Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 788 789 790 791 792 793 794 795 796 797 798 799 800 801 802 803 Next
Comments 39751 to 39800:
-
Alexandre at 23:24 PM on 19 December 2013IPCC is alarmist
I'd like to suggest a subject for a future post:
IPCC figures are virtually all limited to 2100. And all IPCC scenarios assume some emmission curbing at some point (ranging from slow to fast). That's unrealistally optimistic at this point, since there are no signs of leaving carbon reserves unexplored and buried undergound. They're even exploring new possibilities in hydrocarbons (like methane clathrate), and looking for new oil reserves (like in the Arctic).
If we burn every reserve we know, this paper below projects a 16 ºC warming eventually, making "much of the planet uninhabitable by humans".
"Climate sensitivity, sea level and atmospheric carbon dioxide"
-
Tom Curtis at 23:16 PM on 19 December 2013South Scores 11th-Hour Win on Climate Loss and Damage
Stephen Leahy @18, I assume you meant to link to this site, with regard to this research.
First, with regard to the research, it is implicit in a global emissions reduction at 3% per annum in which third world nations initially increase their emissions that developled nations must decrease their emissions, at least initially, faster than 3% per annum. I am not certain that they must do so at 8-10% per annum, a figure Anderson and Bows-Larkin arrive at by assuming the pattern of growth and reductions for China will be the same as for the rest of non-annex 1 nations. That seems implausible to me. Having said that, given the likely delay before actual emissions reductions are actually implimented, reduction rates much greater than 8% per annum are going to be required in practise so there is no point quibbling over whether developed nations need to reduce at 5 or 8% if they started reducing now.
Second, Anderson notes that:
"Reductions in emissions greater than 3-4% p.a. are incompatible with a growing economy (or so we’re repeatedly advised)."
That is plausible. Certainly the faster emissions must be reduced, the greater the economic cost. Emissions reductions at <2% per annum can probably limit the cost of reductions to the difference in the levelized cost of the energy sources in that new energy sources can replace obsolete power stations that need to be replaced or substantially refurbished in any event. Once reductions rates exceed the depreciation rate on energy capital, however, it involves an increasingly large recapitalization rate above that implied be the gradual obsolesnence of equipment and technology. At high emissions reduction rates it also involves an high social cost in rapid changes in employment patterns, and social patterns built around energy expenditure.
However, and third, the biggest threat to humans from global warming at low to medium increases in global temperature (2-4 C) is from the end of economic growth. At low levels of global warming, nearly all impacts of global warming can be reduced to economic losses for the globally affluent. For the non-affluent, the cost is not just economic, but comes in terms of lives lost or substantially harmed. As this will be the biggest impact, we are not justified (and will not succeed, regardless of justification) in pursuing a policy that mandates negative economic growth. So, if emissions reductions greater than 3% cannot be achieved without ending economic growth, we are condemned to a greater than 2 C world.
Consequently I hope that Anderson is wrong. I do not think that hope absurd. The US economy grew during WW2:
That growth was achieved, despite some personal privation, through a sustained national effort to enhance production to supply America's military needs. A similar effort today would be able to convert the US economy to a near zero emissions economy in about the same timespan as WW2. Given the political will, therefore, emissions reduction rates far greater than 10% per annum may be possible without ending economic growth (if not without economic disruption).
Of course, I do not know that that is possible. Consequently the most urgent thing today is to start reductions at sustained levels that do not preclude economic growth so that we are not put to the trial on the issue, and that if we are we are in the best position possible to deal with it.
-
scaddenp at 13:58 PM on 19 December 2013Why is Antarctic sea ice growing?
"I would think that the surface air temps and Ice loss are not largely related." yeah, me too! However you could argue that some ice loss (west Antarctica) is due loss of loss of buttressing ice-shelves which have be eroded by warmer waters rather than warmer air. However I note the East Antarctic ice loss corresponds with warmer air temperature. Indirectly this is a possible factor in sea ice increase due to more surface fresh water from the melt.
-
chriskoz at 13:35 PM on 19 December 20132013 SkS Weekly News Roundup #51A
Piece of news from Federal Aus politics:
Renewable energy target faces cut by Abbott
The Abbott-Hunt (env minister) duo, already famous for using selective quotes from wikipedia as their scientific consultation, now want Australia to become "affordable energy superpower" (whatever they mean by that) and apparently renweable energy is in the way of that dream. Meanwhile, the electricity demand is falling (due to people installing more and more rooftop PVs and drawing from them) and some utility companies are worried that the renewable target will be "overshoot"... Aha! That's why the target needs to be reduced: because Tony wants to keep said utility cmpanies in business.
I don't need to add that LNP went into the election with a promise to keep the renewable energy target & the 5% decrease in CO2 levels by 2020. A broken promise is emerging here. Who is going to pinpoint and expose that?
-
bligh at 11:38 AM on 19 December 2013Why is Antarctic sea ice growing?
There was a lot of data within the article that describes possible explanations for the expansion of surface ice around Antarctica all of which are valid, however, the expansion of surface ice is not a reflection of a cooling condition around the continent. Gravity data collected from space using NASA's Grace satellite show that Antarctica has been losing more than a hundred cubic kilometers (24 cubic miles) of ice each year since 2002. Remarkably, Eastern Antarctica is showing some ice loss. I would think that the surface air temps and Ice loss are not largely related.
-
Stephen Leahy at 08:52 AM on 19 December 2013South Scores 11th-Hour Win on Climate Loss and Damage
TC@12 Anderson and Alice Bows-Larkin say most carbon budget estimates are wrong, including the IPCCs. (Can't remember exactly what but it wasn't just feedbacks... Anderson's personal website)
Wili@16 Agree.
Naidoo is saying democracy has been hi-jacked. There is wide agreement on that by civil society organizations like WWF. Writing letters is not going to change that.
That's also Anderson's point: we can no longer take reasonable, measured responses.
-
scaddenp at 06:23 AM on 19 December 2013Why is Antarctic sea ice growing?
Well I am not exactly convinced that latitudinal band is best way to way to assess the margin. As maps from same data presented here show, most of coast is warming. You get that even more so from the more sophisticated methods used in Steig 2009 and ODonnell 2010 (see their maps for 1982 - 2006).
However, this is quite far from the topic of sea ice. The expansion of the sea ice is far from land where the SSTs on this margin are warming. Increasing ice despite warming marginal seas is what this topic covers.
-
Why is Antarctic sea ice growing?
My image in #20 disappeared. Let’s try again:
As you see, 0.5–1.0oC of warming in most of western Antarctica, while the overall trend in eastern Antarctica is close to zero.
-
wili at 04:44 AM on 19 December 2013Climate Risk Index 2014: Haiti, Philippines and Pakistan most affected
"The climate summit in Warsaw is expected to chart a road-map for an ambitious 2015 agreement." Well, I guess that didn't happen.
"Our results are really a wake-up call" The crucial folks seem to still be asleep.
-
dana1981 at 01:25 AM on 19 December 2013In pictures: cutting edge climate science, communication, and kittens from the 2013 AGU conference
Thanks shoyemore.
-
shoyemore at 18:45 PM on 18 December 2013In pictures: cutting edge climate science, communication, and kittens from the 2013 AGU conference
Found it!
It's
PA31B-1827
Taking Social Media Science Myth Debunking to a Presidential Level (Invited)
Search for author "nuccitelli".
Great work!
-
shoyemore at 18:40 PM on 18 December 2013In pictures: cutting edge climate science, communication, and kittens from the 2013 AGU conference
Dana,
It is hard to find your poster among all the ones from the AGU - can you post an identifier? Thanks.
-
Klapper at 17:14 PM on 18 December 2013Why is Antarctic sea ice growing?
@Scaddenp #19 et al:
I used to keep up a database of all the manned weather stations around Antarctica (including Vostok, and Amundsen Scott), all the Russian, Australian, US, Japanese etc., and back a few years ago a majority would have shown either no warming or cooling trends over the last 30 years.
However, now with KNMI Explorer, I can extract the gridded data. Here's the header on a GISTEMP source file with grid cells between -60 and -75 latitude which I calculated a linear regression on between 1980 and 2013.
# ./bin/plotdat anomal /data/climexp/climexp/data/igiss_temp_250_0-360E_-60--75N_n.dat # /data/climexp/climexp/bin/get_index NASAData/giss_temp_both_250.nc 0 360 -60 -75 dipole no minfac 30 nearest lsmask NASAData/lsmask.nc all giss_temp_250_0-360E_-60--75N_n # using minimal fraction of valid points 30.00 # tempanomaly [Celsius] from GISTEMP Surface Temperature Analysis # cuttingout region lon= -360.000 0.000, lat= -75.000 -60.000 The regression slope is -0.05C/decade. In the comments above from others it appears the discussion has shifted to both sea ice and the land stations, so I took both but I think I have an option to check land only, although I'm not sure if your "around the edges" is just land or both.
UAH TLT (version 5.3) also show a slight cooling trend in the same band (-60 to -75 latitude), about 0.04C/decade.
-
Why is Antarctic sea ice growing?
#15 Klapper:
It’s definitely warming in most of western Antarctica, not only the peninsula. The trend has been about 0.5-1.0oC since 1980 (dark yellow). Eastern Antarctica has some warming and some cooling, with the overall trend there close to zero.
-
scaddenp at 06:29 AM on 18 December 2013Why is Antarctic sea ice growing?
Besides papers pointed to above, I would also add the indirect evidence of ice-loss from both GRACE and altimetry. Steig et al 2009 and the O'Donnell et al 2010 (co-author one S McIntyre) show positive warming from weather stations on the coast, so I wonder about your source for coastal weather stations showing no warming? I would also note the tropospheric trends from Screen and Symonds 2012.
However, for the matter of sea ice, it is the SST data that provides the interesting question.
-
Composer99 at 04:56 AM on 18 December 2013In pictures: cutting edge climate science, communication, and kittens from the 2013 AGU conference
If global warming is adding approximately 4 Little Boy bombs' worth of energy to the Earth every second, it would take 533,250 seconds, or approximately 6.2 days, to add the energy equivalent of the 2011 quake as per From Peru's figures.
So every year the Earth adds energy equivalent to 59 9.0-Richter-scale earthquakes to the climate system.
-
From Peru at 04:00 AM on 18 December 2013In pictures: cutting edge climate science, communication, and kittens from the 2013 AGU conference
The Hiroshima bomb was deadly, killing some 100 000 people. However, its energy was "just" 15 kilotons of TNT. For comparison, the United States test "Castle Bravo" bomb was 15 000 kilotons and the Soviet Union test "Tsar Bomba" waas 50 000 kilotons.
A 6.0 earthquake is approximately equal to one hiroshima.
A 9.0 earthquake (like the 2011 Japan Earthquake) is equal to 32 000 000 kilotons (32 gigatons) of TNT according to the British Geological Survey:
Source:
http://www.bgs.ac.uk/discoveringGeology/hazards/earthquakes/MeasuringQuakes.html
This is equal to a bit more more than 2 133 000 Hiroshimas.
It would be interesting to add a 9.0 earthquake as a unit of measurement instead of a Hiroshima bomb, given the enormous scale of the radiative imbalance caused by global warming
Or maybe measuring global warming in Yellowstone Supervolcano eruptions per year.
-
dana1981 at 03:16 AM on 18 December 2013In pictures: cutting edge climate science, communication, and kittens from the 2013 AGU conference
Composer99 - those are John Cook's preliminary experimental results, not yet published.
-
Composer99 at 03:12 AM on 18 December 2013In pictures: cutting edge climate science, communication, and kittens from the 2013 AGU conference
Is the graph showing the effects of the agnotology-based approach to debunking the OISM petition is from a paper?
-
DSL at 03:05 AM on 18 December 2013Why is Antarctic sea ice growing?
And this extends Rob's GISS map back to the Zhang period.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 02:17 AM on 18 December 2013Why is Antarctic sea ice growing?
And I think scaddenp was probably referring to this chart from Zhang 2007.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 02:14 AM on 18 December 2013Why is Antarctic sea ice growing?
Klapper @15... You could try this one:
-
John Hartz at 01:32 AM on 18 December 2013South Scores 11th-Hour Win on Climate Loss and Damage
Directly tied to the above discussion is the "must read" article, Are We Falling Off the Climate Precipice? by Dahr Jamail posted today (Dec 17 US) on Tom Englehardt's website, TomDispatch.com.
Englehardt's introduction to Jamail's article is also worth a careful read.
Both articles are choked full of links to key resource documents.
*Dahr Jamail has written extensively about climate change as well as the BP oil disaster in the Gulf of Mexico. He is a recipient of numerous awards, including the Martha Gellhorn Award for Journalism and the James Aronson Award for Social Justice Journalism. He is the author of two books: Beyond the Green Zone: Dispatches from an Unembedded Journalist in Occupied Iraq and The Will to Resist: Soldiers Who Refuse to Fight in Iraq and Afghanistan. He currently works for al-Jazeera English in Doha, Qatar.
-
Klapper at 22:31 PM on 17 December 2013Why is Antarctic sea ice growing?
@scaddenp #14:
I'd challenge the contention that Antarctica is warming "around the edges". Maybe the peninsula is, but that's the exception to the rest of the land data from Antarctica. The manned weather stations on the coast don't show any overall warming since 1980 or so. If you have data to demonstrate warming around the edges, please direct me to it.
-
wili at 20:26 PM on 17 December 2013South Scores 11th-Hour Win on Climate Loss and Damage
Thanks for the valuable discussion, all. I hope we can all agree that, whether it's 3%, 6+%, or 10+%, the first priority is to get the sign right> annual reductions rather than annual increases.
I am mindful that the latest paleo-study concluded that climate sensitivity is double the traditional 1.5-4.5 degree C range (global temp increase for every doubling of CO2). So all numbers may need to be adjusted accordingly. And in any case, I would agree with OPOF that it is wiser to take precautionary principle and aim to give utter climate calamity a wide berth.
-
Tom Curtis at 19:31 PM on 17 December 2013South Scores 11th-Hour Win on Climate Loss and Damage
One Planet @14, I downloaded the RCP 4.5 emissions data. Cumulative emissions to 2100 of CO2 alone is 1280 GtC, and 955 GtC to 2050. Using a 3% reduction per annum from 2014, and the RCP 4.5 emissions data before that, I get cumulative emissions of 770 GtC and 855 GtC to 2050 and 2100 respectively. RCP 4.5 does not have declining emissions until after 2040, and achieves reductions around 3% per annum in only a handful of years. Consequently the 3% reduction per annum is a far more aggressive scenario than RCP 4.5. For what it is worth, RCP 4.5 shows cumulative emissions of 860 GtC for CO2 alone from 2000-2100. You have probably quoted a near equivalent figure rather than the full historical cumulative emissions.
Further, RCP 4.5 maintains sufficient emissions each year after 2100 to maintain constant forcing. That is, it maintains sufficient emissions to balance any decay of CH4 etc, or ocean absorption of CO2 such that atmospheric concentrations remain constant. In that scenario, temperatures will continue to rise to the Equilibrium Response of the peak concentration rather than only the Transient Response to the peak concentration and the Equilibrium response to much reduced CO2 levels due to ocean uptake after several hundred years.
These two factors (the much greater cumulative emissions and constant forcing after 2100) account for much of the differences in projected temperatures you commented on. A further difference is that I calculated the CO2 forcing only, whereas the RCP 4.5 scenario accounts for all forcings. With ongoing emissions, aerosol emissions approximately cancel WMGHG emissions other than CO2 so that is a fair approximation. In a scenario with reducing emissions, however, that is not so. eventually the anthropogenic aerosol emissions resulting in a short term temperature spike from the other WMGHG prior to their decaying and washing out of the system. Therefore short term temperatures may peak 30% above those I indicated (and indeed 50% above that again allowing for error). In the medium to long term, however, those additional GHG, if no longer emitted, will decay to a sufficiently small quantity of CO2 that they can be neglected.
The CMIP-5 models used for AR5 have a higher equilibrium response than either CMIP 3 models, or is justified by paleological data. I, therefore, have continued to use sensitivities based on AR4. In that, AR5 is in agreement with me, they having lowered the estimated climate sensitivity. The models, however, are run with their innate sensitivities and hence will slightly over estimate temperature responses. I believe this to be a far less significant factor in the difference than the first three factors, and in particular the first two.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 14:54 PM on 17 December 2013South Scores 11th-Hour Win on Climate Loss and Damage
Tom Curtis @12,
Though you say you have treated figures conservatvely the results of your evaluation appear signifigantly unconservative when I compare your peak temperatures with the presentation in the IPCC AR5 Report. Cummulative emission of 880 GtC by 2100 is greater than RCP4.5 (which is 780 GtC). And in the IPCC report the mean expected increase of temperature by 2100 for RCP4.5 is approximately 2.5 degrees C above the pre-industrial average, with the temperature continuing to increase after 2100. Your analysis would appear to be on the 'optimistic extreme' of the range of results presented in the IPCC report.
So, to protect the future generations, based on the uncertainty of what we are able to evaluate, even more dramatic reductions of the burning of fossil fuels will be required. The current global economy is fundamentally unsustainable anyway because of all the activities developed that rely on the unsustainable practice of burning (and consuming) non-renewable resources. The fighting over the remaining fossil fuels (and other non-renewable resources), will only get worse if 'some people are allowed to continue to be benefit significantly from that unsustainable and damaging activity'. Eventually humanity will need to figure out how to live without burning fossil fuels. We need to give future generations a fighting chance at a decent life by reducing the benefit that we allow the greediest of the most fortunate among us to obtain from the burning of fossil fuels.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 14:22 PM on 17 December 2013South Scores 11th-Hour Win on Climate Loss and Damage
wili @6, I agree with Tom Curtis @7. The required action is making sure leaders and leadership hopefuls know your priorities of concern.
I would add that another action to take is to persistently try to help others become better informed. This site is a great resource for that effort. Every time I come across someone making an unfounded claim I am able to provide a prompt and direct rebuttal with the better understanding I have gained from sites like this as well as direct reference to other sources of information like the World Meteorological Organization, IPCC, Met Office/Hadley, NASA/GISS and NOAA.
My personal objective is global development toward a sustainable better future for all life. That is a much broader topic including the need for 'civil society', 'environmental reverence', and dramatically reduced consumption by and damage created by the most fortunate. This issue is a significant aspect of what needs to be understood and changed. However, we do not need to only improve 'one thing at a time'.
-
Tom Curtis at 12:33 PM on 17 December 2013South Scores 11th-Hour Win on Climate Loss and Damage
wili @8, compounding emissions reductions of 3% per annum starting in 2014 (ie, 2015 is the first year of reduction) results in a total cumulative emissions of Carbon by 2050 of 775 GtC; and by 2100 of 860 GtC. Given that 75% of total emissions will be absorbed by the ocean in the next two centuries, ie, an extra 20% over the 55% of cumulative emissions absorbed on an ongoing basis, that leads to peak atmospheric concentrations of about 460 ppmv drawing down to 360 ppmv over the time scale over which the equilibrium response is achieved. That represents a transient climate response of about 1.5 C above preindustrial levels - and a temperature that stabilizes at about 1.6 C above preindustrial levels after the full Earth System Response. I believe that once emissions are down to 0.75 GtC per annum (2100 at that rate of reduction), the net emissions can be controlled at reasonable expense by carbon sequestration to bring the long term response lower, however, we will have time to fine tune the response. Importantly, all of these figures are below the 2 C "threshold" for dangerous global warming.
This information is derived from my spreadsheet of cumulative emissions plus David Archer's online version of the Geocarb model, along with an assumed TCR of 2 C, and ESR of 4.5 C per doubling of CO2. I have treated figures conservatively, ie, rounding emissions per annum and cumulative emissions up rather than down.
-
From Peru at 12:12 PM on 17 December 20132013 SkS Weekly News Roundup #51A
I am thankful that my country appears here. 2014 will be an interesting year.
So far almost nobody talks about the COP 20 (the Pan-American Games of 2019 are mentioned more frequently), and everybody talks either about the political scandal of the week or about the increase in criminal activity. I hope this state of things in the media improves next year.
One the bright side, I must say that while the issue of Climate Change is mentioned very rarely, there is a broad consensus over all the political spectrum that this is a real and a serious problem. However I am concerned that as next year the conference get closer, there will be a disinformation campaign (so far nonexistent in my country) that targets my country population and a lot of people will be fooled.
Moderator Response:[JH] Thank you for the positive feedback. Pleased keep us apprised of how the media in your country is covering climate change. Generally speaking, I would like to include more articles from South America in the news roundups.
-
Don9000 at 08:05 AM on 17 December 2013South Scores 11th-Hour Win on Climate Loss and Damage
That the UN climate talks ended with this anemic outcome does not bode well for the likelihood of meaningful action where it matters most. In short, I suspect it will be extremely difficult to get any of the big polluters to act unilaterally to cut emissions as much as necessary, particularly when nations like Canada and Australia are actively running in the other direction, and thus the lack of a robust agreement to act collectively is a serious blow to avoiding exceeding the 2 degree C rise.
Providing funds for mitigation efforts in other nations is even more of a stretch. Based only on my sense of the political zeitgeist over here, getting the US to unilaterally commit serious longterm funds to third world nations at this time (which is going to extend at least until the 2016 Presidential election) will be an extremely hard if not impossible sell. Tongue only semi-firmly in cheek, I think it would be a lot easier for nations seeking this kind of financial support to take a page out of The Mouse That Roared and declare war on the US or NATO or their former colonial occupier(s), launch a few cavalry charges or their equivalent, and hope their opponent(s) prove magnanimous in victory (just remember, in the movie, The Duchy of Grand Fenwick wins, albeit in a rather creative way).
Getting the US to take concrete steps toward imposing a carbon tax--the truly necessary first step in my opinion for any serious effort to curb carbon dioxide emissions in the long term--is currently a non-starter given the weak economy, the weak hand of Obama, and the anti-tax rigor mortis stance of the Republicans. The only thing I can imagine changing this impass is a signficant move by the EU on the same front, complete with penalties for first world trading partners that don't follow suit. If that kind of thing came to pass, the US just might be guilted in action. But I doubt even that would work, as the average politician over here really isn't worried about the floods and droughts that people outside his or her district experience, let alone outside his or her nation or hemisphere, and any attempt to force the US to act would galvanize the anti-tax wing of the GOP into paroxisms of self-righteous pontificating.
Realistically, I doubt that Obama could get any useful UN treaty approved by the US Senate at this point, as that requires a two-thirds majority, which is about as likely as getting Senator Ted Cruz to behave like a moderate for more than fifteen minutes when he's standing in front of a Tea Party rally.
-
william5331 at 04:10 AM on 17 December 2013Behind the Lines: Herschel's Discovery of Infra-Red
The strength of Methane vis a vis Carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas is 20 0r 30 times as much only if you include the phrase "on a 100 year basis". It's actual strength is somewhere around 100 times that of Carbon dioxide and hence the approximately 2ppm methane in the atmosphere has the same effect as 200ppm Carbon dioxide. I reverse engineered the figure using a half life of 7 years and a relative strength of 20 on a 100 year basis and got x140. Does anyone know where the original work is that worked out the actual relative strengths. In the NSIDC web site, they recently used a figure of x86.
http://mtkass.blogspot.co.nz/2013/03/the-real-strength-of-methane.html
wlhgmk@gmail.com
-
wili at 23:40 PM on 16 December 2013South Scores 11th-Hour Win on Climate Loss and Damage
Thanks, Tony. The analogy that comes to my mind is someone who has gangrene (or some similar spreading infection). At first it is just at the tip of one toe, and he is told that very minor surgery will take care of it. But he's in denial that there is any rot on his wonderful body and that it could ever be a real threat, so he ignores the advise. Next it's the whole toe that has to go, and he can't imagine parting with so precious a thing. Then the whole foot has to go, and that he certainly can't abide...you get the idea.
We are certainly at or past the toe stage, hopefully not to the stage of having to lose a leg or more, but hard to tell.
W -
TonyW at 14:55 PM on 16 December 2013South Scores 11th-Hour Win on Climate Loss and Damage
Yes, wili, Hansen's latest paper provides a strong argument for keeping warming to 1C, though his plan has a brief overshoot to 1.1C. The continued notion that 2C isn't too bad has surely been shot to smithereens, but even apparently well read journalists still talk about 2C as though that would be OK (even though commitments, if met - which is very doubtful - would only give a modest chance of keeping within 2C). Hansen thinks 6% across the board reductions per year (starting now), along with an aggressive reforestation plan would get atmospheric concentration down to about 350 ppm before the end of the century and keep the temperature roughly within the Holocene range.We're not going to get 6% global reduction per year from this year or starting at any point the near future, so even higher rates of reduction will be needed, which would then be even more unlikely, and so ad infinitum. It's funny how some people on the train can see the crash coming, clear as day, whilst others on the train can only see the train keeping on track for ever. -
wili at 14:17 PM on 16 December 2013South Scores 11th-Hour Win on Climate Loss and Damage
TC, thanks for the response. What is your source for 3%? Hansen's latest paper comes up with at least 6% global annual reductions. I'm not sure I follow your trade scheme, and I'm afraid any such is certain to become hopelessly manipulated by the banksters that specialized in that sort of thing.
Good points on voting. But of course you need more than "a few" people for that to be effective, just as you do ultimately for direct action. And one does not preclude the other. But looking at how effective, for example, the NRA has been at keeping representatives in line may be a good model, in some ways.
-
Tom Curtis at 12:19 PM on 16 December 2013South Scores 11th-Hour Win on Climate Loss and Damage
wili @6, the article quotes Kevin Anderson claiming that 10% reductions per annum by developed nations, not the entire world, are necessary. In fact reductions on that scale are simply not achievable. Global reductions at 3% per annum, on the other hand, are sufficient for a 2 C target and are achievable. They are best achieved by an equal global per capita emissions quota per nation, benchmarked for each nation against the population in a given year, declining by 3% per annum for each nation - and made tradable so that developed nations can purchase excess emissions allowances from under developed nations as they phase down to the quota and the underdeveloped nations initially rise to, and then fall with the quota. As it is, international negotiations bog down because western nations insist undeveloped nations reduce emissions at the same rate they do, thereby insisting that unequal wealth distribution be locked into the global economy as a condition for tackling global warming.
The best thing people can do to tackle global warming at the moment is make it clear to politicians, and to the media by writting letters stating that you want, as a first priority of government that there be a rapid reduction in carbon emissions, and that you want a fair - ie, one person, one value - international agreement to accomplish that. You should indicate, and this should be, that this is should be your highest electoral priority. Make it clear that this, above all other issues, will decide your vote in future elections.
Civil disobedience will be dismissed as the actions of a few, unrepresentative radicals and will not change the policies of government. Clearly indicated voting intentions which are followed through, however, will send a clear signal. It will be ignored only if, as unfortunately seems likely, the demos of our democracies have chosen long term doom over short term inconvenience.
-
wili at 09:35 AM on 16 December 2013South Scores 11th-Hour Win on Climate Loss and Damage
Good corrections everyone. Now can we get back to the contents of the article?
Besides the immediate need for 10% annual reductions of C emissions, the guts of this article seem to me to be here:
"'Democracy has been stolen by corporations,' Naidoo told IPS. 'While activists and protesters are arrested, the real hooligans are the CEOs of fossil fuel companies.'
The only avenue left to people is civil disobedience and 2014 will be the year of climate activism, he said.
'Now is the time to put our lives on the line and face jail time,' Naidoo said."
There is precisely no time left for anything but demanding immediate action now on a level that actually has some remote chance of avoiding the worst levels of catastrophe.
What are the good posters here willing to commit to? What are the most effective actions to take at this point?
-
scaddenp at 13:27 PM on 15 December 2013Why is Antarctic sea ice growing?
Well some of the reasons for increasing Antarctica seaice such as ozone depletion, circum polar circulation, do operate by reducing temperature. However, whatever an average satellite tropospheric temperature shows, Antarctica is also warming around the edges (note the decrease in land ice as well the temperature trends) which does imply the increased sea ices is not because it is getting colder.
-
Enginerd at 10:00 AM on 15 December 2013Why is Antarctic sea ice growing?
Thanks for the response, Scaddenp. I wasn't wondering why the temperature trend is different at the poles. I was wondering why the notable difference in the temperature trends might explain part of the notable difference in the sea ice trends (i.e., why Arctic sea ice is decreasing so rapidly and why Antarctic sea ice isn't). For what it's worth, UAH temperature for the "North Pole" and "South Pole" represent 60-85 degrees latitude, which is why I referred to them in quotes. I think the trend for that region is relevant.
-
wili at 08:11 AM on 15 December 20132013 SkS Weekly News Roundup #50B
Thanks for linking to the article on the Tyndall conference: "Scientists explore paths to ‘radical’ emissions reductions."
Here's the direct link to the conference and a good interview with K. Anderson. http://www.tyndall.ac.uk/radical-emission-reduction-conference-10-11-december-2013
What among these or other initiatives seem like the best way forward to the good posters on this site? As pointed out, given the continuing incease in C emissions, what people have been doing so far clearly has not yet worked.
Moderator Response:[JH] You're welcome and thank you for the link to the conference.
-
scaddenp at 05:50 AM on 15 December 2013Why is Antarctic sea ice growing?
Enginerd - why tropospheric temperature trends are different is interesting and discussed elsewhere. However, sea ice in Antarctica only grows a long way from pole (though still within the circumpolar circulation).
-
DSL at 05:18 AM on 15 December 20132013 SkS Weekly News Roundup #50A
Bad news: November GIS L-OTI is out: 0.77C, a record for Novembers. It's also tied for the 5th warmest of any months in the GIS series. That sets up 2013 to be the 3rd warmest year on record, and it will have occurred in ENSO net negative conditions.
-
Doug Bostrom at 05:02 AM on 15 December 2013Behind the Lines: Herschel's Discovery of Infra-Red
Too easy to forget the beauty of the basics! What a nice article.
-
Why is Antarctic sea ice growing?
#9 Glenn Tamblyn:
"The second largest rebound after 1996. But nowhere near 60%"
That's not entirely correct, Glenn.
According to PIOMAS the September sea ice volume in Arctic was 3300 km3 in 2012 and 4900 km3 in 2013, pretty close to a 50% increase, and by far the largest relative increase from one year to the next. This also tells us that the average ice thickness was more or less the same these two years.
The problem of course (for the deniers and the Arctic sea ice itself) is that the 1600 km3 of absolute increase is tiny compared to the 13,600 km3 of ice loss from 1979 to 2012. The downward trend is still crystal clear, and there is no reason to believe this "recovery" will be more than a temporary one.
-
Enginerd at 04:34 AM on 15 December 2013Why is Antarctic sea ice growing?
Thank you for this post. Over the years, I've seen many mechanisms mentioned as possibly explaining the different trends observed between Arctic and Antarctic sea ice, but I rarely hear people mention average tropospheric temperature. According to the UAH data set, the tropospheric temperatures in the "North Pole" region from 1978-2013 increased at a rate more than 3 times the global average; while in the "South Pole" region, the tropospheric temperatures over the same time frame have a net trend of *zero*. Might this explain some of the very different longer-term behavior observed across the two poles? I'm not suggesting that the other hypotheses listed in the post aren't important. I am just wondering why tropospheric temperature never seems to get mentioned when evaluating the differences between the two poles.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 00:37 AM on 15 December 2013South Scores 11th-Hour Win on Climate Loss and Damage
Poster@3, Peak 1 minute wind speed or hourly avearge wind speed could be used to rank wind events producing very different results. Another factor would be the specific location hit by the event. As an example, if Katrina had made landfall just a little west of where it actually did, the effect on New Orleans would have increased dramatically.
There is more than wind speed to consider. The amount of moisture dropped by a weak cyclone can be more damaging than the peak wind speed of a stronger cyclone. Many events around the world are indicating a trend toward larger amounts of moisture in extreme events. Perhaps even the recent significant amount of snow in the Middle East was due to significantly more moisture being in the air when a cold event occurred.
-
michael sweet at 23:20 PM on 14 December 2013Super Typhoon Haiyan: Realities of a Warmed World and Need for Immediate Climate Action
Poster,
If you want to learn about hurricanes you should read Jeff Masters blog since he is a specialist on hurricanes and can sort through the different measurements. Here is Dr. Masters last comments on Haiyan and Chris Burt weather historian at Wunderground comments are also valuable. You often post links to unreliable sites like the WSJ for easily available scientific information.
It was interesting that the WSJ list of hurricanes in the Philippines is different from Tom's list from the original source. Can you explain why your source appears to be mistaken? If you cannot you should consider not using the WSJ as a source any more since they have been shown to be unreliable. Perhaps you should rethink why your sources are frequently unreliable.
-
Tom Curtis at 22:49 PM on 14 December 2013South Scores 11th-Hour Win on Climate Loss and Damage
Poster @3, significant confusion reigns about the ranking of Typhoon Haiyan because peak wind velocities have been reported in two different ways, with the JTWC reporting 1 minute sustained speeds and PAGASA reporting 10 minute sustained speeds. That confusion has been increased by the WSJ which reports a list of the seven strongest cyclones to strike the Phillipines. Oddly, only two of the cyclones on the WSJ list are on PAGASA's list of the 5 strongest cyclones to strike the Phillipines, and those two both have inflated windspeeds relative to the PAGASA list. Given that the WSJ cites PAGASA as the source of its list, that is odd to say the least. The cyclone that heads the PAGASA list, Typhoon Durian, is shown has having much lower wind speeds than Haiyan on wikipedia, but a higher peak wind gust by PAGASA.
Going through the WSJ list, it includes (in WSJ order of wind speed):
1) Typhoon Joan (175 mph 1 minute sustained wind speed);
2) Typhoon Betty (165 mph 1 minute sustained wind speed, wind speed at land fall 136 mph);
3) Typhoon Ruth (165 mph peak wind speed, wind speed at landfall 125 mph);
4) Typhoon Imra (160 mph peak wind speed, land fall as category 2);
5) Typhoon Dot (175 mph 1 minute sustained wind speed, intensity fell prior to landfall);
6) Typhoon Mike (175 mph 1 minute sustained wind speed, wind speed of 140 mph at landfall).
Finally, and in seventh spot according to the WSJ is Typhoon Haiyan, with 195 mph 1 minute sustained windspeeds at landfall.
May I suggest that you cease trusting the WSJ as a reliable reporter on climate (it isn't); and if you wish to discuss this further, do so on a page explicitly adressing Tyhpoon Haiyan (first or last links above).
-
Poster9662 at 20:08 PM on 14 December 2013South Scores 11th-Hour Win on Climate Loss and Damage
As typhoon Haiyan (aka Yolanda) is only the seventh strongest typhoon to make landfall in the Philippines (http://blogs.wsj.com/searealtime/2013/11/14/is-typhoon-haiyan-the-strongest-storm-ever/), is the catastrophic destruction due more to infrastrucure/habitat changes occcurring since the stongest typhoon, typhoon Seding (aka typhoon Joan), made landfall in 1970?
-
Glenn Tamblyn at 15:38 PM on 14 December 2013Why is Antarctic sea ice growing?
William
Cryosphere II may not be available for 2013 but PIOMAS is:
From here:
The second largest rebound after 1996. But nowhere near 60%
Prev 788 789 790 791 792 793 794 795 796 797 798 799 800 801 802 803 Next
