other commentators. Thus, is there another method to postulate a raditive greenhouse effect, without referring back to the false physicsof the 1-D models? Then again, one should also ask why we would continue to assume in a-priori that very postulate that originates in those false models. Why continue trying to justify it if the premises of its original origin has been discarded? That goes beyond the remit of science and into something else.
-
JPostma at 02:57 AM on 15 July 2014Joseph E. Postma and the Greenhouse Effect Part 2
Thanks Rob...got it.
-
wili at 02:55 AM on 15 July 2014Deep Decarbonization Pathways Project (DDPP) Presents Interim Report to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon
The army has landed and is storming the cities. You are still calling for negotiations with the enemy, something that may have seemed reasonable a bit earlier, but is now essentially irrelevant to the current situation.
Kevin Anderson calls for 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). Hansen has similar numbers. If you think we can get there through innovation and conservation, well, I'd like to see your numbers. He certainly doesn't, and I'd say he knows a bit more about it than either of us.
I'll be busy the rest of the day, and perhaps longer, so might not be able to get back to your posts soon. It's been informative chatting with you, though. Thanks.--Wili
-
Rob Honeycutt at 02:43 AM on 15 July 2014Joseph E. Postma and the Greenhouse Effect Part 2
JPostma... Better to keep your comments limited to one thread, or at least related to the specific discussion points of each article. Everyone follows the consolidated comments thread (found on the menu bar) so no one will miss what you're saying.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 02:37 AM on 15 July 2014Deep Decarbonization Pathways Project (DDPP) Presents Interim Report to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon
Wili... We are certainly not in disagreement on the realities of AGW. We share the exact same concerns. I agree that we are in the process of creating a mass extinction event. I agree with Schmidt and Hansen that we "should not" be putting any more CO2 into the atmosphere.
The challenge is how to get there. And, the additional challenge is, how to get there in a way that minimizes human suffering and preserves natural systems. This is where I think we disagree.
I believe it is extremely important to move forward, not backward. Pricing carbon is moving forward because it will spur innovation. It will help to alter consumer behavior toward carbon-free solutions. Creating limitations on travel is moving backward. It acts to restrict people's capacity to do the things they need to do in order to create solutions. It's a command and control system, and that brings up additional challenges in terms of how the limitations get applied. How do you decide what is acceptable travel and what is not? And more importantly, who makes those decisions and how? That's command and control. That's what militaries do well.
I believe the path to achieving the goals that we both agree on is with a well regulated market system. That's what carbon pricing is. That's what the EPA is. I would note that Dr. Hansen has long stumped for a revenue neutral carbon tax. Tax and dividend.
Everything I'm reading these days is saying the goal is to get to zero emissions by 2050 in order to have a chance to avoid crossing the 2C threshold. That's an extremely agressive goal and has huge challenges. The most important element on achieving these goals lay in just bending the curve on the emissions path. There's a ton of low hanging fruit to get that going. Efficiency is the cheapest, easiest way to do that. Getting carbon priced ASAP is also extremely important but has political obstacles. Investment in new clean technologies are aggressively under way. Investing in expansion of wind and solar are also happening.
You have to remember, BAU is the worst case scenario. That's what happens if we can't manage to do anything to solve the problem. There clearly are people listening to that message. There clearly are a lot of people out there who are working on solutions. I think you're going to be surprized at the innovations that start coming to market over the coming decades. Even in aviation.
-
JPostma at 02:21 AM on 15 July 2014Joseph E. Postma and the Greenhouse Effect Part 2
I think my repeated comments on this OP are being removed because they're just copies from the "Postma1" article.
Hence, please go see the "Postma1" article for my comments on this:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Postma1.html
starting here:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Postma1.html#105276
-
JPostma at 02:19 AM on 15 July 2014Joseph E. Postma and the Greenhouse Effect
Anyway, lastly, as far as just getting the actual vertical-column energy behaviour correct, setting aside the global climate so that we can just get the fundamentals correct (which of course the 1-D flat Earth models do not), then we need to go the actual equations for heat flow in a column, which would look like this:
One could model down to, say, ~10 meters where the soil temperature is static, up through the surface, and through to several hunfred meters in altitude where the air temperatre is static. So, all parameters such as density and thermal capacity would be functions of x, Q is a forcing term which would be supplied by sunlight modelled in real time (not averaged!). I don't think there would be a Q from the atmosphere since the atmosphere isn't actually a source of energy - there's no combustion, fission/fusion, or anything occuring in the atmosphere that actually produces heat. You would need to track the energy content to get the latent heat levels, latent heat release, and latent heat "supply", and things like that, but it could be done. It would be the correct way to do it at least. All numerically since there would be no analytical solutions with everything as a function of x etc.
Interesting thing though about proper heat flow equations like this, is that temperature is never induced upwards in the direction from cold to hot at the hotter end - heat only flows from hot to cold and only cold becomes warmer from hot, i.e. hot doesn't get warmer from cold. Of course, that gets rid of a bunch of really bad arguments as to what people think the "greenhouse effect" is. Well, at this point I think it is pretty clear that there is no radiation greenhouse effect - there is just a "latent heat temperature retention effect", and a "temperature gradient effect".
-
JPostma at 01:58 AM on 15 July 2014Joseph E. Postma and the Greenhouse Effect
That paper has some good science in it, but I also go on about "philosophy" and "principles" and all this stuff that gets too distracting for a basic science paper.
But the basic science is there: the radiative surface is not the ground surface, the average of the system should not be found at the bottom, need to account for latent heat, no "higher maximum temperature than maximum insolation" is empirically found. And whatever else I'm forgetting at the moment.
-
JPostma at 01:50 AM on 15 July 2014Joseph E. Postma and the Greenhouse Effect
See this paper:
A Discussion on the Absence of a Measurable Greenhouse Effect
-
JPostma at 01:33 AM on 15 July 2014Joseph E. Postma and the Greenhouse Effect
So, yes, it is the simple 1-D "energy model" which I am criticizing. I criticize it because it doesn't correspond to reality (for the simple fact that the Earth isn't flat), and so, at the very least it is a bad thing to teach people because it teaches invalid mathematical techniques pretending to be physics, and at worst, the greenhouse effect concept really is based on it.
The basic process in these models is to average the solar energy over the entire surface of the planet, thus "destroying" any factors for time and geometry. Mathematically, this process creates a flat geometry with a solar input at -18C.
Then the reasoning goes: If solar input is only -18C but the surface is warmer than that, then something else, the atmosphere, must be adding/trapping heat, to bring up the temperature to +15C. This "raising of the temperature" is the greenhouse effect.
So, you have the greenhouse effect postulated because solar input is only -18C, while the surface temperature is actually +15C.
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.
To make the point most simply: solar input at -18C does not reperoduce the physics at the surface that we actually see being induced by sunlight. Such as, melting ice to water, which requires sunlight input with a flux corresponding to at least 0C, and also mass-evaporation of water to water vapor to create cumulonimbus and other types of clouds, etc, wich requires solar input at a still much higher temperature. And scalding-hot sidewalks, hot beach sand, and things like that.
So, these facts being self-evident, we really need to appreciate that these 1-D energy models aren't saying much about the actual physics at the surface at all. In fact, the basic postulate where we invent the greenhouse effect to create higher temperatures can't really be accepted anymore at all. The sunlight is creating temperatures that are actually much, much higher than +15C, let alone -18C.
And so we also must consider the latent heat of liquid and vaporous water: sunlight is self-evidently more than powerful enough to breach those barriers and fill up those latent heat "reservoirs", and so what happens when those heat energy reservoirs drain back out overnight and at the poles? Well, I think it's obvious: they're going to keep the surface warmer by preventing it from dropping in temperature before those reservoirs drain out. However, those heat reservoirs never actually drain out because they're constantly being replenished. Hence, latent heat is constantly keeping the temperature warmer than otherwise.
As far as a very simple average of giving the Earth's "effective blackbody temperature", this is fine: 255K, for 240 W/m^2 output. But the Earth has an atmosphere and only humns think the ground surface is the surface, whereas radiation will find a different surface depending on emissivity, absorption, scattering, etc etc., and so this temperature of 255K should not be expected to be found at the ground surface in the first place. The atmosphere is itself a/the surface, if you're radiation.
So, just considering a simple mathematical fact, that the average of a sequentially distributed metric will be found not at either extremity of the distribution, but somehwere inside it, somewhere middlish, then, the average temperature of the Earth will not be found either at the top of the atmosphere, or at the bottom of the atmosphere, but, somewhere between those. Given that really basic energy equations show that the atmosphere naturally has a temperature gradient (the -g/Cp thing), then, once again we find ourselves in a position where the -18C average should never have been assumed to be found at the ground surface (nor at the top of atmosphere), thus rendering the resulting postulate of the atmospheric greenhouse effect, to make up the difference, superfluous.
-
Non-Scientist at 01:26 AM on 15 July 2014Rupert Murdoch doesn't understand climate change basics, and that's a problem
Rupert Murdoch is something like 850 years old. At his age, one does not absorb new information or evaluate new ideas, so this is not a surprise.
I've had this experience often with people over a certain age; offer information which contradicts what they want to believe and you are met with blank incomprehension, silence, or their repeating whatever they believed when they were 35. The more articulate will respond with a clever evasion or dismissal, but with 90% of them, rationally considering, weighing and evaluating new information is not ever going to happen.
-
wili at 00:09 AM on 15 July 2014Deep Decarbonization Pathways Project (DDPP) Presents Interim Report to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon
The last word of the first paragraph should be 'companies' not 'countries.'
-
wili at 00:08 AM on 15 July 2014Deep Decarbonization Pathways Project (DDPP) Presents Interim Report to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon
Rob, thanks again for thoughtful comments. I would think that broadly applied moratoriums on certain activities would not leave some companies at a competitive disadvantage vis a vis other countries.
Again, our ideas of realities are clearly different. You put forward mortgage payments as if that is some kind of solid reality that must be addressed. You may recall that not so long ago the government threw hundreds of billions of dollars at banks whose essentially criminal activities had destabilized the entire banking system. The gov could just as easily have forgiven all mortgage debts to the same companies, or made this a condition of the grant. Money is just information that can be changed massively at any moment. The ice caps, on the other hand, can not be so easily manipulated--once they're gone, we can't maneuver 0s and 1's on a computer to get them back.
"we need to shut everything down and start over"
I did not say that, and I would encourage you not to put words in my mouth, though perhaps for you fundamentally altering much of business as usual is 'shutting everything down,' perhaps.As for scientists', consider this quote from Gavin Schmidt, newly appointed director of NASA's Goddard Center: "f you ask a scientist how much more CO2 do you think we should add to the atmosphere, the answer is going to be none. " The previous director, Jim Hansen, has said similar things. And then there's Kevin Anderson, director of the Tyndall Center: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RInrvSjW90U
This paper and others point out that, even if we stop all further CO2 emissions today, atmospheric levels would stay at current levels or go higher due to feedbacks already in place (see especially the first graph under figure 3)...
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Macdougall.html
You may like to tell yourself conforting stories about how there is still time for incrimental change. But they are just stories.
Let me end by reaffirming our point of agreement. A higher price on carbon is necessary. It is just clear to me that it is also no where near sufficient at this point.
This is already too long, but perhaps you hadn't noticed that we are in the midst of the sixth great Mass Extinction event. It was already well underway before the effects of GW really started showing themselves. So we are adding a Mass Extinction on top of a Mass Extinction, probably leading to the greatest extinction event since the beginning of complex life. The Great Dying, the previous largest one, saw some 95% of marine species and 70% of terrestrial species go extinct. We are likely to surpass this, particularly with BAU. Elizabeth Kolbert has a recent book on this, and the great biologist E.O. Wilson and many others have written and spoken about it frequently. Most people, though, aren't listening.
-
MA Rodger at 20:47 PM on 14 July 2014Crux of a Core, Part 1 - addressing J Storrs Hall
Asteroid Miner @48.
It is perhaps difficult to immediately grasp the massive size of the Greenland ice sheet and that it will not melt away in the twinkling of an eye when temperatures rise. For Greenland to melt away will take many many centuries, even when temperatures rise further.
It's best to look at the numbers. To melt ice takes energy and to melt a lot of ice takes a lot of energy. There is 2.9 million cu km of ice on Greenland which would require 1,000ZJ for the latent heat to convert it from ice to water (and perhaps 100ZJ to heat it up to melting point). But Global Warming s almost entirely about heating the oceans (which are even more massive than the polar ice sheets - 1.34 billion cu km). AGW has added 250 ZJ to the oceans over the last 5 decades, an average of 5ZJ/year. In comparison, very little energy has been added to Greenland ice. Even today with the dramatic levels of ice loss, the extra energy into Greenland melting ice is only about 0.2ZJ/year.
Perhaps another indicator of the massive size of the ice sheet on Greenland is the work of Dahl-Jensen et al (1998). They produce a temperature history for the summit of Greenland by measuring the internal temperature of the ice sheet. The changing heat flux through the ice caused by temperature changes at the summit over past millennia can still be detected as they continue to flow down into the ice sheet.
The graph below is from the paper. Figure 3a in the paper is perhaps even more telling as it plots temperature back 100,000 years.
-
John Michael Carter at 19:47 PM on 14 July 2014It's albedo
I think in general this site does a fantastic job, and fully support it. Though I struggled with this article a little bit, I also thought it was informative, and for the issue of cloud cover albedo, linked to it here.
But, though I know this is an old post (though I don't think that makes it or comments in it have any less value) I have a question on this article as well. It reads "Overall, the Earth's albedo has a cooling effect."
Has a cooling affect relative to what? Doesn't the earth have to have some level of albedo? So the albedo can't cool or heat, but only cool or heat relative to a higher or lower albedo??
I also wonder, since the myth is supplied by Anthony Watts, who seems to have gotten a lot of fairly central stuff incorrect, if the end of that statement supplied at the outset "the albedo forcings.. seem to be ...larger than that of all manmade greenhouse gases combined."
Again, doesn't this have to be relative to some baseline, such as a marked and precise change in albedo over a specific time period? It's also unclear from the myth quote whether he is talking about the allleged "decrease in albedo" over some set of years prior to '97 (followed by a "lull," which presumable means no change from the prior year?) or the alleged increase in albedo after '97. And is the statement of total affect even accurate? And again, relative to what (not Watt) specifically?
Ned, comment 7 above: Helpful comment. It also says "So, a change in the earth's albedo can increase or decrease the amount of energy that is absorbed, without necessarily increasing or decreasing the amount of energy that is emitted."
I want to make sure I understand this correctly, as I'm also unclear on this as well. A higher albedo will reflect more radiation away from the surface, which has not affected the amount of energy the surface is emitting, but is affecting the energy absorbed by increasing (in the case of a higher albedo) the amount simply reflected away (like a white shirt) and thus decreasing the amount not reflected, but simply absorbed. Making high (versus low) albedo huge, because much of it then goes back into space, instead of heating the surface it hit, and then adding to overall thermal emittance from that warmed surface. I botch anything major there?
(Maybe this is going too far afield, and also showing whatI need to learn about the changing wavelengths, but if it is simply reflected and the wavelengths stay the same, then it won't be much impeded by atsmopheric gg gas absorption and re radiation - but, if it is not reflected, but aborbed (say into warmer water) not only does it heat the surface (or water) but when some of that energy is released as heat, in longer thermal radiation form, more of it is then trapped, and re radiated in all directions, by the gg gases in the atmosphere, then otherwise would have been had it been bounced back originally in its original shorter wavelength (and thus not, or less? gg gas absorbable) and less goes back out into space, yet again. ?? )
-
Rob Honeycutt at 14:26 PM on 14 July 2014Deep Decarbonization Pathways Project (DDPP) Presents Interim Report to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon
Wili... Hm, "...ending most complex life on earth." I'm not sure I would be able to find any research that supports that position. I wouldn't disagree that we are in the process of dramatically impacting natural systems which we rely on to support the human population levels we've seen over the past century. But, really, life on earth is highly resilient. Eventually, given a few million years, the planet would be perfectly happy without homosapien sapien running around mucking things up.
My own concerns are much more immediate. On a business-as-usual path things are likely to be very very bad. Bad as in, WW2 would seem like a leisurely stroll in the park, bad. We need to address worsening the crisis that we leave for the next generation or two.
All those friend whom I mention, they all want to do the right thing. These are all people who understand the climate change problem and want to do whatever they can. In fact, many are actively doing things about climate change. 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. No one can change careers mid-stride and expect to make ends meet if there's a moratorium on some critical aspect of their work. These are just the fundamental constraints involved in solving the problem.
All I'm trying to portray here is the fact that we have to take a step-by-step approach to getting this job done. We clearly have to get to zero emissions by 2050. We don't have to get to zero emissions by 2018. We have to bend the curve of emissions. Zero carbon emissions tomorrow or next year or even in 10 years is impossible. Working to bend the curve today and next year... that is something that actually can be accomplished.
Banning "non-essential" avaition in the near term just isn't going to happen (and who would even determine what is essential or not?). Nor does this even need to happen. There are far easier problems to solve this decade. The tougher nuts are better left for later.
"Climate scientists are saying that we have to stop emitting anymore carbon essentially ten years ago. That's who I'm listening to."
Yes, it would have been far better if we'd gotten a quicker start on this problem. But I'm listening to climate scientists too. I don't hear anyone saying we need to shut everything down and start over. I hear scientists, though frustrated with the FF industry efforts to scuttle every good effort, saying that this is not game over yet.
We have an enormous task before us. Lots of good people are working hard to rise to that challenge. All I'm saying is, let's let them do their work.
-
scaddenp at 13:49 PM on 14 July 2014Crux of a Core, Part 1 - addressing J Storrs Hall
Ateroid Miner - are you referring to Fig 3? It is a temperature anomaly graph (with respect to mid-20th C temp), not absolute temperature. Local absolute temperature would be in the negative 20-30s. And yes, multiple dating tools have been used on ice core.
-
Tom Curtis at 13:43 PM on 14 July 2014Crux of a Core, Part 1 - addressing J Storrs Hall
Asteroid Miner @48, I am unsure as to which graph you are discussing, but presume it to be one of the many graphs of the GISP2 icecore. If you look at the first such graph (at the top of the OP), you will see that the temperatures vary between -32.5 and -28.5 centigrade, sufficiently cold to keep the ice frozen. That is slightly misleading due to the low resolution of the graph. Ngheim et al (2012) document approximately 65 ice melt events at that site in the last 10,500 years, however some years are missing from their documented periods so that the number may be greater than that, but certainly less than 100. The melt layers are very shallow, representing single seasons and in the 2012 season, just two days in July. There is a possibility but no reason to expect that several years data could be melted in particular cases. This presents no major problem because of the low resolution of the records, and because layers deeper in the core are cross correlated with datable events due to volcanic ash in the ice cores.
-
wili at 13:40 PM on 14 July 2014Deep Decarbonization Pathways Project (DDPP) Presents Interim Report to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon
Hi Rob, thanks again for your thoughtful comments. I was thinking about the basis of my disagreement with you (and many others, of course), and I think it boils down to this.
Modern industrial culture is in the process of ending most complex life on earth. You seem to think that this is some minor, incidental, minor flaw in an otherwise just fine system, needing some tweeking around the edges to fine tune the otherwise well running machine.
I happen to think the problem goes a bit deeper.For example, there will be advantages and disadvantages for your friends' firms to have a less global reach. But you portray it as an absolute and vital necessity to continue this part of global (or even broadly regional) business, vital enough to risk the future habitability of the planet for. I don't.
We are likely to be mostly talking past each other when we speak of specific desirable actions since our basic perceptions of the situation are so fundamentally different. But please do correct me if I have mischaracterized your position.
Best, wili
PS. "No one who is seriously looking at this issue is suggesting we do anything like this." Perhaps no one that you take seriously. Probably very few economists are thinking this way. That doesn't mean they are right. Climate scientists are saying that we have to stop emitting anymore carbon essentially ten years ago. That's who I'm listening to.
-
Asteroid Miner at 12:58 PM on 14 July 2014Crux of a Core, Part 1 - addressing J Storrs Hall
The graph looks like that particular spot in Greenland should have melted away and not been there several times in the past 8000 years. Have the top few feet of ice core been dated by some method other than by counting layers?
Did the altitude change? I think I missed something. Why does the graph have those peaks above the present? It couldn't have gotten that hot in central Greenland. Too much ice would have melted, throwing off your dates.
Greenland ice should have melted completely between 8000 and 6000 years ago, leaving no ice sheet. There must be a correction factor somewhere. Otherwise, how could you have such a deep core?
-
Rob Honeycutt at 10:55 AM on 14 July 2014Deep Decarbonization Pathways Project (DDPP) Presents Interim Report to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon
wili...
First off, you've completely misinterpreted my metaphor. I wasn't suggesting air travel is the life blood of our economy. But, unfortunately at this point, fossil fuels very much are.
I would suggest that much (not all) of the air travel that happens today is very much essential. For instance, 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. That just can't be done via Skype.
Trust me, all these folks are using telepresense on an almost constant basis, but there are just things that cannot get done without being there to work on a face-to-face basis.
There's going to be a transition off of fossil fuels. It's abolutely necessary. It's imperative. We need a price on carbon. We need a strong focus on efficiency. We need to keep investing in new technologies. A carbon tax will help to drive these forward faster. Luckily the aviation industry is actively working on solutions very much because the long term health of their industry requires big solutions from them.
"Direct resrictions, bans and rationing are now imperatively needed."
We're going to have to disagree on that point. These are the sort of actions that would actually make the situation worse. No one who is seriously looking at this issue is suggesting we do anything like this.
There are a lot positive things happening right now. I found it incredibly encouraging to recently hear Elon Musk saying that he believes solar will be a plurality of the energy mix in the next, I think he said, 20 years. That's major. And there's a ton of venture capital money out there right now looking for climate change solutions.
My sense is, when we really start bending the curve on carbon emissions, it's all going to start moving much faster than most people think. The last thing you want to do is pull the rug out from under the people who are creating solutions.
-
wili at 07:53 AM on 14 July 2014Deep Decarbonization Pathways Project (DDPP) Presents Interim Report to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon
Oh, and from page viii of the executive summary:
"The IPCC AR5 Working Group 3 (WG3) calculates that in the absence of additional commitments to reduce GHG emissions, the world is on a trajectory to an increase in global mean temperature of 3.7°C to 4.8°C compared to pre-industrial levels. When accounting for full climate uncertainty, this range extends from 2.5°C to 7.8°C by the end of the century."
That highest level would certainly put large parts of the many of the most populated areas of the world into unsurvivable 'wet bulb temperatures.'
-
wili at 07:49 AM on 14 July 2014Deep Decarbonization Pathways Project (DDPP) Presents Interim Report to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon
Ashton, sorry if this offends you, but the answer to your question is a couple clicks away--you can easily access the study and find answers, such as on page 2:
"food production, human health and productivity, and safety from extreme storms and other climate disruptions. Rising sea levels would overtake many of the world’s largest urban agglomerations and low-lying countries, such as Bangladesh and small island states. Many threatened regions in today’s poor world, particularly the tropics, drylands, forests, and alpine regions, may become uninhabitable, leading to mass migration
and suffering"Were you just too lazy to do this simple ten-second search? Or are you actually not interested in an answer?
Hurricanes may not become more frequent, since high level wind sheer that can interupte hurricane formation is also increasing (ain't climate complex? Who'd a thunk it??), but those that do form can be very big monster, fueled by hotter oceans, much more humid air, and higher sea levels. They are also more likely to come at times and places where we don't expect them (cf. Arthur and Sandy), steared by an ever more eratic jet stream. I haven't seen the recent study on Malaria you seem to reference without citing, but diseases like West Nile and others are certainly spreading far beyond their expected areas, and more will follow.
A few hundred words later, on the next page, we find:
"Not only could a increase in temperatures by 2°C bring untold suffering in many parts of the world from severe climate disruptions such as heat waves, droughts, floods, and intense tropical cyclones, but a rise in temperature of 2°C or more threatens many positive feedback loops that could push the global climate system into runaway and irreversible disruptions"
And of course if we blow way past 2 degrees C, we get into conditions where humans just won't be able to survive the heat & humidity (so called wet bulb temperature). Does that sound dangerous to you?
-
scaddenp at 07:41 AM on 14 July 2014Deep Decarbonization Pathways Project (DDPP) Presents Interim Report to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon
Ashton, please see here for a quick overview of climate impacts. See the IPCC WG2 for more detail. Rising sea level (your counter argument that people are doing irrational things is ... well odd), threatening the heavily populated delta areas with flooding and salt invasion; and disruptions to hydrological cycle are the main issues (eg see here). "Dangerous" doesnt necessarily mean dangerous to you personally. Hopefully you are not comfortable with the idea that some people might enjoy the benefits of fossil fuels while other people pay the price.
If you want to discuss the idea that climate change is not dangerous, please do so the appropriate thread (as pointed to above). Discussion here would be off-topic and thus in violation of the comments policy.
-
wili at 07:28 AM on 14 July 2014Deep Decarbonization Pathways Project (DDPP) Presents Interim Report to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon
Rob, thanks for your thoughtful response. I have to agree with you that it was a 'lousy metaphor'--specifically because, unlike blood, most airtravel is not absolutely vital to global economic functioning. If you want to preserve some air travel, how about things like medical emergencies and fire fighting. These seem more like the kind of vital functions we may want to allow to happen.
I also agree that a price on carbon is needed and would go some way in the right direction. But, as with everything else it seems, there are two damning problems: 1) We are politically light years away from instituting any such tax; 2) Such a tax alone is now far short of what is needed.
We now know that every day, CO2 (and other GHG) emissions are the equivalent of nearly half a million Hiroshima atom bomb blasts of energy exploding into the climate system. If you someone was building actual bombs and you knew they were planning to drop them on you, would you merely discourage them by moderately incrteasing the tax on fissionable materials?
Direct resrictions, bans and rationing are now imperatively needed. There really is no 'carbon budget'; we busted that budget long ago.
-
Ashton at 06:45 AM on 14 July 2014Deep Decarbonization Pathways Project (DDPP) Presents Interim Report to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon
In the piece under discussion the phrase "dangerous climate change" is used But what is it that is dangerous about climate change? Rising sea levels? The prospect of that doesn't seem to stop people building in areas that may be flooded. Drought? Floods? Both are attributed to climate change. Hurricanrs? The incidence, given the better reporting, is now lower than for several years. Malaria? That seems to have been debunked. What is it exactly that constitutes the "dangerous" adjective?
-
Rob Honeycutt at 04:06 AM on 14 July 2014Deep Decarbonization Pathways Project (DDPP) Presents Interim Report to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon
wili... I think a price on carbon would go a long way toward bringing long distance travel down quite a lot by raising the cost. But I would have to suggest that we're not quite to the point where we need to declare a moratorium on long distance travel. We need to rapidly decarbonize but it's going to require a vibrant economy to accomplish this.
This might be a lousy metaphor but think of it like a blood transfusion. The worst way to accomplish this task would be to suck all the blood out of the patient before replacing it with new blood. We need to replace the old blood with the new blood, but the only way to do that without killing the patient is to do it carefully and methodically.
We're going to continue to burn fossil fuels for a while. There's no way around that. We need to dig in and first make changes that have the biggest effect for the least amount of money, like efficiency. Then, surface transportation change over is going to take 20-30 years. Aviation is a tough nut to crack and is likely to take closer to 50-80 years to really get carbon-free. But in the meantime aviation is likely to continue to make significant improvements in carbon intensity along the way.
-
wili at 03:43 AM on 14 July 2014Deep Decarbonization Pathways Project (DDPP) Presents Interim Report to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon
"And already, for long distance travel, aviation has a low carbon footprint compared to other forms of suface transportation. (You have to remember, there is no surface infrastructure required; e.g. roads, rail lines, etc.)"
But Rob, how many of those trips just wouldn't have been taken if there was not a fast, cheap way to do it. We have to make flying, driving and most other forms of carbon-based travel _less_ convenient, so people think twice about doing them and think instead of alternatives...skipe for meetings, local bike tours for tourism...Relatively few long distance trips, flying or otherwise, are absolutely essential. We're talking about an existential threat here, people. Shouldn't all non-essential use of CO2 producint activities be getting very close scrutiny and huge doses of skepticism, rather than rationalizing a way of continuing such mostly frivolous activity?
-
Rob Honeycutt at 02:50 AM on 14 July 2014Deep Decarbonization Pathways Project (DDPP) Presents Interim Report to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon
On the aviation issue... The nice thing about this one is, the aviation industry doesn't deny the problem. They are embracing the problem and are working on solutions. They know fuel prices are going up and the major cost driver is fuel costs. The industry has every incentive to work really hard to try to use fuel as efficiently as possible. And already, for long distance travel, aviation has a low carbon footprint compared to other forms of suface transportation. (You have to remember, there is no surface infrastructure required; e.g. roads, rail lines, etc.)
Aviation moves very slowly but their engineers do freakishly amazing stuff. There's some wild stuff on the drawing boards right now that look to address fuel source issues, like superconducting ducted fan designs. It's just not stuff that's going to flying by 2050.
-
MThompson at 22:18 PM on 13 July 2014The power of pie-charts to communicate consensus
Thanks for the other parries, but it is chrisd3 that exhibits integrity that builds solid science. We must not allow inaccurate renditions of key propositions to go unchallenged. Are we not rebutting global warming misinformation herein?
I hold the work of Cook et al. in higher esteem than published surveys of related propositions precisely because it is an analysis of data (i.e. published abstracts) rather than the shifting sands of surveys. Yes, such overwhelming consensus is notable, and whether it is 97 percent or 99.9 percent is unimportant. It is elimination of the all-important qualifiers on the proposition that justifiably incites our critics. A survey of scientists would likely provide a very high consensus that “Gravity is an attractive force between massive bodies.” Restrict that survey to physicists and there should be found strong disagreement.
-
WRyan at 20:06 PM on 13 July 2014Deep Decarbonization Pathways Project (DDPP) Presents Interim Report to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon
@Paul W
The BREE modelling you quoted is for hypothetical nuclear power in Australia. I find it difficult to believe that the construction and operating costs of a nuclear reactor in Australia is half of that of a real reactor in the UK, which is what that model implies.
The OECD modelling that article quoted is based on there being close to zero storage. This scenario is based on basically maintaing an entire separate electricity generating system to replace power lost if close to all renewable systems in a network closed down because of lack of sunlight, wind, etc at the same time and for an extended period (days). I question how realistic this view is. Storage technologies are likely to became considerably cheaper as a market is established and the technlogies go into mass production. As they become cheaper, they will greatly reduce the costs of renewables stated in your linked articles.
The nuclear batteries you quoted are currently extremely expensive (and of course impossible to obtain outside of strictly regulated government environments.) This may change in the future, but then again it might not.
-
Paul W at 18:23 PM on 13 July 2014Deep Decarbonization Pathways Project (DDPP) Presents Interim Report to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon
@WRyan 5.
A study that includes all the hiden costs tells a different story.
http://bravenewclimate.com/2013/03/22/counting-hidden-costs-of-energy/#more-6088
There is a very big difference between cost of production and the delivered costs. The referenced study showed nuclear as lower at delivered costs in an Australian context.
I did discuss nuclear batteries which is a small scale low cost nuclear technology that runs for 15 tp 20 years between refueling un attended.
It is designed to replace the coal burning part of a coal power station while leaving the rest of the station. It's to fast track shut down of coal to use existing infrastructure.
It can also be mass produced which is quite unlike the large one off nukes you refer to.
All large power generation uses government subsidies.
-
WRyan at 16:02 PM on 13 July 2014El Niño in 2014: Still On the Way?
With regard to my previous post, I've thought of a 5th possible mechanism for warming.
5. A decrease in cloud cover over land results in more sunlight being absorbed by land surfaces. This results in an increased amount of IR radiation entering the atmosphere, which causes the temporary warming.
-
WRyan at 15:54 PM on 13 July 2014El Niño in 2014: Still On the Way?
I've never been able to find a good explanation of why El Nino events cause temporary atmospheric warming. There are 4 factors I can think of:
1. Increased volume of warm surface water increases the amount of IR radiation entering the atmaosphere, and so causes increase warming.
2. Increased evaporation causes a higher humidity and therefore increased absorption of IR radiation ( a temporary enhanced greenhouse effect).
3. Incresed eveaportaion of warm water carries energy into the atmosphere which is transferred to the rest of the lower troposphere by conduction and convection.
4. Increased evaporation causes an increase in humidity which results in more cloud formation. As the vapour condenses, the production of latent heat involved in the phase transition is transferred to the surrounding air by conduction.
Are any of these mechanisms responsible for the increased temperature? If so, which ones and to what degree does each contribute to the warming?
I think this would be a good topic for short article.
-
WRyan at 15:08 PM on 13 July 2014Deep Decarbonization Pathways Project (DDPP) Presents Interim Report to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon
@Paul W
New nuclear power is generally very expensive. The new reactor being built in England is priced to generate electricty at around 17c/kWh. The reactor is only being built through a very large government subsidy. New wind power costs less than half that amount and new utility scale PV can be much cheaper than the price of nuclear, depending on the proposed site. (Proposals for new PV farms in Texas and California are pricing generation at around 6-7 c/kWh.)
As for air travel, it isn't necessary to completely stop the burning of fossil fuels to stabilise the climate. It is only necessary to substantially reduce it (maybe by 80-90%). So it is possible that the highest priority uses of fossil fuels could continue. For this reason, the aim of the decarbonising studies tends to focus on reducing CO2 sources from the easiest targets first - switching electricity generation to renewables, and then switching land transport to electrical vehicles, trains, cars and, eventually, trucks.
The real challenge of reducing fossil fuel use is to make it happen quickly. The faster the reductions occur from sources like electricity generation, the more time people will have to work on the hard targets like airline travel.
-
Paul W at 13:51 PM on 13 July 2014Deep Decarbonization Pathways Project (DDPP) Presents Interim Report to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon
@Larry E 3.
It's seems that they have chosen a global approach. It has some limitiations but the one that you mention I dont see as being absolute.
If very cheap power were available then the route from sea water for jet fuel costs 90 cents USD on land and 1.20 USD on the ocean capital costs) according to the US navy. They have very cheap power on their nuclear powered ships.
We could have that on land during storms with losts of wind power when power costs go negative or with advanced nuclear. The ARC nuclear battery technology puts fuel at a fixed price for 15 to 20 years.
That means that we could keep on with air travel growth and not blow out CO2 emmisions. We just need non fossil jet fuel.
Could we get the anti nukes to relent? I'm more skeptical about that issue.
Could we get onging support for wind with out attacks from fossil fuel intersets under cutting their supports?
I see those as more difficult than non fossil fueled air travel.
Progesss forwards is a lot easier technically than getting the extrems in politics to agree and work together. I think that is the rate limiting step to limiting global temperature.
-
Ken in Oz at 11:36 AM on 13 July 2014Today’s Solar Power ‘Revolution’: Powerful Insights from Energy Experts
I actually find it a postive that a relatively small amount of solar PV is making fossil fuels more expensive - by shaving the lucrative peak off daytime demand. A relatively small amount of storage will shave the lucrative peak off evening demand. (Isentropic's PHES is aiming for an initial, most lucrative, 3 hours worth of storage) Ultimately a 'free' - or at least an open - energy market will see fossil fuels forced into intermittency and, already bearing a burden of costs from having overcapitalised for demand that never eventuated, they will cost more again from the losses of their most profitable demand periods - enough to become the carbon price signal that Cap and Trade, Carbon Tax or other pricing mechanisms have been resisted so strongly, have so far failed to be. The value and cost of that shrinking, intermittent output will rise to compensate, but the value of energy storage options will become increasingly apparent, especially if the climate consequences of emissions are no longer ignored on an 'out of sight, out of mind' basis.
A broad acceptance that emissions from fossil fuels represent an unacceptable burden of consequences and costs has to underpin energy policy and energy research and energy investment. Using lowest cost fossil fuels as the benchmark and constraining limit on energy prices, when those costs do not include that externalised burden of consequences means those constraints are false and deceptive. Yet, regionally, periodically and with a large measure of predictability, they are no longer the lowest cost option; something that should have been foreseen, had low cost enewables not been dismissed out of hand as an impossibility.
The least emissions - rather than simply the least cost - options for dealing with intermittency will still require preferential policy assistance but there may be, ironically, some requirement to assit power companies to retain some interim fossil fueled backup capacity whilst staving off untimely bankruptcy.
-
Larry E at 09:10 AM on 13 July 2014Deep Decarbonization Pathways Project (DDPP) Presents Interim Report to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon
The report does not give any consideration to long-distance travel, and without limitations on that we cannot succeed — even with the inadequate 2oC guardrail that the study relied on.
-
chrisd3 at 22:08 PM on 12 July 2014The power of pie-charts to communicate consensus
@MThompson: The literature supports both claims. Doran & Zimmerman find, by direct poll, that 97% of the scientists who are most expert in climate science support the theory.
Now, bloggers and others (including both Obama and John Kerry) do go wrong when they say "97% of scientists agree." That is not true. The percentage is very high (e.g., 82% of Earth scientists, according to the D&Z survey), but it's not 97%.
The most accurate phrase is probably something like "97% of climate science experts."
Prev 700 701 702 703 704 705 706 707 708 709 710 711 712 713 714 715 Next
