Recent Comments

Prev  733  734  735  736  737  738  739  740  741  742  743  744  745  746  747  748  Next

Comments 37001 to 37050:

37001. One Planet Only Forever at 14:39 PM on 25 April 2014
       Is a Powerful El Niño Brewing in the Pacific Ocean?
       

       Bill @8,

       A better explanation for the sharp drop of global average temperature in 1999 from the 1998 peak was the rapid formation of a significant La Nina condition in mid-1998 (as you would see in the NOSS ONI table at:

       http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ensostuff/ensoyears.shtml.

       However, I agree that 1999 and 2000 remained high compared to the previous temperature history even though a strong and long acting La Nina had developed.

37002. One Planet Only Forever at 14:33 PM on 25 April 2014
       Is a Powerful El Niño Brewing in the Pacific Ocean?
       

       Bill@8.

       
       You are interpretting the ENSO/ONI information correctly. The warm El Nino effect typically starts in one year and continues into the next year.

       What Rob@3 points out can also be seen. The global average surface temperature increase lags behind the formation of the warmer El Nino ocean surface. It takes time for the warmth from the equator to spread its effect to a larger area of the globe.

       So 1997 was a record compared to the previous temperature history, but the bigger bump of that El Nino was in 1998.

       As I indicated in my earlier post, this greater bump of the second year is seen in most of the El Nino periods.

37003. billthefrog at 10:06 AM on 25 April 2014
       Is a Powerful El Niño Brewing in the Pacific Ocean?
       

       Oops!

       Paragraph 2 of my comment above should have read...

       "... increasingly IMprobable with each passing year..."

        

       See what I mean about each passing year????

37004. billthefrog at 10:01 AM on 25 April 2014
       Is a Powerful El Niño Brewing in the Pacific Ocean?
       

       Kevin @1
       We seem to be looking at different data as regards the assertions in your opening paragraph. When I look at the ENSO data provided by NOAA, (http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ensostuff/ensoyears.shtml) the “super el Nino” seems to pretty well straddle both 97 and 98. If I am looking at the wrong dataset, or if I am managing to misinterpret it, can you (or any one else) please point me in the right direction? 

       Regarding temperatures, if I am reading the data correctly (increasingly probable with every passing year) each of the three main terrestrial datasets (HadCRUT4, NCDC, Gisstemp LOTI) all seem to show 1997 as having been a record year for global (land + ocean) temps – albeit very briefly. Similarly, 1999 at the time ranked either 3rd or 4th (again very briefly) in each of these datasets. 

       The fact that 1997 was a record breaking year has simply been forgotten by many owing to the way it was summarily eclipsed in 1998. The two year rise (96-98) is unparalled in both the gisstemp and NCDC datasets, and is the second biggest (behind 1876-78) in the HadCRUT4 dataset. Similarly, although 1999 now seems relatively “cool”, it wasn’t really at the time. The huge drop from 98 to 99 was due to the fact that 98 was such an outlier, rather than any chilliness inherent in 1999.

       If the timing is right (note the "if") then I think another outlier of the scale of 1998 could easily appear sometime in the not-too-distant future.

       That is NOT a prediction for this year, just a thought for the future.  

       Cheers    Bill F

37005. wili at 05:31 AM on 25 April 2014
       Is a Powerful El Niño Brewing in the Pacific Ocean?
       

       "Week beginning on April 13, 2014: 401.53 ppm
       Weekly value from 1 year ago: 397.52 ppm" http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/weekly.html

       So there's been a rise of over 4 ppm for last week over the same week last year.Is that going to be the new rate of increase--4ppm/year? Or is this a seasonal blip above the longer term rate of ~1.5 to 2.7ppm/year we've seen in so far this century?

       ftp://aftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/products/trends/co2/co2_gr_mlo.txt

       Note that the only reading in annual increase above 2.7ppm before this century was 1998 at 2.93. This, of course, was the year of the last Super-El-Nino. If we are moving toward a new Super-El-Nino this year, I would expect the annual increase this year to be considerably above 3ppm--maybe even well above 4, since we are already seeing this level of rise with the El Nino not quite officially started yet?

37006. robert way at 05:18 AM on 25 April 2014
       Wave goodbye to the stadium wave - global warming still caused by humans
       

       Although the stadium wave is undoubtedly an incorrect hypothesis - I consider the counterintuitive result of the recent Mann et al (2014) study to require greater scrutiny. In particular this result does not
       
       
       The issues with the method are related to the input parameters of the energy balance model he uses, the accuracy of the forced components used and finally the lack of any spatial figures. IF this method is appropriate then he should be showing a spatial amplitude map and it should have the same spatial pattern as would be expected based on theory behind the mechanisms. This is somewhat a glaring omission. I think he provides a compelling case that the detrended AMO is inappropriate but I think his solution is theoretically appropriate but in practice is not sufficiently justified based on the paper. I also did not like that he cited Booth and other aerosol forcing AMO studies without citing their rebuttals which were compelling. The argument that the AMO was positive during the 1990s and is negative currently is at odds with the spatial distribution of temperature changes over that period - particularly in the Labrador Sea. In this area the temperatures are warming faster than projected by GCMs and were faster during the mid-century and cooler during the 1970-1995 section. This temperature history for one of the main nodes of the "amo" is at odds with the history implied by Mann's version. I suspect many of the experts on the physical mechanisms behind the AMO will disagree strongly with his new reconstruction of this index.

       I think any "new definition" of an AMO needs to be supported by more than just time series analysis - there needs to be a physical understanding of the underlying mechanism. A point made in Climate Dynamics last year. Did they check to make sure these results made sense with respect to the underlying mechanism? Did they relate it to salinity and sea ice ? As a mode of NH temp variation it is possible there is some relation to this index - however the AMO which is traditionally referred to by authors was not cooling over the past 15 years.

37007. bjchip at 01:41 AM on 25 April 2014
       Ice age predicted in the 70s
       

       Please correct the caption to figure 1
       

       Figure 1: Number of papers classified as predicting global cooling (blue) or warming (red). In no year were there more cooling papers than warming papers (Peterson 2008).
       
       

       Of these 15 years, 14 had more warming than cooling papers
       

       
       Looking at the data on the bar graph it appears that there is one year (1971) in which there were 2 cooling papers to the single warming paper.  

       It may be insignificant, but it is an error.  A suggested correction.

37008. keithpickering at 01:15 AM on 25 April 2014
       Is a Powerful El Niño Brewing in the Pacific Ocean?
       

       Rob,

       I'd also like to draw your attention to a completely mathematical treatment of ENSO prediction, based on (elliptical) Mathieu functions rather than (circular) sine waves. You can find it here:

       http://contextearth.com/2014/02/21/soim-and-the-paul-trap/

37009. Tom Curtis at 23:10 PM on 24 April 2014
       2014 SkS Weekly Digest #16
       

       A close look at responsible investment in coal:

        

       h/t to Coby Beck

37010. Tom Curtis at 19:09 PM on 24 April 2014
       Climate dollars and sense – preventing global warming is the cheap option
       

       Poster @11, I based my comment on the link which you provided in support of your claim that "There is discussion elsewhere ... that a significant comment in the IPCC report was not included by Mr Nuccitelli".

       As it happens, the article to which you linked did not discuss Dana's article (not even in comments).  Nor did it mention the figures you quoted, instead stating misleadingly that "..strong climate policies would be more expensive than claimed as well – costing upwards of 4% of GDP in 2030, 6% in 2050, and 11% by 2100".  The first of those figures lies outside the 95% confidence interval of the costs of mitigation.  All are the rounded upper bounds of the 95% confidence interval so that Lomborg in effect argues that the IPCC states the costs will be equal to or higher than (upwards of) the upper bound of the 95% confidence interval of the IPCC stated values.  Given that he quotes the 84% (+/- 1 stdev) range for costs, this biased presentation looks like straight forward, and intentional deception.  (Apparently, however, something you do not, or at least did not have a problem with, while having a problem with Dana's correct figure.)

       In any event, as you did not draw the figures you quoted from your cited source, it was a reasonable assumption that you drew them from your sources cited source, ie, table SPM.2, or the text which states:

       "Under these assumptions, mitigation scenarios that reach atmospheric concentrations of about 450ppm CO2eq by 2100 entail losses in global consumption—not including benefits of reduced climate change as well as co‐benefits and adverse side‐effects of mitigation19—of 1% to 4% (median: 1.7%) in 2030, 2% to 6% (median: 3.4%) in 2050, and 3% to 11% (median: 4.8%) in 2100 relative to consumption in baseline scenarios that grows anywhere from 300% to more than 900% over the century. These numbers correspond to an annualized reduction of consumption growth by 0.04 to 0.14 (median: 0.06) percentage points over the century relative to annualized consumption growth in the baseline that is between 1.6% and 3% per year."

       So, to summarize, based on the information you gave it was a reasonable assumption that your knowledge of the figures came directly from the IPCC report, and hence came with a direct statement of the near equivalence of Dana's figure.

37011. Poster9662 at 16:55 PM on 24 April 2014
       Climate dollars and sense – preventing global warming is the cheap option
       

       Thanks Dana for your rapidreply, it is appreciated.  Tom Curtis@9, no I didn't already know and furthermore I'm not charging Mr Nuccitelli with anything at all.  Others have done that and it is that  I was asking about.  I very much appreciate that  Mr Nuccitelli had the courtesy to answer my questions both civilly and rapidly.  His attitude is markedly and refreshingly different from the attitudes of others in the blogosphere dealing with Climate Change.

37012. One Planet Only Forever at 15:07 PM on 24 April 2014
       Is a Powerful El Niño Brewing in the Pacific Ocean?
       

       ktam @1,

       There is a correlation between the SOI and the El Nino that can be seen when you compare the values of each. A consistent strong negative monthly SOI was the start of the 1997/98 event. But noteable El Ninos have formed with fluctuating SOI values at this time of the year.

       The following site presents a table of monthly updated averaged SOI values.

       http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/current/soihtm1.shtml

       And this one presents the monthly updated tracking of the ONI (El Nino/La Nina)

       http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ensostuff/ensoyears.shtml

       When an El Nino forms it generally gets established by midyear and extends into the following year.

       Also, the change to negative SOI occurs in advance of the El Nino forming (as mentioned by Rob @3, and as presented in the article).

       And the year after the formation of the El Nino is often the one that gets the biggest temperature increase above the ENSO Neutral condition.

       Reviewing the NASA/GISS land-ocean average temperatures alog with the ONI:

       • 1997/98 El Nino created the 1998 bump.
       • 2009/10 El Nino bumped 2010 more than 2009
       • 2006/07 bumped 2007 more
       • 2004/05 bumped 2005 more
       • 2002/03 bumped both years but it also got established a couple of months earlier than the others I mentioned and started with more consistent negative SOI monthly averages.

       This one, if it forms, could create a bigger 2015 bump or a big bump of both years.

       How big the bump will be will depends on a number of difficult to predict factors, so it is a "watch for it" situation as mentioned in the article.

37013. Tom Curtis at 11:51 AM on 24 April 2014
       Climate dollars and sense – preventing global warming is the cheap option
       

       TonyW @6, in fact costs of mitigation will be greater if it is unexpectedly difficult to integrate renewable energy into the future energy equation.  The middle section of table SPM.2 (see my post @9) deals with that issue, and shows that the cost of "limitted solar/wind" penetration in the market will increase the cost by 6%.  Far more concerning is the 138% cost if Carbon Capture and Storage proves untenable (as is widely believe by many at SkS).  However, even with that increase, fully calculated the cost of not mitigating will exceed the cost of mitigating to keep temperatures below 2-3 C.  Further, there is a real risk of catastrophic effects from warming that raise the expected cost of unmitigated warming well above any reasonable estimate of the cost of mitigation.

37014. Tom Curtis at 11:41 AM on 24 April 2014
       Climate dollars and sense – preventing global warming is the cheap option
       

       Poster @7, the table Lomborg refers to is this Table SPM.2:

       

       You will notice (and I suspect, already knew) that Dana quoted the compounding cost for restricting CO2eq rises to 450 ppmv, for which you quote the values at 2030, 2050, and 2100.  For comparison, the compounding cost at 2030 is 1.2%, at 2050 it is 2.4%, and in 2100 it is 5.5%.  That is, it underestimates the cost for the earlier years, but over estimates the cost in the later periods.  In all years, however, it is not statistically significantly different from the specific values.

       Your charge is that Dana incorrectly claims that WG3 does not mention annual losses, but Dana is correct.  It does not give the annual values for any other than the three years stated.  That only allows a direct comparison if the year in which the global temperature increases to 2.5 C above recent values is one of those three years.  In order to make a direct comparison, the IPCC would need to report the costs for each level of temperature increase, correlate that to the specific years to give a cost in each year, and provide a cost in each year for mitigation, and then integrate the two.  Indeed, done properly they would repeat that several thousand times in a monte carlo procedure allowing for potential error in estimates of temperature increase, cost at a given temperture and costs of mitigation to generate expected costs of the options - a procedure which would show higher expected costs from global warming than simply comparing mean values. 

       Finally, the cost due to an increased temperature is simply a raw cost.  That cost, "the equivalent of less than one year of recession" according to the Lomborg article you linked to, can be expected to have its own impact on economic growth - but does not include any such impacts.  Logically it cannot include such impacts as it is a cost at a particular temperature without refference to the year in which it occurs, or temperature trajectory over time to that year.  Consequently the actual cost of not mitigating will be that 0.2-2% plus any impacts on economic growth from from the raw impacts.  As, by Lomborg's own admission, the impact at 2.5 C is comparable to a years recession, and that impact will be felt every year, that means with BAU by the end of this century the impact of global warming will be equivalent to being in permanent recession - ie, a complete stagnation of economic growth.

       As Lomborg's own words show, he is simply playing the old game of comparing incomparables, and hiding the actual costs of global warming.

37015. dana1981 at 11:03 AM on 24 April 2014
       Climate dollars and sense – preventing global warming is the cheap option
       

       Poster @7 - the criticism is ridiculous because I had included the figures in question in the Lomborg quote immediately preceeding the second Lomborg quote in question.

       That said, I didn't explain the apples and oranges point well - Christian @4 and Tom @5 have hit on the key point, and I've revised the post to clarify it and also included it in the myth rebuttal now linked at the bottom of the post.  That being, limiting global warming to a further 2°C is not 'no action', it requires substantial mitigation efforts.  Lomborg tries to sweep this under the rug by only looking at costs in 2070, ignoring the accelerating costs thereafter if we 'do nothing'.  Not to mention that the 2% is likely an underestimate and the 6% likely an overestimate, as the IPCC explicitly stated.

       This is why you need to go beyond the numbers in the IPCC reports and look at models like PAGE to determine the economically optimal path, and they conclude it's around 450-500 ppm CO2, which is a scenario that requires substantial mitigation.

37016. Poster9662 at 10:35 AM on 24 April 2014
       Climate dollars and sense – preventing global warming is the cheap option
       

       There is discussion elsewhere (http://tinyurl.com/oxthlrc)  that a significant comment in the IPCC report was not included by Mr Nuccitelli.  The section in question gives assessments of median values of annual economic loss in 2030 0f 1.7%, 3.4% in 2050 and 4.8% in 2100.  In his comments Mr Nuccitelli noted that the IPCC report did not mention annual economic losses when clearly it does.  Can Mr Nuccitelli explain why the relevant data that disagrees with his comment was not mentioned? Is he being unfairly maligned?  My comment is not off topic, is not political, is not ad hominem and gives the relevant reference so seems to meet the standards set by Skeptical Science.  

37017. TonyW at 08:39 AM on 24 April 2014
       Climate dollars and sense – preventing global warming is the cheap option
       I don't think it's possible to estimate either the cost of mitigation or the cost of not mitigating. The idea that all fossil fuel use can stop with only a slight hit to growth seems bananas. It would take an unreasonable step of assuming that alternative energy sources (and resources for other non-energy use of oil, gas and coal) can fairly smoothly slot in for the fossil fuels, at whatever level the global economy "needs" at whatever scale is required. This seems nonsensical. Not that we shouldn't mitigate given that a world of 3C warmer (or even 2C warmer) would appear to become unliveable in many places (including some island nations wiped out). We're already seeing damaging effects of climate change.I think we need to concentrate on the impacts of unmitigated warming, for why we don't want to get there, whatever the cost. In the end, economic growth has to stop on a finite planet (and the limits appear to be getting very close), so the costs of mitigation, in terms on the impact on growth is not a good way to look at the issue. In any case, if serious mitigation does get underway (something I'm not holding my breath for), it will soon become clear that it will be a bigger burden on the global economy than these low estimates. At that point, mitigation actions would cease unless the case is iron-clad for why we have to continue with such efforts to avoid an even worse ending.
37018. Doug Bostrom at 08:34 AM on 24 April 2014
       Is a Powerful El Niño Brewing in the Pacific Ocean?
       

       Entirely apart from the matter of climate change, my understanding of El Niño seems quite a lot  better than it was  a few minutes ago. Thanks!

37019. Rob Honeycutt at 04:04 AM on 24 April 2014
       Is a Powerful El Niño Brewing in the Pacific Ocean?
       

       Kevin @1...  But surface temps usually lag by about 6 months, so if we see an El Nino this summer or fall, we'll likely see a corresponding rise in surface temperature starting in 2015.

37020. phaeretic at 03:53 AM on 24 April 2014
       Is a Powerful El Niño Brewing in the Pacific Ocean?
       

       The included chart of the BOM's 30 Day Moving SOI is out of date by over two weeks. The one you posted is showing a value of -12.3, but for the past couple weeks, that value has been steadily climbing and after topping out at +2.2 a few days ago, it currently sits at +1.9.  The latest is available here:
       http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/#tabs=SOI

       Moderator Response:

       (Rob P) Yes, I'll update that later on today - the post was written a few weeks ago. I updated the first GIF animation, but forgot about the SOI image.

       A new burst of westerly winds has started up within the last 4-5 days, so it would be expected to shift the SOI sharply negative once again, and push the subsurface warm water to the surface when the new kelvin wave reaches the east. Typical transit time from Papua New Guinea to the South American Pacific coast is about 2 months.  

37021. ktam at 02:47 AM on 24 April 2014
       Is a Powerful El Niño Brewing in the Pacific Ocean?
       

       I think it needs to be made clear that even if we have as signficant event as the 1998 El-nino it is less likely to have such a dramatic impact on the calendar year temperature record as the impact looks to be spread across 2 calendar years. The impact of the 1998 El-nino was almost perfectly timed with the calendar year, as can be seen when you notice that 1997 and 1999 were both relatively cool.

       A new temperature record is quite possible as it is during any El-nino event nowadays, it just wont be a stand out record in the way that 1998 was.

       Kevin

37022. frankbr at 01:23 AM on 24 April 2014
       Debunking Climate Myths from Politicians
       

       I hope you extend your database to include Australians. " Maurice Newman, the chairman of the Prime Minister's Business Advisory Council discusses climate change and says that there is little correlation between carbon dioxide and the warming of the planet."

       http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2014/s3990190.htm

       "MAURICE NEWMAN: They all come up with flawed methodologies. So we don't pay any attention to that. We know that there are a whole host of scientists out there who have a different point of view, who are highly respected, reputable scientists. So the 97 per cent doesn't mean anything in any event because science is not a consensus issue. Science is whatever the science is and the fact remains there is no empirical evidence to show that man-made CO2, man-made emissions are adding to the temperature on earth. We haven't had any measurable increase in temperature on earth for the last 17.5 years. If you look back over history, there's no evidence that CO2 has driven the climate either. So I know that this is a view which is peddled consistently, but I think that the edifice which is the climate change establishment is now starting to look rather shaky because mother nature is not complying."

       " I just look at the evidence. There is no evidence. If people can show there is a correlation between increasing CO2 and global temperature, well then of course that's something which we would pay attention to. But when you look at the last 17.5 years where we've had a multitude of climate models, and this was the basis on which this whole so-called science rests, it's on models, computer models. And those models have been shown to be 98 per cent inaccurate."

37023. Tom Curtis at 01:00 AM on 24 April 2014
       Climate dollars and sense – preventing global warming is the cheap option
       

       Christian Moe @4, strictly it should be compared to the costs of warming at BAU (RCP 6.0 or 8.5) minus the costs of warming to 1.4 C.  1.4 C because temperatures are referenced to 2000 levels (strictly, 1986-2005) rather than to preindustrial levels (taken as 1850-1900) in the report, so that the 2 C target relative to pre-industrial levels often quoted becomes a 1.4 C target relative to 2000.  That then becomes complicated because the costs sited are strictly for 2.5 C relative to 2000.  That compares to projected temperatures of 2.2 +/- 0.5 C (1 SD range) in 2080-2100 for RCP 6.0; and 3.7 +/- 0.7 C for RCP 8.5.

       So, for RCP 6.0, estimated costs are slightly less than those stated in the report.  For RCP 8.5, they are greater than the estimate by an amount larger than the estimated costs are greater than the costs at the 2 C above pre-industrial mitigation target - so that overall the costs cited are an underestimate of the cost of not mitigating.  That is because costs increase more than linearly with increased temperatures.  Worse, the costs estimates are more likely to underestimate costs than to over estimate them (according to the IPCC), which I consider a considerable understatement.  Further, temperature projection risks are greater on the high side than on the low side.  Therefore the expected value of the risks is substantially understated in any event.

       So, you are correct in your intuition, but because of the poor composition of the reports on these relevant points, direct comparison is simply impossible.

37024. Christian Moe at 00:04 AM on 24 April 2014
       Climate dollars and sense – preventing global warming is the cheap option
       

       OP: The challenge is that these two numbers aren't directly comparable. One deals with annual global economic losses, while the other is expressed as a slightly slowed global consumption growth.

       Even more basically: The WG3 estimate is essentially about the mitigation cost of limiting warming to roughly 2 °C. Shouldn't it be compared to the losses from the warming that mitigation avoids, then? That is, shouldn't it be compared to the losses that would be incurred due to warming beyond 2 °C, and not at about 2 °C, which is what WG2 estimates?

37025. JohnB6223 at 19:51 PM on 23 April 2014
       Toward Improved Discussions of Methane & Climate
       

       This has got to be the most confusing article I (a layperson) have ever read on SkepticalScience.

       Having carefully read Chris Colose's critique of Natures article "Vast Costs of Arctic Change", and the many informative comments that follow, it appears that there are many countering views.

       Can the interpretation of such a wealth of data be so indecisive on the likelihood of catastrophic methane emmision from the Arctis's thawing permafrost and warming oceans?

       I have followed the excellent articles presented on Arctic News for some time, and have always found their graphics and data to be most informative, objective and (apparently?) of the highest quality. 

       Paul Beckwith has responded to SkepticalScience (dated 9 Aug 2013) here, in which he appears to raise many valid points of dispute.

       He opens with this para:
       Paul Beckwith: The above two paragraphs set the tone of this discourse. AMEG (Arctic Methane Emergency Group) is unjustly framed in this introduction as a fringe group using such terms as “overhype”, “beyond realm of plausibility”, “overblown scenarios or catastrophes”, “planet-wide emergency”. This is the complete opposite of the truth...

       Could SkepticalScience revisit this ussue please, to clarify what appears to me to be many valid points of interpretive disagreement.

37026. Harry Twinotter at 19:44 PM on 23 April 2014
       Skeptical Science consensus paper voted ERL's best article of 2013
       

       Well done, an excellent pay back for the hard work.
       
       I noticed Maurice Newman (chairman of the Australian Business Advisory Council) disputed the "concensus" figures on ABC Lateline last night - it's good to be noticed.

37027. chriskoz at 19:32 PM on 23 April 2014
       Climate dollars and sense – preventing global warming is the cheap option
       

       Riduna@2,

       As is the case in long term policies, the sense of Lomborgs' advocacy depends on the point of view. Lomborgs takes a point of view that only the economy until 2070 does matter anything beyond is not worth considering. Considering that most of us will not be alive at the date in question (I certaqinly won't), the issue becomes more of inter-generation ethics rathrer than economics. It was nicely (although rather vulgarily) described in Australia's Coal Policy to which Lomborgs undoubtedly subscribes.

37028. Timothy Chase at 15:07 PM on 23 April 2014
       Skeptical Science consensus paper voted ERL's best article of 2013
       

       Congratulations!  I believe this is well-deserved.

       Given the role of free market ideologies in all this, I believe it is worthwhile to keep in mind the following points:

       • The fossil fuel industry receives massive subsidies.
       • Power utilities are typically government regulated monopolies, and both solar and wind that generates power sold back to the grid offers a more decentralized approach - an approach that is already supported by some libertarian and tea party groups.
       • Carbon taxes can be revenue neutral, and with an "across the board" approach in which carbon taxes are entirely offset by reductions in other taxes there is no reason why they can't be implimented on a local level while the regions that apply them remain competitve with those that have yet to do so. (British Columbia seems to be doing quite well at $27.88 per ton with corresponding reductions in income tax.)

       Personally?  I was a libertarian of sorts (Objectivist, actually, for about a decade and a half), and I am still quite sympathetic towards that sort of world view.  I also recognize industrial climate disruption as the single greatest issue facing humanity of our time.  Failing to address it will make people impoverished and desperate, and the freedom of the individual tends to be greatly discounted under such conditions.

37029. Riduna at 10:30 AM on 23 April 2014
       Climate dollars and sense – preventing global warming is the cheap option
       

       Dana – Lucid as ever. That’s quite a fruit salad you’ve got there, apples, oranges and bananas.

       And talking of bananas, I have never been able to understand Lomborgs’ persistent preoccupation with the strange notion that its not only OK to do nothing when it comes to mitigation but desirable. Rather like his misplaced advocacy for global warming and claim that increased CO2 emissions are beneficial for us - at least until 2070.

       Clearly, both contentions are nonsense, unsupported by climate science and unsupportable by economics, or for that matter common sense.

37030. KR at 04:12 AM on 23 April 2014
       Climate dollars and sense – preventing global warming is the cheap option
       

       I've had this very discussion on a few of the pseudoskeptic blogs (such as here), pointing out that mitigation is far less expensive than adaptation to climate change under a Business as Usual (BAU) economic strategy. And that if the pseudoskeptic is concerned about economic consequences, BAU is probably the worst choice possible. 

       The usual responses are sputtering (often accompanied by links to something by Lomborg, whose work has issues such as discussed above) or changing the subject. Sigh.

37031. jsam at 23:43 PM on 22 April 2014
       Skeptical Science consensus paper voted ERL's best article of 2013
       

       Better than a bloggie, I guess. :-)
       
       Well done all.

37032. CBDunkerson at 21:33 PM on 22 April 2014
       2014 SkS Weekly Digest #16
       

       The objection that distributed solar users get to use the electricity grid while paying less than other customers (or nothing if they generate more power than they use) is theoretically valid. The 'proposed solutions' to this 'problem' have all been utter nonsense.

       As Michael noted, ALEC was pushing for monthly fees of between $50 and $100 in Arizona. At those rates we'd have to believe that a majority of every electric bill goes to grid maintenance rather than power generation. Even the $5 monthly fee Arizona settled on is almost certainly more than the utilities are spending on grid maintenance... $5 * ~100 million residential households in the U.S. = $500 million per month. That'd work out to $6 billion per year spent on grid maintenance, and that's not counting non-residential customers.... yet most of the U.S. grid equipment is more than a century old and huge sections go offline for weeks every time a major storm rolls through.

       The reality is that actual grid maintenance costs are miniscule. The utilities should split out a flat charge (I'm guessing less than a dollar per month) to apply to every customer and reduce the cost per unit of electricity accordingly. Nice simple solution to the 'problem' requiring no legislative action at all. They aren't doing that because the 'problem' is purely a pre-text for attempts to place absurd extra charges on solar. If they succeed then they will simultaneously slow the growth of solar and steal profits from people who do install solar power on their homes.

       That being said... there is now a real chance that in a few more years the cost of solar and/or electricity storage will have fallen enough that customers will be able to go off grid entirely and still save money. Either solutions like that or states which refuse the 'maintenance charge' nonsense will lead to solar becoming extraordinarily successful in some areas... which will eventually result in voters demanding the same nearly everywhere.

37033. CBDunkerson at 21:13 PM on 22 April 2014
       Breathing contributes to CO2 buildup
       

       Of course, increasing human population requires occupation of land which would otherwise have been occupied by other life forms. The 'extra sequestration' in humans would thus also be offset by a decreased sequestration of carbon in non-human life forms. The net result would vary by the type of land taken over by the human population, but (as Tom noted) the values in play are so small that the entire exercise is meaningless.

37034. michael sweet at 19:52 PM on 22 April 2014
       2014 SkS Weekly Digest #16
       

       Tom,

       There will undoubtedly be long arguments about what is a fair rate for net metering.  The article linked references the attempt by ALEC and the Koch's to make solar users pay up to $100 just to link to the net.  Since this is more than many people pay for delivery of electricity that seems much too high.  The Koch's are trying to make solar uneconomic by raising the net metering.  As rkrolph says, in Claifornia the net metering is so low that I have heard (no cite) of many peoploe installing smaller systems so that they produce no excess electricity since the utility makes all the money on it.

       The utilities have realized that solar is cheaper than buying their product and they are trying to keep out solar by increasing fees.  Hopefully voters will wise up to this strategy.

37035. rkrolph at 14:58 PM on 22 April 2014
       2014 SkS Weekly Digest #16
       

       I read the Times article and thought it was pretty misleading in saying that solar users are getting a big advantage and attractive prices for power they produce using net metering.  I have solar panels on my roof in the LA area, and the cheapest rate I have to pay is 13 cents per kWh for Tier 1.  But for any net excess my panels produce that goes out on the grid for other consumers to use, I am only credited at the wholesale rate of around 3 cents/kWh.  I don't get how that is taking adavantage of the utility company. 

37036. Chris McGrath at 11:53 AM on 22 April 2014
       Skeptical Science consensus paper voted ERL's best article of 2013
       

       Congratulations John and the SkS team.

37037. Bob Loblaw at 10:24 AM on 22 April 2014
       Breathing contributes to CO2 buildup
       

       Tom:

       No dispute about the significance of the increased carbon sequestration.

       The storage approach to determining the source/sink question has a huge advantage over the flux approach, however. The flux approach can be argued to have relatively large error bars on individual components, which make it difficult to determine the net result when the individual fluxes are much larger than the change in storage. The storage approach is a direct measure of the net result.

       As an objection, the "humans breathing" is an utter fail.

       The same bogus argument is applied to the denial that the rise in atmospheric CO2 is the result of burning fossil fuels, when pseudoskeptics compare the fossil flux flux to natural fluxes. The "humans breathing out CO2" fails for the same mass balance reason you expressed in your Climate Change Cluedo post a couple of years ago.

37038. Tom Curtis at 07:10 AM on 22 April 2014
       Breathing contributes to CO2 buildup
       

       Bob Loblaw @28, using the 3 billion increase in human population since the 1970s, and the global average adult mass of 62 Kg, we can calculate that human population growth represents a sequestration of not more than 0.034 Gigatonnes Carbon.  That is, it represents less than 0.0007% of anthropogenic emissions over that period, and indeed, less than 0.6% of annual industrial emissions.  The numbers are irrelevant except as trivia, but when you work them out it becomes absolutely plain that all these "objections" to AGW have never been worked out.  They are mere thought bubble objections - and yet they are treated seriously by many so-called skeptics of AGW.

37039. Bob Loblaw at 05:07 AM on 22 April 2014
       Breathing contributes to CO2 buildup
       

       Tom's statement that

       "Therefore, the direct effect of the increase in human population is only to sequester an amount of carbon equal to the amount of carbon in the bodies of the additional population."

       is key. I was going to point this out, but taking a quick glance over the existing comments I see that I already made such a comment two years ago, at #18.

       Ignore the fluxes in and out - the change in storage is all you need to look at to know if humans population growth is a biological carbon source or sink.

37040. climatehawk1 at 05:01 AM on 22 April 2014
       Skeptical Science consensus paper voted ERL's best article of 2013
       

       Great stuff.  I'm wondering whether there is some way to illustrate the fact that it's a coterie of fossil-fuel-funded propaganda outlets who are driving the "debate," rather than a stubbornly ignorant public.  I guess the graphic that has appeared elsewhere comparing the 97% with the percentage of Republican members of the U.S. Congress who concur with AGW does some of the job, but perhaps something that looks formally at pronouncements or reports of Heartland, CEI, Cato and others?  

37041. CBDunkerson at 02:31 AM on 22 April 2014
       Skeptical Science consensus paper voted ERL's best article of 2013
       

       Nice! Apparently they also have a '25 highlights of 2013' with this study at the top of the list. Some interesting reading in those other articles and the papers citing the consensus study.

37042. Paul D at 01:27 AM on 22 April 2014
       Skeptical Science consensus paper voted ERL's best article of 2013
       

       Congratulations.

       Nice one!

37043. Magma at 01:05 AM on 22 April 2014
       Skeptical Science consensus paper voted ERL's best article of 2013
       

       Ouch. Members of the Deniosphere aren't going to like this.

       Why must the world gang up on them so?

37044. ranyl at 18:46 PM on 21 April 2014
       The consequences of climate change (in our lifetimes)
       

       "For me human behaviour is the most frightening aspect of climate change."

       Yes, but is it possible to change this?

37045. VictorVenema at 08:53 AM on 21 April 2014
       Of Averages and Anomalies - Part 1A. A Primer on how to measure surface temperature change
       

       Tristan, yes. If you have a measurement of the minimum and maximum temperature, they are simply averaged to get the daily mean. 

       In the time before minimum-maximum thermometers were invented other averaging schemes have been developed where temperature measuremens were made at 2, 3 or 4 fixed hours and then averaged to get the daily temperature. For example, in Germany it was costum to measure at 7, 14 und 21 hours. And then compute the average temperature from Tm = (T7+T14+2*T21)/4.

       Nowadays we have automatic weather stations that measure frequently and the average temperature is computed from 24 hourly measurements or even measurements every 10 minutes.

       Changes from one method of computing the mean temperature to another can produce biases. How large such biases are can be computed from high frequency measuremens, for example from automatic weather stations.

        

37046. Tom Curtis at 08:11 AM on 21 April 2014
       2014 SkS Weekly Digest #16
       

       michael sweet @1, the issue of feed in tarrifs is slightly vexed. With to high a feed in tariff, it pays the person installing solar panels to change their energy consumption habits so that they consume most electricity at night time. Indeed, when we were sold a solar panel at our house (in Qld, Australia), we were actively encouraged to do so by the salesman, in order to maximize our return from the solar panel. The effect, if we had followed his advise, would be to minimize the mitigation advantage of the solar panel. It also maximized the costs to the distribution network. On the other hand, any feed in tariff lower than the mean wholesale price of electricity to the power company represents an implicit subsidy of the power company (and indirectly of other consumers) by the person buying the solar panel. Indeed, any price less than the wholesale price of renewable power, where that is marketed at a premium, represents such a subsidy.

       It follows that ideally the feed in tariff should fall between the wholesale and retail prices of electricity. That does represent a subsidy of the person with the solar panel installed - but that is a good thing. We want to subsidize renewable power to mitigate climate change. Treating all subsidies as bad is equivalent to saying that the market should determine all prices - and the unrestrained market has a good chance of turning the Earth into a place that cannot sustain advanced economies, or a global population in excess of 2 billion. Therefore pointing out that a pricing structure represents a subsidy is not, by itself, an argument to remove that pricing structure.

       Having said that, if there is large scale take up of solar panels, distribution costs will represent an ever larger proportion of electricity company costs. The suggestion that bills should be broken into two components - a connection fee plus a rate on electricity consumed is reasonable, provided it is done to all customers, not just those installing solar power. If done, however, it should be legislated that profits from the connection fee not exceed those from the electricity tariff; and that companies not providing a discount on the connection fee to households using solar panels also not be permitted to count the solar power generated by that household towards renewable energy targets. Lacking the first, companies will have a perverse incentive to inflate the connection fee so as to deflate the impact of the tariff on their total earnings. Absent the later, or some equivalent measure, the effective subsidy for domestic solar power will deflate as it is taken up by more and more people.

37047. Tom Curtis at 07:45 AM on 21 April 2014
       Breathing contributes to CO2 buildup
       

       hlpump @26, Vitousek et al (1986) calculated that with a population of 5 billion, and assumed global average caloric intake of 2500 kcal per person, per day, that humans directly consume 0.76 Pg of organic material (0.35 PgC) annually.  The global populatin has since expanded to 7.2 billion, and and global average caloric intake is now estimated as 2940 kcal per person per day (2015 estimate).  Scaling accordingly, humans now directly consume 1.29 Pg of organic material (0.59 PgC) per annum.

       That represents just 0.5% of terrestial (not global) net primary activity, and 10.6% of emissions from fossil fuel use and cement manufacture.  Of course, all of that Carbon is drawn from the atmosphere originally, as noted in the OP.  You argue that the increase (< 0.025% of net terrestial productivity, and < 0.53% of antropogenic industrial emissions) represents a true increase in emissions.  However, the CO2 emitted in human respiration is still drawn from the atmosphere first by photosynthesis.  Therefore, the direct effect of the increase in human population is only to sequester an amount of carbon equal to the amount of carbon in the bodies of the additional population.

       TD (inline to your comment) notes that the impact of increased human population is to increase substantially anthropogenic emissions both through industrial (fossil fuel and cement manufacture) and non-industrial (Land Use Change) emissions.  That is correct.  Indeed, the increased sequestration in human bodies is almost certainly exceeded by reduced sequestration in forests.  However, all of those changes are already included in the accounting of anthropogenic emissions.  They are not additional, unaccounted for changes.  And they are not changes from human respiration.  

37048. michael sweet at 06:57 AM on 21 April 2014
       2014 SkS Weekly Digest #16
       

       Today (April 20) the Los Angeles Times ran an article about conservatives, including the Koch brothers, trying to get net metering chnaged to make rooftop solar less economical.  The utilities have figured out that rooftop solar challenges their business model and are trying to charge people exorbitant amounts of money to be connected to the grid.  These arguments will undoubtedly continue for a long time.  Progressive countries, like Germany, will lead the implementation of disbursed generation.

37049. hlpump at 02:45 AM on 21 April 2014
       Breathing contributes to CO2 buildup
       

       Your argument is not wrong.  It does, however, fail to account for the population explosion from 1800 thru today (from approximately 1B persons to now over 7B persons).  While the CO2 is in a different form when exhaled from the human body (roughly 5-6% of total exhaled volume), it requires time for each molecule of CO2 to be absorbed and returned to plants, oceans, etc.  How much time is actually a variable based on numerous factors.  That is one of the primary changes that has taken place over the last 200 years.  Now with that said, should we all (including China and India) be responsible with how we manage our common resources?  Of course!  Let's just not take the approach that some have taken for the sake of publicity, wealth and fame (we all know who I'm talking about).  Rather, let's work together to ensure our home can be enjoyed for all the years to come.

       The other huge factor that I don't have time to go into depth about today are solar cycles.  It's a very big deal and it should be included in all our equations when we responsibly discuss global climate conditions.  Here's the bottom line - we need to learn as much as we can about the things that affect our environment.  But none of us have a handle on the enormity of components that make up the final equation.  Responsibly pursuing knowledge (not reacting to actors and politicians) is where we will find our long term solutions.  Let's start there and see how we do.

       Moderator Response:

       [TD] The counterargument to the myth does indeed account for the increased population's CO2 exhalation, because the increased population's food grown also has increased to feed those people.  But you are correct that increased population increases net greenhouse gas emissions, because of large fossil fuel use to produce, process, transport, and cook/prepare the food for consumption, and in some cases replacement of carbon-sequestering plants (e.g., old forests) with cropland. 

       Regarding the Sun:  The Sun's "cycles" indeed are included in all our equations.  As a start, read the counterargument to the myth "It's the Sun."  After you read the Basic tabbed pane there, read the Intermediate and then the Advanced tabbed panes.  If you want to comment on that topic, do so over there, please.

37050. Alun at 16:09 PM on 20 April 2014
       Global warming can't be blamed on CFCs – another one bites the dust
       

       Unusually, I chose to read Mr Lu's paper to see what it was all about. I must commend the Skeptical Science authors on their restraint in assessing the paper and commenting on it. I have never trusted papers that resort to emotive hyperboles in describing the state of knowledge and their findings. They always smack of ego exceeding intellectual capacity and rigour and almost always indicate serious amounts of confirmational bias. Snide negative commentary about others (yes Albatross his paper is much like his rebuttals) just reinforce my lack of trust.

       Mr Lu clearly has a favourite topic which is CFCs and he seems to think they rule the world and much of what goes on in it. His purpose appears to be more one of proving just how important they are - and by inference how important he is because he knows more about them than others do. A clear case of FIGJAM.

       I found his comments about CFC processes related to ozone reasonably well argued and supported. I haven't taken the time to check out all the references though, but this appears to be his area of speciality and possibly expertise.

       The leap from these analyses to climate impacts is less than impressive. He makes the most basic, amateurish mistake of implying causality from statistical correlation. I am quite surprised that any journal with aspirations of professionalism could allow this type of reasoning to be presented as scientific - especially one that purports to be about physics.

       Lu's proposition is entirely dependent on his bald statement that the warming effect from CO2 is saturated. The statement looked suspicious and the arguments and analyses presented to support the statement are so clearly and obviously flawed that all following inferences must be rejected. So I was pleased to hear that the proposition was debunked long ago.

       Mr Lu may well know lots about CFCs, but he needs to improve his methods of analysis and inference.

Prev  733  734  735  736  737  738  739  740  741  742  743  744  745  746  747  748  Next