Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 792 793 794 795 796 797 798 799 800 801 802 803 804 805 806 807 Next
Comments 39951 to 40000:
-
wili at 03:00 AM on 23 December 20132013 SkS Weekly News Roundup #51C
Maybe a global financial collapse will come along just in time to save our sorry a$$e$, lol. But I wouldn't count on it. The collapse in 2008 barely made a tiny, temporary blip in the trajectory of the rise in C emissions. -
funglestrumpet at 02:23 AM on 23 December 20132013 SkS Weekly News Roundup #51C
wili @ 1
If the world's finance system collapses, as many pundits are saying it might well, then, depending on how the chips fall, there could easily a reduction in economic activity to the extent required. If that happens, climate change will be the least of our worries.
I suppose the net outcome is that we are, as you point out, in a mess, and it is really only a question of timing. I just hope that the denial community are pleased with themselves. Of course, considering their behaviour, I expect that they have a spare planet to go to. The sooner they go to it, the better.
-
wili at 01:11 AM on 23 December 20132013 SkS Weekly News Roundup #51C
I would expand the first sentence of the first article:
"This was the year when climate change came out of the closet..."
To: "...announce that we're all f'ed."Consider these questions:
--Does anyone anywhere think that wind and solar can grow to from about 1% of total energy sources to being over 7% in the next year?
--Does anyone think that economic growth can happen while energy use rapidly shrinks?
--Does anyone think that the world will suddenly plan a 6% or more shrinkage of the world economy, or a 10% or more shrinkage of the industrial nations' economies?
If the answer to all of these is "no" (and that is clearly the only honest answer to them), then we have to agree that two of the world's top climatologist essentially said that we are now completely and utterly beyond hope.
(J. Hansen said we need immediate at least 6% annual reducsions in emissions; K. Anderson, 10% annual reductions from industrialized countries to avoid 2 degrees C increase. Potsdam Institute, IEA, World Bank, PWC, and a number of others have said much the same.)
-
chriskoz at 19:26 PM on 22 December 2013Gavin Schmidt … Speaking up and Speaking Out
MartinG@19,
I would love to see a forum where scientist A presents his new findings on AGW, and scientist B takes issue with some of the content – followed by scientist A countering these comments. In the old days this was done in scientific literature (peer reviewed of course), but this process is I believe too slow for our modern times. Of course I am dreaming again
No, you're not dreaming, your exact scenario is happening as we speak, e.g. here on SkS, or on realclimate (where Gavin is most active contributor) and on other blogs. Some comment threads are very interesting, sometimes enlightening for myself. Your old "peer review debate" is happening fast in the digital blogosphere now.
-
chriskoz at 19:17 PM on 22 December 2013Gavin Schmidt … Speaking up and Speaking Out
It's worth noting that Gavin's own understanding of advocacy has evolved in the last 4-5 years, as the digital media took over the bulk of science communication from TV/newspapers that dominated earlier on.
In his lecture, at about 11:20-12:20 of video pointed by BaerbelW@7, Gavin admits his definition of advocacy as "deliberate cherry-picking a piece of apparently useful data without consideration of any alternative explanations" (source) was wrong. Scientists have the same right to be advocates as any other citizens but in doing so, they need to make explicit distinction between their advocacy - based on personal moral values and their science - based on objective facts.
-
MartinG at 18:23 PM on 22 December 2013Gavin Schmidt … Speaking up and Speaking Out
Its an article with many interesting points. But I am missing one aspect. Our research is based on observations of the past and present, and our advocacy is related to predictions of the future and what we should do about it. In natural sciences nature is always one up on us by being incredibly more complex than our numerical models and theories can capture, so we have to work with uncertainties. The best way to do this is with scenarios – so that we can say for example there is a 60% chance that our emissions will bring uncontrollable consequences to the planet (this number is just an example – nothing to do with the facts!!). Then the scientist can advocate radical action based on a 60% probability of calamity, without having to falsely argue that all is certain – and thereby laying himself open to the observations/theories which support the other 40%.
I believe the biggest threat to action on climate change is the polarized and unscientific nature of the debate, both in the blogosphere with its brainwashed extremests, and to some extent among climate scientists. I would love to see a forum where scientist A presents his new findings on AGW, and scientist B takes issue with some of the content – followed by scientist A countering these comments. In the old days this was done in scientific literature (peer reviewed of course), but this process is I believe too slow for our modern times. Of course I am dreaming again ! But I am wholly in agreement with denisaf that we should open our eyes – its not just about CO2 – it’s the way we live which is unstainable. -
denisaf at 16:15 PM on 22 December 2013Gavin Schmidt … Speaking up and Speaking Out
I am a retired aeronautical scientist. I have learned four fundamental scientific principles late in life. They are:
- All the technological systems of civilization irreversibly consume the limited natural material resources, including oil, in producing the, infrastructure (from cities down), goods and services society has become so dependent on. This is an unsustainable process.
- This process produces immutable waste material which is polluting land, sea, air and organisms (including human beings), with climate change being only one of the unintended deleterious consequences.
- Natural resources will have to be used to operate and maintain the vast array of technological systems, including the infrastructure, during their limited lives. As these resources are running out, the demise of much of the infrastructure this century is certain.
- The extravagant usage of the limited natural resources has enabled the exponential growth of the global human population but this will end and a dieoff follow as natural resources become scarcer and the infrastructure crumbles.
-
denis.boarder at 15:41 PM on 22 December 2013Gavin Schmidt … Speaking up and Speaking Out
A good article highlighting the dilemma within which the science community finds itself. What involvement in the end-to-end communication exercise? how far it should go in presenting impact analysis (physical and social), and solutions that might be construed as political interference.
We appear to be suffering from a ‘communications gap’ with the perceptions of a wider audience tainted by media misinformation and misdirection... perhaps this is the most significant barrier to public acceptance and active participation.
Tackling the problem from a purely scientific standpoint will have limited success.
Communications cannot be a ‘one size fits all’. The tailoring of content and emphasis, delivery channel and messenger, are essential to penetrate any particular 'market' sector. Start thinking like an advertising agency, establish the message to meet the ‘requirements’ of the audience and manage their expectations.What is the value proposition?
The market has numerous dimensions and permutations:
Off the top of my head:
1) Scientific and academic publications key source and empirical baseline – Communicated by scientists and scientific publications - A mainly technical audience.
2) Science journalism through scientific articles in science magazines, blogs , podcasts, presentations etc. – Targeting the more technically savvy audience, science professionals and students. Perhaps a first port of call for latest news and links to published articles?
3) Science journalism through higher end quality documentaries, TV, radio podcasts etc. - Scientifically aware and with particularlinterests.
4) Science journalism through popular and entertainment media, TV, radio, YouTube, press articles and social media. A generally wider and diverse audience (certainly the largest segment ).
5) Activist and environmental organisations, mainly communicating to the converted.
Our friends in the denial community operate within 3, 4 and particularly 5.This is where most effort should be invested for greatest impact. Engaging the audience has to be at a more emotional and organic level, not through overstatement but in ways that command their attention to risks and consequences. Financial and economic consequences along with family wellbeing tend to deliver the most immediate response.
-
Wol at 14:48 PM on 22 December 2013Gavin Schmidt … Speaking up and Speaking Out
.
>>When asked where to engage the public, Schmidt said: “You have to be tactical and find places where you can be heard. … avoid comment threads of most major newspapers.”<<
True, so very true.I'm not one for posting every minute on blogs, but I do read the london Daily Telegraph online most days: it's shocking the number of blog posters that come out of the woodwork whenever there's anything to do with climate change who are utterly abusive and ignorant of the most basic science. In general nowadays they get a free run because experts have run out of patience with repeating the same rebuttals over and over again to a readership that lacks the will to look at anything that doesn't match their convictions. Non experts (like me) eventually give up for the same reason and the constant abusive language.
Whilst personally persuaded of the fact of MMGW, I can't help feeling that any amount of CO2 per capita reduction is completely negated by the increase in population - roughly three extra "emitters" per second.
The problem, like so many in the present, fundamentally boils down to too many people and I don't see any realistic prospect of that changing voluntarily.
.
-
nigelj at 10:52 AM on 22 December 2013Gavin Schmidt … Speaking up and Speaking Out
Climate scientists should speak out in the daily media, but need to tread a fine balance. Certainly they could comment on the science and refute sceptical arguments, and discuss their personal feelings and backgrounds. James Hansen is a good communicator, concise and gets to the point.
However they should avoid being drawn into debates as such. Determining the scientific truth shouldnt become a public spectacle like a court room, complete with emotive battles. I also feel climate scientists should avoid comments on political issues, and mitigation measures unless they have specific expertise.
-
nigelj at 10:42 AM on 22 December 2013Gavin Schmidt … Speaking up and Speaking Out
Wpsokeland @ item 9, you imply solar energy is higher than normal and is driving climate change. The sun has been cooling slightly over roughly the last 40 years, and the research evidence can be found on this website, and obviously a cooling sun cant generate global warming.
Moderator Response:[TD] ...the counterargument to the myth "It's the Sun."
-
bbrowett at 06:54 AM on 22 December 2013Gavin Schmidt … Speaking up and Speaking Out
Excellent article.
The summary of the rules and cautions for advocacy were especially succinct.
"Scientists must be careful, however, and follow a handful of rules of engagement that will protect their integrity as a scientist as well as their rights as a citizen. Responsible advocacy is characterized by a handful of principles, Schmidt said. The individual should:
- communicate his/her values fairly and truthfully;
- make the connections between his/her values and policy choices explicit;
- make sure to distinguish his/her personal conclusions from the scientific consensus;
- acknowledge that people with different values would have different policy choices; and
- be aware of how his/her values might impact objectivity, and be vigilant.Irresponsible advocacy, on the other hand, can be recognized through a handful of clues. Among these:
- Individuals misrepresent and hide their values.
- The basis of their policy choices is unclear.
- There’s an untested presumption that the individual’s personal scientific conclusions are widely held.”These are excellent rules for all of us to follow and consider.
However, when important public policies are being discussed, it is often very difficult to differentiate between data, information, and interpretation, i.e., there are few instances when science can be separated from advocacy.
Advocacy is not a bad thing, but when science is used to support government policy, NGO advocacy, or business operations, the scientists who interpret the scientific information, or indeed construct the scientific experiments, are engaged in advocacy. They should also follow these rules.
Too often businesses, governments, and organizations gloss over the very critical values that are used to frame their scientific work, analysis, interpretation, and communication.
So broadening the scope of these rules:
Responsible advocacy is characterized by a handful of principles … . The individual or organization (government, non-government, or business) should:
- communicate his/her and the organization's values fairly and truthfully;
- make the connections between his/her and the organization’s values and policy choices explicit;
- make sure to distinguish his/her personal and the organization’s conclusions from the scientific consensus;
- acknowledge that people and organizations with different values would have different policy choices; and
- be aware of how his/her and the organization's values might impact objectivity, and be vigilant.Irresponsible advocacy, on the other hand, can be recognized through a handful of clues. Among these:
- Individuals or organizations misrepresent and hide their values.
- The basis of their or the organization’s policy choices is unclear.
- There’s an untested presumption that the individual’s personal or the organization’s scientific conclusions are widely held. -
Eric Grimsrud at 03:59 AM on 22 December 2013Gavin Schmidt … Speaking up and Speaking Out
A suggestion here for increased communications between scientists with friends and associates: I am a retired analytical chemist who spend a considerable portion of my research on problems related to the atmosphere. Upon retirement I started a web site (ericgrimsrud.com) and associated blog (ericgrimsrud.wordpress.com) on which I write about one post per week followed by a heads up to my friends and associates on my personal mailing list. My blog constitutes an additional layer of simplified representation of the things I read. Many of my ideas come either from Skeptical Science or Climate Progress with links to those more in depth articles. These posts seem to go over quite well and seem to be read by most on my mailing list. The cost of running my blog at wordpress is nothing at all. One can be set up and used as I do by anyone for free. I happen to like to write so this also provided me with one of my main retirement "hobbies" - while doing what I can to help "save the world". There are many other ways for retired scientists to help, of course. We have the great gift of free time and hopefully still carry some credibility at least with our friends and associates.
-
PhilMorris at 03:48 AM on 22 December 2013Gavin Schmidt … Speaking up and Speaking Out
wpokeland@9: I
really like how you provide references to peer reviewed journals substantiating your statements. Oh, sorry, I read your comments so quickly I didn't realize that you hadn’t provided any such references. You are, of course, simply stating results from real research, but forgot to include them, right? No? Are you quoting from newspaper articles, then? Or certain blog posts (numerous ones come to mind...)? Hm, perhaps its what you feel intuitively has to be the case then? Perhaps reading some of this site, or any of the other sites that have real science, would help clarify the true situation for you - one can but hope! In the meantime let me tell you about two physicis items...
1. CO2 absorbs infrared. See http://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?n=200
2. CO2 absorption of infrared predicts that the troposphere will warm and the stratosphere will cool. And we have satellite evidence that this is happening. See "Human and natural influences on the changing thermal structure of the atmosphere", PNAS, Aug 2013.
-
kmalpede at 03:33 AM on 22 December 2013Gavin Schmidt … Speaking up and Speaking Out
I had an interesting and disheartening experience at an event with artists and scientists held through the Columbia Earth Science PositiveFeedback program. When I mentioned my play "Extreme Whether" and said it had elements in common with Henrik Ibsen's "An Enemy of the People", most of the scientists I spoke with had never read Ibsen's great play, or even heard of it. Are science and the humanties really so far apart? Art and literature give us insight but also courage. As a theater writer writing about climate change, as a college teacher who teaches literature and also gives students scientific papers to read and discuss, I would urge scientists to read--at least read "An Enemy of the People"...it is a great play and is directly related to the topic under discussion here.
-
wpsokeland at 02:38 AM on 22 December 2013Gavin Schmidt … Speaking up and Speaking Out
“Scientists should communicate more about what they do and find.”
I agree! Higher than normal energy input from solar storms that spawn hurricanes has caused the average global temperature to increase over the last 30 years. The convection of energy by the north Atlantic current from the tropics to the arctic has caused the sea ice to melt and produce a minimum area of sea ice as a result. The number of hurricanes were a minimum this season, 2013, and as a result; the area of sea ice at the northern ice cap will increase and the average global temperature will drop.
The average solar energy input to our planet by radiation is a constant over the period of one year. If Carbon dioxide or other greenhouse gases were continually increasing and the power source is a constant, the average temperature of the earth would be continually increasing. This is not what is observed in the average temperature data; therefore, the radiation from the sun is not the only energy source. The incoming severe weather from solar storms is a variable and the average global temperature will increase and decrease on a yearly basis as a function of the severe weather energy input to our atmosphere.
Moderator Response:[TD] I'll point you to just a starter set of factual rebuttals to just a few of your claims, in addition to what PhilMorris pointed you to:
- CO2 is Not the Only Driver of Climate, so you are incorrect that if the Sun's energy hitting the Earth is constant and greenhouse gases increase then temperature must increase at an identical rate.
- The Earth has not cooled nor even paused in warming, when you look at total energy content instead of only at the surface temperature, and even when you look only at the surface temperature but you do so over a legitimately long time span.
-
climatelurker at 01:54 AM on 22 December 2013Gavin Schmidt … Speaking up and Speaking Out
I've always wondered how individual scientists who 'hide' their views on hot topics (...one particular scientist comes to mind...) can think that's the same thing as being neutral. It's not. Nobody can divorce themselves from their human nature, even scientists. Way better to be honest, so that your peers, and yourself, can see your biases and handle them accordingly.
Not to mention we are citizens first. Why shouldn't we have opinions about policy? Why should Joe Plumber's opinions about climate change policy be more acceptable to express than a climate scientists' opinion about it? Scientists live in this world just the same as everyone else. Which means we scientists suffer the consequences just the same. Why would anyone want to prevent a citizen from exercising his or her right to be a part of society? We can vote, but we can't ever say out loud what we think? How dumb is that?
(I'm no climate scientist, just speaking about scientists in general.)
Moderator Response:[RH] Corrected typing error.
-
BaerbelW at 23:42 PM on 21 December 2013Gavin Schmidt … Speaking up and Speaking Out
Gavin Schmidt's lecture is now available on AGU's Youtube Channel:
-
wili at 22:24 PM on 21 December 2013Gavin Schmidt … Speaking up and Speaking Out
"Nor should we assume that such a tax would be sufficient to solve the climate crisis. In my opinion, this would only be a good start, we'll need lots of regulations..."
That's my sense, too. When something is causing actual harm, we don't usually just tax it to make people less likely to buy it. We ban it, or put severe restrictions on it. If someone sold childrens toys that would spontaneously blow up and take off kids' hands and feet, I hope we wouldn't just put a high tax on it to encourage parents not to buy it.
I tend to trust scientists most when they are issuing warnings; often less so when they are saying to trust some technology or other. Nuclear is a tought sell after Fukushima, rightly so imho.
What needs to be given up is the idea of limitless growth. Shortening the work week and reconsidering the mad rush to automate everything will go a longer way to full employment than continually chasing the impossibility of endless economic growth.
What we have to hear very clearly from Hansen is his call for six percent or more decrease in C emissions immediately and Kevin Anderson's call for 10% or more reductions from industrialized countries. These are arguably the top climatologists in the world.
Neither nukes nor alternatives can be built fast enough to accommodate those kinds of cuts--cuts needed if we are going to have even the mere posibility of a livable world. Only 'demand side' can possibly respond that fast.
These scientists have bravely told us the truth--the situation is beyond crisis level now. If we don't immediately turn the ship around we are going over the falls. The job of the rest of us is to telegraph that extreme level of urgency to our fellow citizens and to our 'leaders.' -
Andy Skuce at 13:52 PM on 21 December 2013Gavin Schmidt … Speaking up and Speaking Out
I suspect Eli was influenced by Hansen's AGU presidential address. Hansen was very clear for the first part of his talk when he described the physics of climate change. It is obvious that he has a solid grasp of this, because he can explain it in a rational and logical manner, as well or better than anyone. On the moral imperative, he was also very convincing, speaking from the heart and with everything based on moral principles that he holds and that most of us share.
However, at the end of his talk, he drifted into a bit of an incoherent ramble. He is clearly a skeptic of the potential of renewable energy to power our economy and an enthusiast for nuclear power. I hesitantly lean that way, too, but it's a difficult case that needs to be made with detailed arguments and data, not just assertions and appeals to common sense.
Similarly, he wants to see a revenue-neutral carbon tax introduced, but it's not enough for him simply to say that such a policy is self-evidently the best one, although I would agree that it probably is. Nor should we assume that such a tax would be sufficient to solve the climate crisis. In my opinion, this would only be a good start, we'll need lots of regulations, plenty of government support for research and development and a change in the culture of consumerism and growth.
Hansen shows both the positive and negative cases for scientists becoming advocates.
-
Paul W at 10:50 AM on 21 December 2013Gavin Schmidt … Speaking up and Speaking Out
Just as a question to EliRabett @3. Why do you need to be careful about assiging expertise to people like Hansen?
I've found his public statements to be very well thought through and backed by data that is sound science.
-
EliRabett at 09:04 AM on 21 December 2013Gavin Schmidt … Speaking up and Speaking Out
The key to understanding what Gavin said is to figure out who benefits if scientists can be kept from commenting on policy implications of the science. Now true one has to be extremely careful of assigning expertise to the policy statements of people like Hansen, but one also need be careful of anything said by those who try and control the dialog.
-
ubrew12 at 07:42 AM on 21 December 2013Gavin Schmidt … Speaking up and Speaking Out
Scientists have an obligation to communicate effectively to the public one aspect of AGW in particular: the delay between human action and planetary response. The public has gadgets that respond instantly to commands, we order something and expect it yesterday, our media is '150 channels and nothin's on'. 'Change is here, now' is every politicians soundbite, and our motto is 'I want it now'.
This culture is in no way prepared to take hard, revolutionary action on Climate Change and find the Planet indifferent to that sacrifice for up to half a century. Halt all CO2 emissions forever, starting today, and the Planet will cheerily continue warming for 40 years or more. And IN that 40 year window of Planetary indifference, the Arctic will continue melting and absorbing more sunlight, the permafrost will continue melting and venting CO2: processes will be unleashed that could make a MOCKERY of our sacrifice. This aspect of this slow-rolling tragedy is just not understood by the general public, afflicted as it is with 'short-attention-span' disease, and I fault the Scientists, in part, for not making that plainer.
-
Alexandre at 04:10 AM on 21 December 2013South Scores 11th-Hour Win on Climate Loss and Damage
Tom Curtis at 18:58 PM on 20 December, 2013
Actually, I think GDP is a good measure of economic growth. The problem is more that often economic growth is a lousy proxy to well being, sustainability or wealth distribution.
-
Alexandre at 03:54 AM on 21 December 2013Gavin Schmidt … Speaking up and Speaking Out
"That's the responsibility of having eyes when others have lost theirs."
Jose Saramago
-
Tom Curtis at 18:58 PM on 20 December 2013South Scores 11th-Hour Win on Climate Loss and Damage
Stephen Leahy @20, I agree that GDP is a poor measure of economic growth. Unfortunately it is not clear that there is a better one, and certainly not one that is agreed to by a consensus of economists. Further, it is almost impossible to find general statistics for historical periods for other measures.
Further, I agree with you that our economic system sucks in a variety of ways. One of those ways is the dependence on growth for economic stability. However, I think it is a grave strategic mistake to tie those issues together with global warming. First, it is a much bigger ask to both convert the economy to a new basis and to tackle global warming at the same time, then to do each separately. Further, and more important, tying the two together ensures that those with a conservative political leaning will oppose actions to tackle global warming because they will see them as actions designed to overthrow an economic system they still value. There is enough resistance from conservatives to tackling global warming from the myth spread by deniers that AGW is a stalking horse for ending capitalism. We have no chance of tacking global warming if we turn that myth into a truth.
Like it or not, tackling AGW is too important to tie it up with other political issues. That means we will need a solution to AGW that is economically conservative, that does not threaten capitalism of free markets, and that is consistent ongoing economic growth for developed nations. If we cannot find such a solution, we will only tackle global warming very late, at great cost, not just in GDP, but in real and personal terms.
-
Stephen Leahy at 11:53 AM on 20 December 2013South Scores 11th-Hour Win on Climate Loss and Damage
TC@19 thanks for correcting the links.
Economic growth is bit of red herring since it is such a vague concept in real terms. Growth for who and what exactly? A country's GDP can triple and the total number of people in poverty increase, levels of education go down and overall health decline. This is the pattern for most petrostates, incl Canada.
De-growth isn't all that scary since our economic system sucks.
Quoting UK economist Tim Jackson: "It's blindingly obvious that our economic system is failing us." Climate change, pollution, damaged ecosystems, record species extinctions, and unsustainable resource use are all clear symptoms of a dysfunctional economic system, Jackson, author of the report and book Prosperity Without Growth, told IPS
-
KiwiInOz at 09:08 AM on 20 December 2013Climate and economic models – birds of a different feather
Ah yes, the old conversation of mass issue.
-
bouke at 07:42 AM on 20 December 2013Climate and economic models – birds of a different feather
To me, a model is nothing more than a hypothesis where all the supporting assumptions have been made so crystal clear and explicit that the whole thing can be put in a computer which can then calculate the consequences of the hypothesis. If the results are different from the real world, you revise the hypothesis and/or supporting assumptions.
The results will always be different from the real world, so this process never ends. But that doesn't matter. At some point the results are good enough to be useful. We have been at that point for some time now.
-
Composer99 at 02:06 AM on 20 December 2013Climate and economic models – birds of a different feather
To me, a climate model is the laboratory experiment of climate science.
You can grow microbes in a Petri dish and study their inner workings with relative ease; you can study fruit flies, or mice, or even primates. You can roll balls down slopes, you can smash streams of particles traveling near the speed of light into each other and see what comes out, you can mix two substances together and see what happens. And you can do these - and many other things besides - over and over and over again.
You can't go out and build even a single planet identical to Earth and run through decades of climate history in an afternoon (or over a weekend), never mind dozens.
So you need a computer-generated simulation. You need a model.
It's not perfect, but like so many things in life, it's good enough.
-
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.
Prev 792 793 794 795 796 797 798 799 800 801 802 803 804 805 806 807 Next
