Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 787 788 789 790 791 792 793 794 795 796 797 798 799 800 801 802 Next
Comments 39701 to 39750:
-
Tom Curtis at 18:41 PM on 7 January 2014Talking Trash on Emissions
wili @1, the article does not describe the total CO2 released by decomposition of solid waste from households. Rather it quantifies the average mass of CO2 emitted from all activities as a ratio to the average mass of solid waste generated by households. Reducing our solid waste will probably reduce out CO2 emissions, but not by 40 kg per kg of solid waste reduction. Indeed, necesarilly by conservation of mass, not by more than 3.7 kg CO2 per kg solid waste, although the CO2 equivalent may be higher in that some of the waste may be released as methane.
If you want a good series of articles on how to personally reduce CO2 emissions, Shrink is a good place to start. Others probably have other usefull recommendations.
-
STEVE B at 18:16 PM on 7 January 2014There is no consensus
Having now read the entire survey, a question arises whereby the 97% figure eventuated, I was wondering why there wasn't a 100% agreement of the 32.6% of abstracts that thought humans influenced climate? Also the 66.4% of the 11944 abstracts looked at, that expressed no position on AGW seem to have been dismissed out of hand. My reading of the survey of all the climate abstracts, puts the consensus on AGW at more like 33%. Why is it that the abstracts studying climate held no position, are not included in the overall result? I am genuinely mystified as how a figure of 97% endorsing AGW, when 66.4% of abstracts of 11944 held no position at all on AGW.
If this too hard to explain here you can privately email me so I can have a clear understanding of what is going on.
-
wili at 17:23 PM on 7 January 2014Talking Trash on Emissions
Thanks for this excellent piece. I like the ability to hone in on a particular activity and assign a particular GW value to it. Is there a program to expand this to other high-impact behaviours?
It may also be useful to have an over-all number for the typical first world consumer (those of us who Kevin Anderson has said must start reducing our total carbon emissions by at least 10% a year starting this year for any chance of staying below 2 degrees).
If we take the general idea that 20 percent of the population is doing about 80% of the polution, and combine that with the atom bomb figures you have above, does it work out that, on average, every such top consumer (probably including anyone who would be reading this) has 'dropped' the equivalent of about one Hiroshima bomb worth of energy into the climate system in about the last decade? Would that at least be about the right order of magnitude?
-
rugbyguy59 at 17:18 PM on 7 January 2014The Weekly Standard's Lindzen puff piece exemplifies the conservative media's climate failures
"Lindzen would have us believe that tens of thousands of climate scientists around the world are all tossing their ethics aside and falsifying data in order to keep the research money flowing"
He would also have us believe that governments are actively encouraging scientists to come up with data confirming AGW so that they can impose taxes and bring in the one world government (or world communism...or both) Yet when I look around the world, despite allegedly creating this massive consensus, I see few governments actually behaving in a way this little conspiracy theory would expect. Canada's government supressing scientists. Bush administration suppressing scientists. Australia's Conservatives win election with anti-do anything platform. Who is really acting on all this "manufactured" climate science?
It's just another example of the anti-science crowd ignoring reality. -
Luvz2Fly at 15:02 PM on 7 January 2014There is no consensus
You want to see consensus? I think this is pretty much the definition of consensus!
ALL OF THESE Organizations below have independently concured in formal statements (linked at bottom) that CLIMATE CHANGE IS REAL!
(side note: I would like to see the list of dissenting and denying individuals and organization along with their credentials)*Academies of science (general science)
Since 2001 34 national science academies, three regional academies, and both the international InterAcademy Council and International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences have made formal declarations confirming human induced global warming and urging nations to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases. The 34 national science academy statements include 33 who have signed joint science academy statements and one individual declaration by the Polish Academy of Sciences in 2007.
(listed in detail at bottom)
*American Association for the Advancement of Science as the world's largest general scientific society
*Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies
*United States National Research Council
*Royal Society of New Zealand
*The Royal Society of the United Kingdom
*African Academy of Sciences
*European Academy of Sciences and Arts
*European Science Foundation
*InterAcademy Council As the representative of the world’s scientific and engineering academies,
* International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences
* American Chemical Society
* American Institute of Physics
* American Physical Society
*Australian Institute of Physics
* European Physical Society
* The American Geophysical Union
*American Society of Agronomy (ASA),
*Crop Science Society of America (CSSA),
* Soil Science Society of America (SSSA)
*European Federation of Geologists
*European Geosciences Union
*Geological Society of America
*Geological Society of London
*International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
*National Association of Geoscience Teachers
*American Meteorological Society
*Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
*Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
*Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
*Royal Meteorological Society (UK)
*World Meteorological Organization[edit]
*American Quaternary Association
*International Union for Quaternary Research
*American Astronomical Society
*American Statistical Association
*Engineers Canada
*The Institution of Engineers Australia
International Association for Great Lakes Research
*Institute of Professional Engineers New Zealand
*The World Federation of Engineering Organizations
American Association of Wildlife Veterinarians
*American Institute of Biological Sciences.
*American Society for Microbiology
*Australian Coral Reef Society
*Institute of Biology (UK)
*Society of American Foresters
*The Wildlife Society (international)
*Albania: Academy of Sciences of Albania
*Armenia: Armenian National Academy of Sciences
*Australia: Australian Academy of Science, *Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering,
*Australian Academy of the Humanities, Academy of the Social Sciences in Australia, National Academies Forum
*Austria: Austrian Academy of Sciences
*Belarus: National Academy of Sciences of Belarus
*Bosnia and Herzegovina: Academy of Sciences and Arts of Bosnia and Herzegovina
*Bulgaria: Bulgarian Academy of Sciences
*Canada: Royal Society of Canada
*Cambodia: The Royal Academy of Cambodia
*People's Republic of China: Chinese Academy of Sciences, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, Chinese Academy of Engineering, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences
Croatia: Croatian Academy of Sciences and Arts
*Czech Republic - Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic
*Denmark: Royal Danish Academy of Sciences and Letters
*Estonia: Estonian Academy of Sciences
Finland: national academies based on language. The Finnish Academy of Science and Letters
*France: the Institut de France groups together five academies, including the Académie française
*Germany: Leopoldina
*Greece: Academy of Athens
*Hong Kong: Hong Kong Academy of the Humanities
*Hungary: Hungarian Academy of Sciences *Ireland: Royal Irish Academy
*Israel: Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities
*Italy: Accademia dei Lincei for sciences, *Japan: The Japan Academy
*Macedonia: Macedonian Academy of Sciences and Arts
*Netherlands: The Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences
*Norway: The Norwegian Academy of Science and Letters
*Pakistan: Pakistan Academy of Letters, *Pakistan Academy of Sciences
*Poland: Polish Academy of Sciences, Polish Academy of Learning
*Portugal: Academia das Ciências de Lisboa
*Republic of China (Taiwan): Academia Sinica
*Romania: Romanian Academy
*Russia: Russian Academy of Sciences
*Scotland: Royal Society of Edinburgh
*Serbia: Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts
*Slovenia: Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts
*Spain: The Royal Academy
*Sweden: Swedish Academy for language, Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
*Thailand: Royal Institute of Thailand
*Turkey: Turkish Academy of Sciences
*Ukraine: National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine
*United Kingdom: the Royal Society
*United States: National Academy of Sciences (NAS), the National Academy of Engineering (NAE), the Institute of Medicine (IOM), and the National Research Council (NRC).
*Vatican City: Pontifical Academy of SciencesLinks to statements at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
-
Tom Curtis at 13:40 PM on 7 January 2014The Weekly Standard's Lindzen puff piece exemplifies the conservative media's climate failures
Magma @6, the total actual forcings from greenhouse gases to 2010 are 5% less than those in Hansen's scenario B. Therefore scenario B is the appropriate comparison.
You in fact quote why it is appropriate to offset Lindzen's prediction. He claimed that the total warming to 1989 was 0.1 C, approximately half a degree less than the observed increase. That appears to have been incorportated in the graph, which presumably converges around with observations 1880. Arguably the error in prediction should be kept distinct from the error regarding observations, but graphing that by using a 30 year baseline centered in 1989 would just produce a graph showing Lindzen to be totally disconnected from reality (at least in 1989). That would probably make it a fair representation.
-
michael sweet at 13:17 PM on 7 January 20142013 SkS Weekly News Roundup #52
David,
In your docment you appear to calculate CO2 absorbtion by assuming all the water pumped will saturate with CO2. You then calculate rain generated by assuming all the water will evaporate. This seems to me to be in direct contradiction. How will it work?
You sugggest pumping 150,000 m^3 per hour up 6,000 feet. How will this energy be generated without CO2? Where will the excess salt go? How many kilotons of salt will there be? How thick will it be after one year of continuous spraying?
Ocean currents are generally saturated with CO2 as they downwell near Greenland and Antarctia. The flow of these currents is defined in Wikipedia as: "Ocean currents are measured in sverdrup (sv), where 1 sv is equivalent to a volume flow rate of 1,000,000 m3 (35,000,000 cu ft) per second." It is common for currents to have a flow of 10-50 sv. It would take 100 hours for your hose to pump one seconds worth of a moderate15 sv current. That is about 360,000 times less volume. It seems to me that your plan is less than a drop in a bucket compared to a moderate ocean current and would not have a measurable effect on CO2 sequestration.
The currents that flow in the ocean are almost infinitely bigger than anything man can build. You need to show that you are dealing with the correct order of magnitude. It seems to me that you are about 1,000,000 times too small. If you pump 1,000,000 times faster you will use up all your alkaline soil too fast.
Most geoengineering schemes fall over when the unbelievably immense scale of the operation is accurately calculated.
-
Magma at 12:30 PM on 7 January 2014The Weekly Standard's Lindzen puff piece exemplifies the conservative media's climate failures
Some corrections, I think, for the Hansen versus Lindzen figure.
Scenario A in Hansen et al. (1988) had greenhouse gas emissions increasing steadily at 1.5% annually; Scenario B held them steady at 1988 levels, and Scenario C had them decreasing after 2000. Presumably the caption should read "Hansen's scenario A has been modified..."
As for Lindzen's 1989 talk, the material relevant with respect to a 30-year prediction appear to be the following two sentences:
"I personally feel that the likelihood over the next century of greenhouse warming reaching magnitudes comparable to natural variability seems small" and
"The entire [1880 to date] record would more likely be saying that the rise is 0.1 degree plus or minus 0.3 degree."
And why is Lindzen's (quasi)prediction offset below the GISTEMP record by 0.3 to 0.4 °C? If anything, his talk would have called for a steady continuation of the mean 1958-1989 temperature with small amplitude random annual variations added.
-
Magma at 11:46 AM on 7 January 2014The Weekly Standard's Lindzen puff piece exemplifies the conservative media's climate failures
That's certainly a fascinating hypothesis that Lindzen offers--many thousands of climate scientists plus uncounted numbers of opportunistic hangers-on among the geophysical, geochemical, paleontontological, atmospheric, etc., communities earning their livings by telling governments what they least want to hear.
In that spirit I think I'll go down to my local bank and demand a large unsecured loan for purposes that (as I will explain) are none of its business.
-
barry1487 at 10:42 AM on 7 January 20142014 SkS Weekly News Roundup #1
I have some sympathy to Matthew's concerns, which for me go beyond this article, and it's good to see someone else giving them voice. If SkS does not necessarily endorse the news items, what is the basis for selection if not that the news items are all on-message? Skeptical articles don't make the cut, presumably because they lack scientific accuracy, but that is the case with mainstream reporting, which almost always sensationalise the facts.
More recent emphasis on messaging at SkS is understandable. It may ruffle some of us old-timers who have lurked for the pleasure of attending a site that emphasises scientific accuracy, but our demographic is already persuaded
-
johnthepainter at 10:04 AM on 7 January 2014The Weekly Standard's Lindzen puff piece exemplifies the conservative media's climate failures
The appropriate scientist to compare with Galileo would be Tyndall or Arrhenius, not one who advanced arguments in support of a understanding of the world generally accepted by the public.
-
gws at 08:10 AM on 7 January 2014Methane emissions from oil & gas development
Yes, the most straightforward way to do that is looking for co-emitted ethane (and/or higher alkanes not coming from natural sources) as described above. Another method is investigating the 13C/12C carbon isotopic ratio of methane, which is lower for natural sources from methanogenesis than for the fossil fuel source (basically pyrolysis). All studies I discussed used either one or both of these methods to distinguish between sources contributing to the (excess) atmospheric methane mixing ratio investigated.
-
scaddenp at 07:48 AM on 7 January 2014Methane emissions from oil & gas development
Distinguishing between biogenic methane sources, (soils, termites etc) and fossil methane is straightforward. I would assume studies of fugitive emissions have done this?
-
davidnewell at 07:27 AM on 7 January 20142013 SkS Weekly News Roundup #52
Tom Curtis @ 13
Thank you for your critique.
The schema I propose at WWW.Earththrive.net does not specify which of three possibilities of spraying might be the most successful among the following:
1. Direct spraying of ocean water above the playas, through variable-flow nozzles
2. Induction of alkaline surface waters through aspirators into the spray
or
3. Using the thousand foot or greater head of the imported ocean water to generate electricity to spray the ponded bypass water on the playas into the air.
This latter (#3) technique addresses your valid point, I believe.
The structure, then, would be spraying water with a pH of greater than 8.5 into the air, and there would be little or no dissolved CO2 in it. It will become increasingly saline over time, but the pH will remain high.
(The ocean water would be dumped into a surface impoundment with a pH that would not allow carbonic acid formation; and a host of cations to effect carbonation.)===============
Of course the total CO2 through the example spray fan is “out of reach” as regards what could be sequestered, but it gives an idea of what % effectiveness would be needed to make the venture worthwhile.
===============
The secondary benefit of downwind cloud and precipitation enhancement will arise no matter what size the droplets are which are expressed through the spray nozzles. With an evaporation rate of over 50 inches of water per year, and with an essentially flat playa surface on which containment ponds can be bermed, the variables are totally controllable.
=============
You are correct, I have not demonstrated that the technique will work. There is included in the document the lab and field tests that are needed, and I am seeking an independent third party to provide a quote on their accomplishment.
================
Please advise if this does not address your point.
David
PS: If you can raise "David Archer", I'd love to have his input, as well.
i mean, it's only a great idea if it works.. ":<)
Moderator Response:[PS] Fixed link
-
davidnewell at 06:38 AM on 7 January 20142013 SkS Weekly News Roundup #52
one planet @ 10
There appears onely one slight possibility that the mindset of mankind might change away from the self-involved and self-destructive illusion of separation from the environment which underlies the misdeeds you refer to.
When even "the rich" see that everything is going away: that their future is "in common" with the peasants and oppressed:
perhaps then there will be movement towards the common weal.
I cannot say what motivates me in my comittment towards this environmental movement. This body will be long dead before things get serious. Yet the comittment is without precedent, in my experience of "me".
Maybe whatever "I" am part of is changing. If I have changed, maybe everything will change.
A weak and spurious argument for hope..
-
gws at 06:08 AM on 7 January 2014Methane emissions from oil & gas development
deweaver @24
Sure, more research on termites, especially their carbon cycle interactions in the tropics would be useful. However, it appears very unlikely that they produce as much methane as cattle globally. The consensus numbers on termite methane emissions are above (20 Tg), the highest number I have come across was 50 Tg, so unless the population numbers grow dramatically, it will remain a <=10% source.
Methanotrophy, the reason for methane uptake in soils, is relatively well researched. Global methane cycling models include the term, and all biosphere-atmosphere methane exchange models do as well. The sink is estimated to represent <10% of the global sink to the atmosphere, likely around 5%. Methanotrophy locally limits emissions from deeper soil sources, but at a deposition velocity of only 0.01 cm/s at best even if applicable to 50% of Earth's land area, you would get a steady state methane mixing ratio of around 4 ppm at the very best if relying entirely on soil uptake. Can you boost that? Sure: restore more carbon to soils and you increase methanotrophy.
Human wastefulness seems like a given. So a 5% loss rate of produced gas does not seem unreasonable to me. Typical short-term thinking (and profit) keeps most of us from making the "right" long-term (and profit) decisions. Why do you think gas companies did or would do any differently?
-
MThompson at 05:45 AM on 7 January 20142014 SkS Weekly Digest #1
I like the "Toon" this week, except it looks like the denier is the last one standing - How did we loose?
-
MA Rodger at 04:58 AM on 7 January 2014The Weekly Standard's Lindzen puff piece exemplifies the conservative media's climate failures
"More importantly, he's been wrong about nearly every major climate argument he's made over the past two decades." Are you sure? I remember his BS featuring large on British TV 25 years ago. So it's at least the past three decades. And even if he did start his attacks on the proponents of AGW less than 30 years ago, we can still call it 'four decades' - 1980s, 1990s, 2000s & 2010s.
-
chrisd3 at 04:10 AM on 7 January 2014The Weekly Standard's Lindzen puff piece exemplifies the conservative media's climate failures
Dana, the Hansen vs. observed temperature portion of the chart is really useful. Have you written this up in greater detail anywhere (methodology, etc.)?
-
deweaver at 04:08 AM on 7 January 2014Methane emissions from oil & gas development
gws:
Our estimates of cattle biomass and food conversion effieciency with associated methane production is fairly well known. We do understand the microbiology of starting with anaerobic fermentation of cellulose to hydrogen and acetate, with the cow living on the acetate as a carbon source, and the hydrogen being detoxified (toxic to the fermenters) by reacting (using different bacteria) with CO2 to produce methane.
I have not seen good studies on termite food conversion efficiencies, and estimates of standing biomass and food consumption are SWAGS at best (Scientific Wild Ass Guesses). Remember there are many species of termite with different microbiological ecologies, whose efficiency depends upon the ability of the gut to prevent O2 diffusion in a very small high surface area/volume ratio reactor. Any O2 in an anaerobic microbiological reactor will destroy the food energy value by producing heat, CO2 and water from the cellulose. We are now obtaining good data on the microbiomes in people and cattle, but termits are far down the list of priorities.In the tropics, only termites and ruminants can utilize cellulose for energy, and most of the tropic plants produce a lot of cellulose. If they produce proteins, some insect will eat them, and they live in nutrient-deficient soils with limited NPK, but an infinite amount of CO2 to create cellulose. Plants in the tropics don't have winter to kill off non-termite species of insects (who can't digest cellulose). The plants have a survival choice of becoming primarly non-digestable (cellulose/lignin) or toxic or both.
I have also not seen any discusssion about methane losses to bacteria in the soil and on surfaces. When you look at microbiological oxidation of methane to CO2 and H2O, the rates are dependent upon concentrations at low concentration ranges. There is an Smin (minimum substrate concentration) where the methane oxidation rates in aerobic soils goes to zero, but above that concentration the rate increases rapidly as the bacteria utilize a high volume food source.This increasing rate of oxidation as a function of concentration can result in the biological oxidation rate increasing much faster than the concentration, making methane concentations in the atmosphere self-limiting as bacteria use the methane as a food supply. I have seen very little relevant research on biologial oxidation of methane.
I would be suprised that 5% of the methane being produced is being lost. Flow measurement and billing systems automatically determine BTU content and flow rates to fractions of a % accuracy. When 5% of 100 billion is 5 billion dollars, most businesses don't leave that much money on the table.
-
kanspaugh at 03:11 AM on 7 January 2014The Weekly Standard's Lindzen puff piece exemplifies the conservative media's climate failures
I think the author nails it when he says that Richard "Tricky Dickey" Lindzen has made a career of being wrong. I'd say his contrarian nature is psychopathological except that I've noticed he tends always to be contrary in a way that pleases deep-pocketed industries like Big Oil and Big Tobacco. So just a cynical servant of corporate interests with all the ethical integrity of a mob lawyer. A fit object for our scorn, not our pity.
-
gws at 02:23 AM on 7 January 2014Methane emissions from oil & gas development
newairly @21: There is no single best answer on this since electricity production (or other natural gas uses) efficiencies vary. A more detailed monograph on this question was linked in the article, and the interactive graph is here.
An example for an instantaneous switch: Methane leaked has to be compared to the amount of carbon dioxide it would otherwise have produced had it not been released but instead burned to replace coal, so the molar GWP is what is needed for the calculation. Assuming a typical 40% higher efficiency of electricity production, 2.5 times less CO2 is emitted from a natural gas relative to a coal-fired power plant. If f is the fraction of methane leaked, then
GWPmol x f - 2.5 x (1-f) = 0
for the break-even point you asked about. Using a 20-yr GWPmol = 31 (aka 86/2.72), this gives f approximately equal to 7.5%.
Which GWP value you choose is less of a scientific, but rather political or moral question. The advantages of using natural gas over coal are obvious. Replacing coal by natural gas for energy production while minimizing methane leaks will reduce greenhouse gas emissions very significantly.
However, the important thing to realize is that this cannot be the final answer since natural gas is still a fossil fuel that is sure to run out eventually. Is its extensive use going to hamper the development of renewables? Are those advocating the "bridge" going to point out to the industry that they ought to stop exploring/mining in a few decades?
-
John Hartz at 02:00 AM on 7 January 20142014 SkS Weekly News Roundup #1
Matthew L and Poster:
By design, the Weekly News Roundup is a compilation of news articles from around the world which address some aspect of climate change be it scientific and/or policy related. The News Roundup is provided as a service to our readers who like to keep their fingers on the pulse about what's happening and how it is being communicated.
The headlines and text for each article included in a news roundup are verbatim from the article as originally posted and/or published.
The inclusion of an article in the news roundup does not equate to SkS endorsement of the article.
-
Tom Dayton at 23:59 PM on 6 January 20142014 SkS Weekly News Roundup #1
Terranova, that issue was addressed by HotWhopper recently.
-
Terranova at 21:21 PM on 6 January 20142014 SkS Weekly News Roundup #1
The mangrove paper totally ignores the pertinent fact that recovery efforts for the mangroves were put in place after hurricanes destroyed a large portion of them. That fact needs to be accounted for.
-
Poster9662 at 21:01 PM on 6 January 20142014 SkS Weekly News Roundup #1
But surely "Australia burns" is a localised not a global event and could be classed more as weather than climate. In reality on a global scale 2013 was the fourth hottest year behind 1998, 2010 and 2005. So why in 2006-09 and 2011 and 2012 were there not concerns of global colling? I am well aware of the trend lines but taking one year in one country in isolation, which is what is happening here, doesn't really have much validity in a global context. For example the residents of the US could using the same logic, say that as in 2013 (and for the first time since 1993) there were more record cold temperatures than record hot temperatures (USA Today January 2 2014 http://tinyurl.com/lfkwpel) that global cooling rather than global warming is occurring
-
Matthew L at 20:51 PM on 6 January 20142014 SkS Weekly News Roundup #1
OK, let me try again. In the first item on this page you use the phrase "while Australia burns" because it had its warmest year and had forest fires. To me this is literally inflammatory on a site supposedly devoted to science. We could discuss how forest fires are due to more direct human intervention than rising CO2, such as poor woodland management, building housing in forest areas and arson, but my main point is that one year of data is weather not climate. Other parts of the globe had cold years - this site bills itself as putting forward the science behind experiencing "global warming" (note no denial of this fact) and it is not scientifically valid to imply that one warm year in one part of the world is indicative of anything other than unusual "weather".
In fact this very point is made in the item headed "Dear Donald Trump...". Yes, Winter does not equal global cooling any more than one warm year in one place (or the whole globe for that matter) equals global warming.
Having been a long time reader and supporter of this site as an excellent resource on the science I am being increasingly put off by the increasingly political tone and lack of balance. Please put this post up so that I can see whether others agree or disagree with me.
-
martin3818 at 20:35 PM on 6 January 20142014 SkS Weekly Digest #1
"Coming soon on SKS - 4C possible by 2100"
@Robin Painting
Thanks in advance for covering this exciting new paper. I have read quite a bit about it, but I still haven't really understood how mixing of the lower troposphere dries the boundary layer, nor why this mixing will increase when surface temperatures increase.
It would be very helpful if you could explain this bit in detail for dummies like me.
-
michael sweet at 13:31 PM on 6 January 20142013 in Review: a Productive Year for Skeptical Science
Bienh,
I think the reference you want is Solomen et al a popular science description is here. They describe variable stratospheric aerosol reducing the temperature about 0.05 C in the past decade. I did not understand how they separated anthropogenic and natural aerosols. Google is your friend.
They claim that aerosols will significantly affect temperatures in the future and models will be inaccurate if this is not considered (seems obvious enough to me).
-
Riduna at 12:53 PM on 6 January 20142014 SkS Weekly News Roundup #1
Wol – “any tax on carbon which doesn't have a direct impact on the end user (the electricity consumer) is hardly effective”
Wrong. The Gillard governments carbon tax was imposed on major emitters, such as electricity generators, in a bid to induce them to reduce their emissions and in this regard it was successful. Why would you tax end users of products, eg. electricity, rather than emitters?
-
2013 in Review: a Productive Year for Skeptical Science
Bienh - I don't know where you might have read that; GISS lists forcings up through 2012, and there is no such increase in stratospheric aerosols that might be coming from volcanic activity.
-
wili at 11:15 AM on 6 January 2014Hockey sticks to huge methane burps: Five papers that shaped climate science in 2013
Slight correction: In spite of what the graph seems to show, the last part of the abstract of the paper states specifically:
"Current global temperatures of the past decade have not yet exceeded peak interglacial values but are warmer than during ~75% of the Holocene temperature history. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change model projections for 2100 exceed the full distribution of Holocene temperature under all plausible greenhouse gas emission scenarios."
So we are now warmer than nearly any time in the Holocene, and getting warmer fast.
-
wili at 10:49 AM on 6 January 2014Hockey sticks to huge methane burps: Five papers that shaped climate science in 2013
The importance of the first graph is not just that it shows that the temps are rising faster than any other time in the holocene, but that we are now hotter than any time in the Holocene, which in turn means that we are hotter than any time in the last 110,000 years or so (since the Eemian Interglacial)--in other words hotter than any time since fully modern man evolved.
We have already created a world that our species has never experienced, and every day we are pushing it further outside of the range underwhich we have evolved as a species and as a civilization. So thanks for placing that important graph at the top. It should be at the top of every human's mind.
-
wili at 10:37 AM on 6 January 2014Hockey sticks to huge methane burps: Five papers that shaped climate science in 2013
jja, as the top graph shows, global temperatures had been dropping by about .1 degree C per millennium for the last 7000 years (since the 'Holocene Climate Optimum'). The Little Ice Age was just a little, probably regional, wiggle in that long decline.
So beyond your excellent point about industrialization bringing us out of that cold trend, we should point out that we should be some part of tenth of a degree _colder_ than that period by now. That we are instead some .8 degrees warmer, in that context, is even more shocking.
-
wili at 10:31 AM on 6 January 20142014 SkS Weekly News Roundup #1
Wol, dude, it would be oxymoronic if there was a tax on _everything_ which was then turned back. Taxing carbon only will constantly steer people away from carbon-intensive sources and toward conservation and non-carbon sources.
But ultimately we may be in agreement, since I see such taxes as only a very inadequate start toward what we much implement. Carbon emissions are essentially bombs that we are creating and dropping on our children. If we knew of someone manufacturing explosives that we knew they planned to explode in our children's schools, we would not just try to discourage them from doing so by modestly increasing their taxes--we would move as quickly as we could to banning the production of such threatening material. This is what we have to come to see fossil-death-fuels as--a clear and present threat to our very existence and that of our children.
-
Wol at 09:58 AM on 6 January 20142014 SkS Weekly News Roundup #1
>>The problems with Abbott government policies is that it not only repeals sensible, effective and very necessary measures aimed at curbing Australian greenhouse gas emissions<<
I would take you up on that: any tax on carbon which doesn't have a direct impact on the end user (the electricity consumer) is hardly effective. Taxing carbon and then giving a rebate to some is close to oxymoronic - the whole point is to make people aware of the tax and to reduce consumption.
Moderator Response:[JH] Unnecessary white space eliminated.
-
Bienh at 09:24 AM on 6 January 20142013 in Review: a Productive Year for Skeptical Science
I am looking for a reference I can use regarding "increased volcanic activity," as one of the reasons why there has been some apparent cooling, as I am writing a chapter on 'climate change denial' as unethical behaviour for a book on ethics (to be called "Engineering ethics: International and environmental stability"). I am sure I have read somewhere that "volcanic activity has been approximately twice as strong in the years 2008 to 2011 than between 1999 and 2002." I thought it was in WGIAR5 SPM, but I cannot find it there. I also keep reading that the Pinatubo eruption was stronger than anything later. I am aware of papers explaining other reasons why surface warming has been less than expected. By the way, an multi-disciplinary online course on "Climate change: challenges and solutions" by scientists from Exeter University and the Met Office starts next week. I just hope it helps to change the indifferent and hostile reaction towards the subject which has been so common after Climategate,
Bienh
-
chriskoz at 08:45 AM on 6 January 20142014 SkS Weekly News Roundup #1
william@4,
As sea level rises, the vertical restraint on coral growth is removed [...]. Note that corals kept up with the 6mm/year rise in sea level since the end of the last glacial and filled in 120m
I think your point hardly makes any difference. Climate change during interglacial transition was quite different to that caused by AWG today. The main issue to corals is ocean acidification. They can grow fast, even outgrow the SLR twice as fast as today, if they have favorite conditions.
Note that during the glacial transitions, if anything ocean became less acidic, because it released its CO2 into athmosphere as it warmed. Today, the opposite happens: C is dug out of long-term, 100Ma reservoirs, dumped into atmosphere and ultimately sunk into ocean as CO2. And it's happening at alarmingly fast rate, beyond any adaptation capability by biosphere. So, with OA rising fast, the corals will simply dissolve: they cannot grow, let alone keep up with the pace of SLR.
-
Synapsid at 07:03 AM on 6 January 2014Methane emissions from oil & gas development
Andy Skuce @ 18:
Thanks for the referral to the McKenna article--the very research we need is getting underway. This is the best news I've seen for a long time.
-
Riduna at 06:55 AM on 6 January 20142014 SkS Weekly News Roundup #1
The problems with Abbott government policies is that it not only repeals sensible, effective and very necessary measures aimed at curbing Australian greenhouse gas emissions (put in place by the Gillard government) but it also removes measures aimed at promoting development and use of renewable technology.
Abbott goes further by promoting, assisting and encouraging the development of new coal mines and subsidizing their operation. As if that were not enough, he has either abolished or withdrawn funding from scientific organizations with responsibility for independently informing the public on the science of climate change and government on appropriate targets for curbing greenhouse gas emissions. While embracing a target of reducing Australia’s CO2 emissions to 5% below 2000 emissions by 2020,
Mr Abbott ignores the science and scientists who call for a reduction of 25% by 2020. Apart from an ideological position, reluctance to adopt a more pragmatic target may have something to do with the fact the his proposals for Direct Action to reduce emissions simply can not deliver more than a 5% reduction over the next 6 years. Both politically and in terms of temperature,
Mr Abbott is likely find that by the time of the next General election (2016), the numbers are not on his side. His position on climate change in the face of a warming reality is barely tenable and will be considerably less so when he is forced to ask the electorate for their support.
-
jja at 06:51 AM on 6 January 2014Hockey sticks to huge methane burps: Five papers that shaped climate science in 2013
industrialization ended the little ice age
the next one would probably be a recent analysis by JPL regarding the little ice age:
skeptics are forever saying that the recent warming is caused by "coming out of the little ice age" without causation. If industrialization is the cause of "coming out of the little ice age" and industrialization is the primary force that increases atmospheric CO2 then, in this case, I am in full agreement with those "skeptics". -
william5331 at 05:32 AM on 6 January 20142014 SkS Weekly News Roundup #1
The demise of corals would be a double whammy. As sea level rises, the vertical restraint on coral growth is removed and Corals, which are a tad over 60% Carbon dioxide by weight, should be doing their part in sequestering CO2. Kill the corals (and the oysters and the pteropods and the foram's etc) and this sink ends. Note that corals kept up with the 6mm/year rise in sea level since the end of the last glacial and filled in 120m.
The cloud thing is interesting. If we kill the oceans will there be more methyl sulphide or less emitted into the atmosphere. (have I got the chemical right). This is an emission from algae and is supposed to help seed clouds. I suppose if the oceans are completely dead, there will be no more algae but in between, the oceans could be a slimy soup of algae with more of the chemical emitted???
mtkass.blogspot.co.nz/2012/02/carbon-sinks.html
-
John Hartz at 02:01 AM on 6 January 20142014 SkS Weekly News Roundup #1
@ Matthew L: Your post was deleted in its entirety becuase it constituted inflamatory sloganeering which is prohibited by the SkS Comments Plolicy. Please read the Comments Policy and adhere to it.
-
OPatrick at 21:40 PM on 5 January 2014Hockey sticks to huge methane burps: Five papers that shaped climate science in 2013
Tom, I agree - and, as you've said, similar can be said for the Sherwood paper and indeed probably for any of the papers listed above. Any single paper is only ever likely to be an incremental improvement in our understanding.
-
barry1487 at 14:33 PM on 5 January 20142014 SkS Weekly News Roundup #1
Took Abbott only a few days in government to axe the Climate Change Commission.
Dark days indeed.
-
newairly at 13:41 PM on 5 January 2014Methane emissions from oil & gas development
What is the level of fugitive emissions at which natural gas has the same global warming effect as coal when used for electricity production?
The comparison should use modern, efficient coal fired plants and the most efficient natural gas plants to give the best case scenario for "base load" electricity. Many comparisons I have seen use the 100 year GWP for methane, but this is not realistic. We should worry about a much shorter timeframe and the use of the 20 year GWP of 84, or even the 10 year which I think would be way over 100.
It would appear that if the warming over shorter time frames is used that fugitive rates as low as 1% would totally negate any benefit compared with coal. What happens in the next decade is crucial.
-
Tom Curtis at 12:39 PM on 5 January 20142013 SkS Weekly News Roundup #52
Doug @15, I cannot show you that you are wrong. Nor can I show you that you are right. The BAU trajectory depends on too many imponderables, such as the relative rate of improvement in the technology of fossil fuel extraction vs the rate of improvement of power output from renewable sources. Our civilization can probably struggle along long enough to exhaust all conventional sources of oil and gas. If technological development makes harnassing unconventional sources economic, then BAU will take us to a CO2 warming induced hell faster than projected by IPCC BAU models, which assume declining carbon intensity whereas a widespread conversion to non-conventional fossil fuel sources will see a significant increase in carbon intensity. Alternatively, renewable energy may become much cheaper faster than costs of extraction of non-renewable fossil fuels and of coal, in which case fossil fuel use will be driven to only a small part of the economy by economics alone. It is possible that neither will happen, in which case we are indeed heading for a peak-oil like catastrophe.
What I am confident of is that we need to load the dice in favour of renewable energy (including "renewable nuclear power", where that is defined as nuclear power in which disposed waste is rendered no more dangerous than the original ores) to have a chance of steering though to a winning solution. That is, we need a carbon price. But even an effective carbon price does not gaurantee we will avoid all of the other potential ecological catastrophes (for humans) we are facing.
-
Doug Hutcheson at 11:43 AM on 5 January 20142013 SkS Weekly News Roundup #52
Tom Curtis @ 14, you correctly state "continuing growth - bar an apocalypse - is locked in". I have to admit, I am expecting some kind of 'apocalypse' to reduce our population, whether it be resource wars, drug-resistant epidemics, or starvation triggered by economic collapse (perhaps due to the loss of economic growth following that other elephant in the room, peak oil).
What I do not expect is BAU to continue long enough for humaity to have time to burn all available fossil carbon: if I am wrong about that, we are doomed to even worse causes of negative population growth.
Sadly, I have no science to link to in support of my pessimism, just my reading of human nature and (dim?) awareness of some of our looming problems. Please show me I am wrong!
-
Doug Hutcheson at 11:25 AM on 5 January 20142014 SkS Weekly News Roundup #1
I have to admit, my anger at Abbott's climate science denialism has caused me to make somewhat intemperate comments, both here and at The Conversation. As I am not a scientist, speaking in anger does not reflect badly on my dispassionate professionalism, but it still disappoints me that I can be so provoked. This inexplicable blindness by Tony Abbott single-handedly caused my traditional Conservative vote to go to the Left in the recent Australian election and I see no prospect of it going back to the Right any time soon.
I am also encountering a surprising number of people who share my concerns: surprising, in that I live in an overwhelmingly Right wing electorate, where the National member enjoys a massive share of the vote.
Is it too much to hope that light is dawning in this benighted political landscape? Time will tell, but time is against us.
-
Tom Curtis at 11:10 AM on 5 January 20142013 SkS Weekly News Roundup #52
Oneplanetforever @9, the per capita Australian dietary intake is 13,350 kilojoules per day, which I am informed represents 4.28 times the global per capita sustainable food intake. Presumably, therefore, we must reduce our food intake to 23.4% of its current value, or 3,120 kilojoules per day. As it happens, that is 46.9% of the per capita daily dietary intake of Eritrea, the nation with the lowest per capita food intake in the world (first link). It is also only 35.9% of the recommended daily dietary intake. Put another way, if we are to live "sustainably" with regard to food intake, we must either all live in a permanent state of malnutrition, or we must reduce the Earth's population to less than 2.5 billion people. The later, unfortunately, is not an option in the near term in that population growth is governed by generational factors, so that continuing growth - bar an apocalypse - is locked in over the next twenty odd years at least.
I take dietary food requirements as it is fundamental, and stark. It places our dilemma up front. The dilemma is this:
1) We can accept the ecological constraints as an upper bound on our capability and aspiration that can never be exceeded; or
2) We can recognize the ecological constraints but find technological means to break through them.
The later means finding new means of food production that exceed the energy constraints of the biosphere without imparing the biosphere. One potential such method (already tried by the Russians) is growing food underground using energy from artificial sources. Another would be the staple of sci-fi, yeast (or algae) vats, again with energy from artificial sources. A third is increasing biological productivity be fertilizers. A fourth might be the direct production of the chemicals of food on an industrial basis. These all require the use of artifical energy. That may include solar energy from solar plants, as plants are very inefficient at producing food energy from solar energy. Alternatively, it may mean nuclear power. Because all these means require the large scale production of energy, all make more accute the issue of finding sustainable energy sources.
However, the former means permanently locking humans in an economic state no more advanced than feudalism. It requires switching to wide scale farming for a small population using limited energy sources. That will tie a far greater proportion of the Earth's population directly into food production, and make inefficient wide spread trade. High technological science (particularly in electronics and medicine) cannot survive in that sort of context. Nor can the existence of a substantial scientific class. That rout means, in fact, the end of the great experiment that began with the enlightenment.
Faced with that dilemma I do not hesitate to choose the second option. In one respect it is more risky, but from another perspecitive, the first option avoids risk by accepting complete defeat as a solution. By giving up our aspiration to be more than another disease ridden animal subject to the whims of nature and distinguished from other animals primarilly only by the fact that we are smart enough to bind ourselves in superstition; we have given up that which makes us human, and that which makes being human something special.
Granted, if we take the second option, we may fail. Our economy may become sustainable again by force majeure of nature, dropping us through catastrophe back to the situation to which you aspire, or even to extinction. But that failure matters not one wit to the planet, which will still have life, and still rebuild within a few millions of years (a trivial time period geologically) ecosystems as complex as any that exist now. It only matters to us now. So our choice is simple. Do we strive to be more - or settle for failure for fear that our striving will not succeed.
You have chosen failure. It is a choice I cannot accept.
Prev 787 788 789 790 791 792 793 794 795 796 797 798 799 800 801 802 Next
