Recent Comments

Prev  859  860  861  862  863  864  865  866  867  868  869  870  871  872  873  874  Next

Comments 43301 to 43350:

43301. Dikran Marsupial at 16:49 PM on 30 July 2013
       An accurately informed public is necessary for climate policy
       

       Barry, Kahan's quote

       "On the contrary, there’s good reason to believe that the self-righteous and contemptuous tone with which the “scientific consensus” point is typically advanced (“assault on reason,” “the debate is over” etc.) deepens polarization. That's because "scientific consensus," when used as a rhetorical bludgeon, predictably excites reciprocally contemptuous and recriminatory responses by those who are being beaten about the head and neck with it."

       seems to me to be mere rhetoric and itself polarizing (which is somewhat ironic) as it is deliberately painting a disparaging (and IMHO unfair and innacurate) picture of one "side" of the discussion. 

       AFAICS, the TCP report is a response to the common climate blog myth "there is no concensus", nothing more. For example:

       "As Joseph Bast who heads the Heartland Institute points out, “It is important to distinguish between the statement, which is true, that there is no scientific consensus that AGW [anthropogenic (human-caused) global warming] is or will be a catastrophe, and the also-true claims that the climate is changing (of course it is, it is always changing), and that most scientists believe there may be a human impact on climate (our emissions and alterations of the landscape are surely having an impact, though they are often local or regional (like heat islands) and small relative to natural variation).”

       [note the hypoerbole, AGW doesn't have to be a catastrophe to be worth mitigating against] This simply isn't true, and a perfectly rational, scientific response is to conduct surveys to find out whether or not there is a broad concensus, and to point this out when the topic arises.  It is Kahan that appears to be personalising a discussion of the science.

       If you want to see what we can agree on and move forward, then how about starting with an explicit statement of where you stand on the topic of the existence of a concensus? 

43302. NewYorkJ at 16:00 PM on 30 July 2013
       An accurately informed public is necessary for climate policy
       

       Not surprised "skeptics" are still hopping mad over this paper, drama and all.  Their outrage is not because they feel marginalized. That is part of their false narrative. Their outrage is because their "no consensus" narrative is debunked. They know how harmful to their cause an informed public is.  Their goals are always to confuse the public, and one critical strategy is to foster the notion that there is no consensus on the basics.  This paper, and the subsequent coverage among much of the same media that covers their material, refutes their narrative.

       Hulme's moral argument is illogical.  Is there a general scientific consensus on smoking's link to lung cancer?   Evolution?  Hulme appears to believe that summarizing the scientific literature is wrong to do because it is somehow "divisive".  It should not be done because it offends some people.  Silly.  It does societies and policymakers no good to be disinformed or mislead about the general consensus of experts on these topics.  Such is in fact detrimental to rational frutiful public discourse. 

       Hulme almost seems to get it with his comment on the "irrelevance" of the paper, but in doing so makes another illogical argument.  Understanding among the public and policymakers of a consensus on the basics of anthropogenic climate change may not decide contentious policy debates, such as cap and trade versus carbon tax, but it is a necessary condition.  If leaders and the general public believe there's no consensus among scientists on whether or not the climate is warming and humans are causing most of it, no action at all is likely.  Similarly, any restrictions on smoking would face stronger resistance if the public and policymakers believed scientists were split on the issue.  Creationism might as well be taught in public schools.  After all, there's a raging debate among scientists on the topic and daring to correct that misperception is wrong because it offends some people.  

43303. Rob Honeycutt at 13:26 PM on 30 July 2013
       An accurately informed public is necessary for climate policy
       

       It's interesting.  I think this conversation coming from Kahan, Hulme et al is missing an important element.  They completely miss the target audience of Cook13.  And this is discussed very clearly in the paper.

       The paper is about communicating the level of agreement within the published literature regarding human influences on climate... to the general public.

       The concensus has little meaning within circles of scientists involved in climate.  It does nothing to advance our scientific understanding of climate change.  It does nothing to change anyone's mind who's been involved in the issue.

       The paper does communicate something extremely important to the electorate who have little involvement or understanding of this issue.  The paper addresses those who have been sold the idea that there is substantial doubt about human influence on climate.

       So, what Hulme and Kahan (and Spencer and Watts and Tol, etc) are arguing has pretty much nothing to do with the paper.

43304. Rob Honeycutt at 13:09 PM on 30 July 2013
       An accurately informed public is necessary for climate policy
       

       “So maybe it is time to accept Roy Spencer, Prof Lindzen, Anthony Watts and Andrew Montford, etc into the consensus?”

       Hm, are Spencer, Lindzen and Watts ready to accept that >50% of warming is due to human activities?  I think likely not.

43305. michael sweet at 12:48 PM on 30 July 2013
       2013 SkS Weekly News Roundup #29B
       

       JvD,

       Your claim here that proponents of renewables claim that upgrading the grid is not needed to implement renewable energy is completely false.  Everyone knows that major grid investments will be required.  These upgrades will be different in different locations.  For example, in New England (the northeast USA) the paper I cited to you previously, described using primarily wind to power that grid area with only minor grid upgrades.  Where I live in Florida, it is not very windy and wind will not be pratical.  Solar obviously only supplies power during the day so Florida will require upgraded connections to the grid to obtain its wind energy from somewhere else.   Maybe they will use nuclear.

       You persist in insisting vehemently that others are being misleading and then you make obviously false statements.  This is not a convincing way to argue.  If you do not change your tune no-one will listen to you.

       The purpose of SkS is to provide support of climate science.  While occasional articles about solutions are published, that is a side issue.  No attempt is made to be comprehensive in the coverage of solutions.   Your insistance that your beliefs about solutions must be promoted at SkS derails the primary purpose here.  Why don't you take your arguments to a more appropriate forum?

43306. dana1981 at 12:11 PM on 30 July 2013
       An accurately informed public is necessary for climate policy
       

       richard.betts @16 - fair point, that wasn't accurate phrasing on my part.  Sorry about that.  Though it's worth noting that while many 'skeptics' may be part of the 97%, they're not part of the 96%.

43307. MichaelK at 11:45 AM on 30 July 2013
       An accurately informed public is necessary for climate policy
       

       After reading all of the above comments I can't help wondering why a 97% consensus paper is causing so much angst in the denial community? If we are to believe the public has moved on, and that publicity of the paper will only harden established positions, I would have thought the denial blogs would simply ignore it.

       My own experience of engaging with climate contrarians is that they believe the basic science of global warming is still in dispute. And I don't blame them with headlines in the popular media declaring that CFCs/cosmic rays/solar activitity, in other words, anything other than CO2 is the cause. With so much misinformation in the public sphere, a recent survey of the scientific literature is something which had to be done.

       I think what Hulme and Kahan are saying is that such a survey is not an end in itself and they are frustrated when it is used in an attempt to silence debate. Fair enough. Kahan calls for evidence based approaches to come up with carefully nuanced methods of climate change communication, but I was having trouble following exactly what he is advocating. Perhaps this from his blog of last Sunday is an example:

       "I just instructed my broker to place an order for $153,252 worth of stocks in firms engaged in arctic shipping. I wonder how many of the people arguing against the validity of the Cook et al. study are shorting those same securities?"

43308. Daniel Livingston at 11:29 AM on 30 July 2013
       An accurately informed public is necessary for climate policy
       

       oops - typo in first sentence of last paragraph above in #20: "would it make sense to participate..."

43309. Daniel Livingston at 11:18 AM on 30 July 2013
       An accurately informed public is necessary for climate policy
       

       Barry Woods asserts a widespread reframing of climate change discourse, which apparently he believes has relevance to readers here. That may well be true, but his framing of the reframing comes across to me as nitpicky and adversarial – the very thing that ironically it seems he wishes wasn’t part of climate discourse. Political science suggests there may indeed be power in reframing discourse. In fact, I appreciate how this site (SkS) helps to reframe cognitive discourse (at least on this site) away from myth and propaganda toward science.

       “Prof Mike Hulme’s... view that the climate communications environment with the politicians, media and the public has changed post Copenhagen Conference (or climategate - 2009)”

       “Evidence (if only ancedotal) that the comms climate has changed i the UK at least”

       In addition to claiming that this reframing is widespread, Barry implies that this reframing is beneficial, and that communicators who are framing the discourse differently are counterproductive. It is not entirely clear what Barry’s reframing is other than that current ‘contrarians’ (WUWT etc) be categorised as part of a new ‘consensus’ where the consensus envelope is redrawn to be far more inclusive, and then that we resume discussions about things over which there is disagreement (sensitivity and a perceived hiatus). In my opinion this would probably leave us not far from where we are now except that we would have to find other words to describe the current ‘consensus’ that current ‘contrarians’ fall outside of.

       “So maybe it is time to accept Roy Spencer, Prof Lindzen, Anthony Watts and Andrew Montford, etc into the consensus?”

       I wonder whether Barry would consider a contribution at WUWT in which he encouraged its readers to view themselves as part of a meaningful consensus (not just mockery of the idea of consensus) that includes, presumably, SkS authors/readers? While on the one hand that would be a wonderful development, I unfortunately doubt the discourse has moved to this point from the point of view of WUWT authors/readers.

       Barry, in one or two sentences, could you succinctly characterise the change in climate discourse that you are talking about?

       Further, in another one or two sentences, what is your objective for facilitating a reframing of climate change discourse, and what should be the objective generally for climate communication?

       Finally, if one believes the premise of Dana’s conclusion in the OP, would it make to participate in the reframing you are talking about? If so, why? Or if one must logically dispute Dana’s conclusion in order to participate in such a reframing, perhaps it would be useful to start with evidence-based reasoning to come to a different conclusion than that of the OP.

43310. gws at 10:41 AM on 30 July 2013
       An accurately informed public is necessary for climate policy
       

       Barry, it appears to me that your whole rant is based on the premise that pointing out the consensus is polarizing, and analyzing and publishing about it is designed to further polarize instead of "moving on". Maybe you could clarify that.

       As pointed out many times over, including in this very post by Dana, the paper was everything but what your long comment seems to make it all about. Thus it clearly appears to me you are beating a strawman. If you want to misunderstand the points the paper is making then it is actually you and those you cite who failed to move on.

43311. JasonB at 10:25 AM on 30 July 2013
       An accurately informed public is necessary for climate policy
       

       I think it's a very useful book, and makes a great contribution to moving the dialogue forward beyond the current stalemate between entrenched positions.

       I would have thought that having people stop misrepresenting facts would be a great contribution. This entire website is dedicated to busting myths that weren't dreamt up by those who accept the evidence, they're actual myths that have actually been promoted by many of the people who you're suggesting we should now accommodate for the sake of "unity".

       It's unreasonable to expect those who form opinions based on facts and evidence to find some way they can get along with those who promote lies and misinformation to prevent actions they find unpalatable, especially if that means compromising the former group's efforts to get those facts and that evidence into the public arena so that everyone is aware of the reality.

       I suppose "Why can't we all just get along and promote a message we can all agree with" is the next in a long line of tactics to delay action.

43312. JasonB at 10:15 AM on 30 July 2013
       An accurately informed public is necessary for climate policy
       

       Barry Woods,

       So is it time to work out what we all can agree on and move forward.

       You mean, figure out what the consensus is and then announce the results to everyone in some sort of publication?

       So maybe it is time to accept Roy Spencer, Prof Lindzen, Anthony Watts and Andrew Montford, etc into the consensus?

       This is a bizarre suggestion. "The consensus" is not a club. It's what the overwhelming majority of scientists with the relevant expertise agree on. Anyone will automatically be a part of that consensus if they agree on the same thing.

       You seem to be suggesting that "the consensus" should be watered down to the extent that the remaining 3% can also be "included", a sort of lowest-common-denominator approach that excludes nobody so everyone gets to be in "the club".

       Well, I've got some bad news for you there. Some of those 3% are real cranks, and they don't all agree on the same thing. Some of them don't even agree with themselves from one blog post to the next!

       Besides which, telling everyone what 97% of scientists say on a subject is good enough for me and, I suspect, most people. We don't need to water it down to pick up the stragglers who can't bring themselves to accept the evidence or let go of their pet theories no matter how many times they've been shown wrong.

43313. richard.betts at 09:10 AM on 30 July 2013
       An accurately informed public is necessary for climate policy
       

       Hi Dana

       Bit surprised to read your sentence "Ben Pile repeated claims made by ... Richard Betts ... suggesting that even climate “skeptics” would fall within our 97% consensus ... these claims display a lack of understanding of the nuance in our study."

       Ben pointed to my post at Bishop Hill where I asked the sceptics who considered themselves in the 97%, and in which I was careful to quote your exact definition, which was "97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming".  

       I think it's a bit strong to say I was making "claims" and imply that I'd not understood your definitions.  It would be useful if you could check your reading of your sources a bit more thoroughly!

       Incidentally, shoyemore, since Climategate Mike Hulme has published an excellent, insightful book called "Why we disagree about climate change".  It's a very well-informed and well-argued examination of the complexities of the climate debate and the different viewpoints people are coming from - I think it's a very useful book, and makes a great contribution to moving the dialogue forward beyond the current stalemate between entrenched positions.  Mike is well worth listening to, and I thoroughly recommend his book.

43314. empirical_bayes at 08:55 AM on 30 July 2013
       Update on BC’s Effective and Popular Carbon Tax
       

       So, this fascinated me, including the continuing claims of Russ R regarding people buying gasoline in Washington State.  So, I decided to get some data.  For one thing, I grabbed Excise Tax reports from Washington State, nicely available because of their transparent government, and cross-checked these with other sources. I was able to obtain, for State of Washington, total number of gallons sold in the period of interest.

        

       These data were found at:

       http://dor.wa.gov/

       and 

       http://www.eia.gov/

       and

       http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=26&t=10

       In short, unless one has evidence that the total number of British Columbia people coming into Washington State to buy is totally negligible compared to the population buying in Washington State, with 4.4 million people in B.C. and 6.8 in Washington State, or significantly diminished because of the distance they travel, there is no evidence that the number of gallons of gasoline sold has jumped because of border crossings.  Then, again, the idea that the decrease in gasoline use reported by B.C. government is due to cross-border raids is not supported by this data.

       The same kind of calculation could be done for Alaska, but I don't know why people's behavior in B.C. would be different if they live against one border than another.

        

       Moderator Response:

       [RH] Fixed excessively long URL's.  Also created image for data table since that was breaking page formatting too.

43315. Barry Woods at 08:18 AM on 30 July 2013
       An accurately informed public is necessary for climate policy
       

       As I'm in the UK and John Cook is in Australia (Dana the USA) - I'll have to wait (hopefully) to a reply to my question (comment 1) from the authors of the paper.

       I'm a little surprised that Dana did not focuss on the first part Prof Mike Hulme's (founding director of Tyndall Centre for Climate Change) comment, as this has recieved the most attention around the blogs (in particular Prof Judith Curry and Prof Dan Kahan), it talks mainly about his view that the climate communications environment with the politicians, media and the public has changed post Copenhagen Conference (or climategate - 2009):

       "Ben Pile is spot on. The “97% consensus” article is poorly conceived, poorly designed and poorly executed. It obscures the complexities of the climate issue and it is a sign of the desperately poor level of public and policy debate in this country that the energy minister should cite it. It offers a similar depiction of the world into categories of ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ to that adopted in Anderegg et al.’s 2010 equally poor study in PNAS: dividing publishing climate scientists into ‘believers’ and ‘non-believers’." - Prof Mike Hulme

       http://blogs.nottingham.ac.uk/makingsciencepublic/2013/07/23/whats-behind-the-battle-of-received-wisdoms/#comment-182401

       Prof Dan Kahan (Yale) made a similar observation of how succesful this consensus aproach communications would be likely to work, in a post when the paper was published:

       "Annual "new study" finds 97% of climate scientists believe in man-made climate change; public consensus sure to follow once news gets out " - Prof Dan Kahan

       http://www.culturalcognition.net/blog/2013/5/17/annual-new-study-finds-97-of-climate-scientists-believe-in-m.html

        

       Prof Dan Kahan revisited this paper when Prof Mike Hulme's comment came to his attention, and seems to be agreeing with Hulme that the climate of communications has moved on:

       "On the contrary, there’s good reason to believe that the self-righteous and contemptuous tone with which the “scientific consensus” point is typically advanced (“assault on reason,” “the debate is over” etc.) deepens polarization. That's because "scientific consensus," when used as a rhetorical bludgeon, predictably excites reciprocally contemptuous and recriminatory responses by those who are being beaten about the head and neck with it.

       Such a mode of discourse doesn't help the public to figure out what scientists believe. But it makes it as clear as day to them that climate change is an "us-vs.-them" cultural conflict, in which those who stray from the position that dominates in their group will be stigmatized as traitors within their communities."

       This is not a condition conducive to enlightened self-government." - Prof Dan Kahan

       Is it not possible to change focus, and to attempt to discuss what we all agree on, going forward?

       Evidence (if only ancedotal) that the comms climate has changed i the UK at least:

       At the recent Oxford Union Interview with Prof Lindzen, with Mark Lynas (author Six Degreees, God Species and environmental writer/activist), Prof Lyles Allen - Oxford Uni - opposing, and David Rose - Mail on Sunday supporting, surprising the interviewer I think, they all agreed that current EU climate policies were pointless futile symbolic gestures, Myles Allen stated that he and Lindzen were in agreement about most of the science and Mark Lynas stated aterwards that they all agreed on 7 out of 10 things.

       So is it time to work out what we all can agree on and move forward.

       Mike Hulme suggests in this comment that the world has changed and despairs at the polarised and quality of the public debate.

       Consider that  Prof Mike Hulme (Tyndall Centre, UEA) was quoted in a climategate email of trying to keep sceptics like Prof Stott off the BBC airwaves, and Mark Lynas was writing 6 years ago that climates sceptics were the moral equivalent of Holocaust deniers, that surely is an indication of  how things have changed?

       I had lunch with Mark Lynas last year and he expressed surpise at the contents of the full Doran survey, an earlier 97% consensus paper (especially the appendices,) he is the unatributed environmental writer here in the WUWT article below, he had often quoted it, but had never read - The Consensus on the Consensus - M Zimmerman (the survey cited by Doran)

       http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/18/what-else-did-the-97-of-scientists-say/

       Both Hulme and Kahan are saying that yet another 97% consensus paper is unlikely to change anything and perhaps a new approach is required, even psychologist Dr Adam Corner is trying to broaden the tent, to include conservatives (UK sort) who whilst many care about the environemnet, Dr Adam Corner (Cardiff Uni, Guardian, COIN, PIRC, formerly Green Party MP candidate, and Friends of the Earth) recognises that the issue has become symbolic and identified with the left, and needs a broader viewpoint to actually ever achieve anything with respect to policy.

       http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/jun/13/sceptical-tory-voters-climate-change

        

       If Mark Lynas (who put Lindzen into a who is who of Climate Change Deniers - (with Exxon fossil fuel links innuendo) in the New Statesmen a decade ago and equated sceptics with moral equivalent of Holocause deniers ( 6 years ago) can sit down  with me ( a Watts Up With that very occasional Guest Author)  civily and have lunch, discuss, agree to disagree or even agree to agree on many things (I even 'know where he lives' - ref Greenpeace, he had a bad back, so I gave him a lift), have things moved on?

       Or after the Lindzen debate, when Mark Lynas was asked, do you think Prof Lindzen's scence is in anyway influenced by any fossil fuel infuence, he said highly highly unlikely, Prof Myles Allen was really offended that Lindzen had been asked this sort of question (repeatably, a lot was cut from the video edit) , Myles (frustrated with the interviewer) even saying Exxon paid for my ticket once, can we move on, and that consensus was not getting us anywhere , is that a not a sign that the climate of communications has moved on (in the UK at least)

        

       So maybe it is time to accept Roy Spencer, Prof Lindzen, Anthony Watts and Andrew Montford, etc into the consensus? As they all agree that the Earth has warmed in the last 200 hundred years, that CO2 is a green house gas, and that man contributes to climate change.

       We can then discuss what we all disagree about, which I think is mainly policy and the hot topics of climate science, senitsivity and the reason for the hiatus in temps in the last decade or so.?

       And also perhaps it is time to drop Deniers Disinformation Databases (Desmogblog) or Deniers Halls of Shame (Rising Tide, Campaign Agansit Climate Change) as a tool in the communications debate (it is ever so counterproductve)

       Thoughts?

       (sorry the comment was a bit long)

        

       links:

       Prof Myles Alen comments about Prof Lindzen treatement by the interviewer (comment 23):

       http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2013/3/9/lindzen-at-the-oxford-union.html

        

       the Oxford Union Lindzen interview (Allen, Rose, Lynas)

       http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/headtohead/2013/06/201361311721241956.html

43316. scaddenp at 07:53 AM on 30 July 2013
       2013 SkS Weekly News Roundup #29B
       

       "There is no 'price support' in Saudi Arabia, or other oil producting countries. Since the oil age began, they have been supplying their populations with energy at the cost of production."

       Sigh, as pointed out you in 26, this is price support by lost opportunity cost. The Saudi oil company could have made more money by exporting that oil. However, this is still simply arguing about definitions. The substantive point, is whether having Saudi citizens (and all other countries doing consumption subsidies) pay market price would reduce their use of FF. You seem to be saying no - "this will reduce co2 emissions only to the degree that their citizens become unable to obtain energy. "

       Huh? Energy demand is basically unlimited. I can only use so many plasma TVs but if you had flights to moon for $100, how popular do you think they would be? Instead what limits our energy use, is our ability to pay for it. Furthermore, the Saudis (and many other oil producers) have abundant solar resources. I assert from basic economics that if everyone in world pays market price for energy, then consumption would drop.

       Care to explain where you think the economics is wrong?

        

       As for "The purpose of this deliberate lie is to mislead people into thinking that intermittent renewables would be more competitive in industrialised countries if only these pesky subsidies for fossil fuels would be removed."

       For someone screaming that someone else is lying, (meaning they use a convention economic understanding of the word subsidy rather your own special meaning), this is extremely rich. I do not believe that anyone has asserted this. How you about you present some evidence to back that smear? What I believe the actual assertion is:

       1/ price support (by any means including opportunity cost) is artifically lowering prices to consumer and thus encouraging more consumption (and emissions) than would otherwise happen.

       2/ price support artifically increases price gap between non-carbon energy sources (eg nuclear and renewables) and FF. In SOME cases, removal of those subsidies would make other forms of energy generation cheaper to consumers than FF.

       Removal of all forms of subsidy is merely the first step in reducing CO2 emissions. Having carbon tax at same times as subsidies makes no sense at all.

43317. Rob Honeycutt at 07:48 AM on 30 July 2013
       An accurately informed public is necessary for climate policy
       

       This is yet another denier tactic coming from Barry.  They create impossible barriers of perfection for climate scientists and never expect anything close to the same from their own side.  

        

       Barry, this website is brimming with outrageous examples of "skeptics" propagating any number of completely ludicris claims.  Where is your incredulity over them?  

       I'm waiting for a wide range of corrections from Pielke, Spencer, Christy, Watts, Goddard, Bastardi, Carter, Taylor, McKitrick, McIntyre, Easterbrook, Kappenberger, Scafetta, Humlum, and a long list of others.  

       Please let me know when these guys make their corrections and I'll gladly personally lobby John for a correction on the president's tweet.

43318. shoyemore at 07:37 AM on 30 July 2013
       An accurately informed public is necessary for climate policy
       

       I had not heard of Hulme since he made some inaccurate interjections into the faux-scandal Climategate back in 2009-2010.

       It would be interesting to know if he has done anything at all useful in the meantime.

       IMHO, this latest intervention moves him from zero to zero, or even to less than zero.

43319. MA Rodger at 04:34 AM on 30 July 2013
       An accurately informed public is necessary for climate policy
       

       Prof Hulme's  description of his work(from here & quoted below) doesn't throw much light on his reasons for objecting to the 97% consensus.

       "My work explores the idea of climate change using historical, cultural and scientific analyses, seeking to illuminate the numerous ways in which climate change is deployed in public and political discourse. I believe it is important to understand and describe the varied ideological, political and ethical work that the idea of climate change is currently performing across different social worlds. My research interests are therefore concerned with representations of climate change in history, culture and the media; with how knowledge of climate change is constructed (especially through the IPCC) and the interactions between climate change knowledge and policy; and with the construction, application and evaluation of climate scenarios for impacts, adaptation and integrated assessments."

       This statement is as clear as mud. But a read of this review of Prof Hulme's 2010 book throws some light on where he is coming from. My reading of it is that he sees science as not being the problem solver and so not in a position to dictate to the world what is or is not the implications of the science. Even with a 97% concensus, even if science is unequivocal that mankind is off to hell in a handcart, that is irrelevant. This is because what we do about it, indeed how much we do about it, this is still a socio-political problem whose solution and whose statement of "problem" should not be dictated to us by science.

43320. grindupBaker at 03:57 AM on 30 July 2013
       Each degree of global warming might ultimately raise global sea levels by more than 2 meters
       

       @Me #6 typo: "global temperature" should be "global surface temperature".  

43321. grindupBaker at 03:55 AM on 30 July 2013
       Each degree of global warming might ultimately raise global sea levels by more than 2 meters
       

       @Earthling #4 Because it wasn't a "global temperature rise", was global temperature. Takes 3.8 ZettaJoules to heat all land by 0.75º C, 4.1 Zj for all air, 110 Zj for all freshwater and 4,400 Zj for the oceans. The oceans are holding back the surface temperature by absorbing 250 Zj to date and taking it down into the deeps by currents. Their average temperature is 3.1 degrees, they'll keep taking heat down until they've added same temperature amount as the surface, this takes thousands of years. Needs 11,000 Zj to melt all ice on Earth. 100 years is the blink of an eye, this thing is an ocean liner with no brakes.  

43322. Dikran Marsupial at 03:43 AM on 30 July 2013
       An accurately informed public is necessary for climate policy
       

       No Barry, not a correction to the tweet, but a rewording of the original tweet that you would have found acceptable.  The point I am making here is that given so few characters it is rather difficult to state exactly what the TCP showed in a way that is completely accurate and can't be misunderstood.  This is especially true if the person writing the tweet is not an expert on the subject. 

43323. Barry Woods at 03:32 AM on 30 July 2013
       An accurately informed public is necessary for climate policy
       

       Well you could try something similar to Richard Betts, example already shown.

       Moderator Response:

       [PW] Cease the back-n-forth on this silly nitpick of a single tweet. Return to the topic and further nonsense about a single tweet will be deleted.

43324. Dikran Marsupial at 03:14 AM on 30 July 2013
       An accurately informed public is necessary for climate policy
       

       Barry, if you want to come across as being a troll with no substantive point to make, then playing silly games is as good a way as any to achive that.  Alternatively, you could engage in something more productive, for instance suggesting how the tweet should have been worded in order to avoid any misconception (bearing in mind only 140 characters are available and would need to include the reference to the article).

43325. Barry Woods at 03:09 AM on 30 July 2013
       An accurately informed public is necessary for climate policy
       

       @dana1981  Richard Betts managed a tweet. how about you?

43326. dana1981 at 02:53 AM on 30 July 2013
       An accurately informed public is necessary for climate policy
       

       "So Dana, will you or any of your co-authors, tell the President..."

       Yeah hold on, let me get him on the phone right now...

43327. Dikran Marsupial at 02:43 AM on 30 July 2013
       An accurately informed public is necessary for climate policy
       

       Barry Woods, just of out of interest, how should the tweet have been worded (keeping to 140 characters or less and including the link to the article)?

       As SkS has discussed the various misinterpretations of the 97%, while Obama's tweet may not have been explicitly discussed, I don't think it is fair to say that anybody reading the discussion on SkS (with a reasonably open mind) would say that the error itself had not been addressed.

       Life is too short for pedantry and nit-picking, especially if it is only a means to avoid acceptance of what the TCP does actually show, i.e. that there is a broad concensus amongst scientists working on climate-related science that the majority of climate change is anthropogenic.

43328. ralbin at 02:39 AM on 30 July 2013
       An accurately informed public is necessary for climate policy
       

       Hulme's comments are, well, naive, at least from the point of view of someone living in the USA.  The nature of our political system makes it relatively easy for relatively small interest groups to obstruct reform efforts.  Building substantial, and not merely majority, support for reform efforts is often necessary to overcome special interest group lobbying.  On an issue like this, where the opposition has considerable financial resources and is supported by the leadership of one of our major political parties, public opinion has to shift a lot to have a measureable effect.  Unlike Prof. Hulme, the professional politicians and conservative media who constitute the shock troops of denialism in the USA recognize this fact clearly and devote quite a bit of effort to obfuscating the truth to prevent a public opinion shift of this type.  He should spend a few days in the USA watching TV ads from fossil fuel companies.  

43329. DSL at 02:36 AM on 30 July 2013
       An accurately informed public is necessary for climate policy
       

       Actually, I'd support Barry's suggestion for a correction, but only for the sake of not giving the intentional misinformers something to use.  The President's twitter only misinforms the public where that paper is concerned.  The overwhelming majority of those who follow BO's twitter will never read the paper and may not even realize that the consensus is associated with a particular paper.  I'd argue that the twitter was read by most as a representation of the science rather than an extremely short summary of a single study. As a takeaway representation of science, the tweet is accurate: rapid global warming is creating conditions which are dangerous to conditions that support human prosperity at its current standard.  Yes, the term "dangerous" needs defining, but that's twitter -- it's only a progressive tool when those engaged have the time, energy, training, and/or motivation to follow up and think critically about the issue.

43330. Barry Woods at 02:18 AM on 30 July 2013
       An accurately informed public is necessary for climate policy
       

       actually - the authors celebrated the tweet rather than correct the 'misinformation' made in to the public aboutthe papers findings, which was widely further reported to the media. Something I would hope all scientist would be concerned about (Prof Richard Betts was..)

        

       a big 'nit'

43331. Bob Lacatena at 02:10 AM on 30 July 2013
       An accurately informed public is necessary for climate policy
       

       Barry,

       So your particular nit is that the paper's authors didn't correct the President of the United States (or, rather, those who manage his twitter feed) for the exact wording of a tweet?

       And for that you need a page long diatribe?

       Sort of sums it up.  You don't care about the consensus, or the state of climate science, what we know, and what scientists really think.

       You only care about playing word games.

       Welcome to the world of denial.

43332. Barry Woods at 01:49 AM on 30 July 2013
       An accurately informed public is necessary for climate policy
       

        

       I would like to thank Nottingham University's Making science Public project for running some very interesting articles, the comments there are I think worth a read. But perhaps this is the best place to raise this question?

       Lets look at the media coverage that Skeptical Science is so proud of: http://www.skepticalscience.com/republishers.php?a=tcpmedia

       especially this one:

       Barack Obama

       @BarackObama Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree: #climate change is real, man-made and dangerous. Read more: http://OFA.BO/gJsdFp

       Now whatever the paper did, it made zero reference to impact, or any consensus on impacts and there is no justification at all - based on this paper - for a 97% consensus of ‘dangerous’ to be declared a finding of it, did the authors seek to correct this in anyway, no they celebrated it by listing it on their blog, with a link to President Barack Obama.

       Professor Richard Betts (Head of Climate Impacts, Met Office and IPCC lead author AR4 & AR5) sought to correct it, by tweeting back:

       Richardabetts

       @BarackObama Actually that paper didn’t say ‘dangerous’. NB I *do* think #climate change poses risks – I just care about accurate reporting!

       Maybe John Cook was not aware of President Barack Obama misrepresenting and overstating this paper, when he said (or his official account did) 97% of scientists agree climate change is real man made and dangerous?

       Sadly no. It appear that John Cook  was surprised at all the attention and made no effort (nor the other authors) to correct this Barack Obama tweet (to 30 million people,  or how it was widely reported else where in the media

       Sydney Morning Herald: Obama gives Aussie researcher 31,541,507 reasons to celebrate

       Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/obama-gives-aussie-researcher-31541507-reasons-to-celebrate-20130517-2jqrh.html#ixzz2aRpr8JPX

       “Australian researcher John Cook, an expert in climate change communication, was inundated with requests for interviews by US media outlets after Obama took to Twitter to endorse his project’s final report.

       “It was pretty cool news,” said Mr Cook, a fellow at the University of Queensland’s Global Change Institute and founder of the website skepticalscience.com. “It was out of our expectations.”

       A survey of scientific papers by a team led by Mr Cook and published by Fairfax Media this week found more than 97 per cent of researchers endorsed the view that humans are to blame for global warming. The peer-reviewed outcome flies in the face of public perception in countries such as the US or Australia that scientists are divided on the issue.

       “One of the highest predictors of how important people think climate change is, is cues from political leaders,” Mr Cook said. “So if the leaders don’t seem to care, people don’t care either.

       “A cue from Obama is a big step,” he said. “The fact it goes to more than 31 million followers, it just raises the awareness of consensus.”

       ———————-

       Awareness,  a false awareness (courtsey of Obama) of a 97% consensus on 'dangerous', misinformation that is now in the public domain about this paper by the President of the United States of America , not corrected by the authors of the paper. An irony is that Prof Lewandowsky and John Cook have a paper published on how hard it is to correct misinformation.. !!! http://psi.sagepub.com/content/13/3/106.full?ijkey=FNCpLYuivUOHE&keytype=ref&siteid=sppsi

        

       President Obama is now going after Deniers in Congress…. (thus this ishighly political, v dangerous for the public perception of scientists if 'misinformation' is uncorrected by scientists)

       www. BarackObama.com

       “Call out a climate denier

       Check out our list of known climate deniers in Congress-elected officials who refuse to even acknowledge the science behind climate change—and call them out on Twitter.” http://www.barackobama.com/climate-deniers

       So Dana, will you or any of your co-authors, tell the President, that your paper says nothing about  a consensus on ‘dangerous’?

43333. Dikran Marsupial at 22:00 PM on 29 July 2013
       Each degree of global warming might ultimately raise global sea levels by more than 2 meters
       

       Earthling, the question asked in your first paragraph is essentially answered in the second paragraph of the article (the use of the word "ultimately" in the title of the post should also be a hint).  The oceans have a massive thermal inertia, which means that it takes a long time for the oceans to warm sufficiently to come back into equilibrium with the surface.  Thus the full sea level rise due to thermal expansion of the oceans will only been fully evidient after a delay of many decades.

       The second of your paragraphs is just pedantry.  "business as usual" is just the terminology used for the course of progress where no real attempt is made to curb fossil fuel use and instead exploit fossil fuels in the interests of rapid economic growth.  "business as usual" seems as good a name for that as any.

43334. Tom Curtis at 21:50 PM on 29 July 2013
       2013 SkS Weekly News Roundup #29B
       

       JvD @42, no they don't.  (See, you're not the only one who can argue by mere assertion.)

       If you want to actually argue the case, however, start by explaining why we should accept the assumption of EnergyNautics that demand shifting is limited to 10% of power.  Continue on by showing why you are using a study on the infrastructure costs of interconnecting Europe for renewables arising from peak energy demand in the middle latitudes (Germany, France) with peak energy production at the limits of the system (Norway for wind, Spain for solar) when your initial argument was renewables require unrealistic grid costs due to intermittency (a different issue entirely).

43335. JvD at 20:15 PM on 29 July 2013
       2013 SkS Weekly News Roundup #29B
       

       Tom Curtis wrote:

       If electrical cars become common, use of the same tarrif structure to encourage recharging from intermittent power would almost eliminate the need for substantially increased levels of renewable supply. Altering feed in tarifs so the gave a greater financial reward for using power in site at time of production rather than minimizing daytime usage (as the current feed-in tarif does) would also reduce the costs.

       Please study the Poyry and EnergyNautics studies linked to above, which lay waste to your claims.

43336. JvD at 20:10 PM on 29 July 2013
       2013 SkS Weekly News Roundup #29B
       

       For your benefit, here is the important, Greenpeace-commissioned, study by EnergyNautics, which explains very clearly that most of the claims put forward by pro-intermittent renewables proponents are pure bunkum:

       www.energynautics.com/downloads/competences/energynautics_EUROPEAN-GRID-STUDY-2030-2050.pdf

       Here are the important conclusions. Note that these conclusions will not be found anywhere on SkS. In the past, I have urged SkS administrators to do justice to these crucial conclusions, but to date nothing has happened on this front. Here are the main points:

       On the need for dramatic increase in spending on electricity transmission (spending which is totally ignored by all pro-intermittent renewables proponents):

       The grid will need to transfer large quantities of mainly solar energy from southern countries such as Spain, Portugal and Italy, and simultaneously bring wind energy southwards, requiring a North Sea offshore grid.

       On the usefullness of Demand Side Management and EV batteries for improving the performance of an intermittent renewables energy system (which is an utterly false claim put forward by all intermittent renewables proponents):

       The DSM levels did not create significant differences to the grid infrastructure required in 2030, or the amount of CO2 emissions mitigated. With the implementation of storage mediums and EVs, the impact in reducing the amount of curtailed energy was minimal, unless unrealistically large quantities of storage are placed at unique points within the system.

       Intermittent renewables proponents frequently claim that distribution infrastructure does not need to be upgraded in order to accommodate intermittent renewables, and therefore, distribution costs - let alone new investments - should not be calculated or  included in the cost of intermittent energy generation. EnergyNautics makes mincemeat of this egregious nonsense:

       The distribution network. Distribution is not explicitly assessed in this study. However, it will need to be upgraded to provide an adequate interface between the new, decentralised renewable generation and the transmission system, as well as the consumption.

       On the cost of grid upgrades in Europe, required to meet 97% of electricity with renewables, Energynautics shows that these cost are not 'negligeable' as all pro-intermittent renewables would maintain:

       The 2050 grid to meet the Energy [R]evolution scenario compared to the current grid in 2010 requires between 1421 and 2951 GW of network upgrades. The costs fall between 149 and 679 billion euros, corresponding to the regional scenario and import scenario evaluated in this section. It should be kept in mind that the regional scenario relies on a heavy increase in installed capacity of new generators such as solar PV, wind and biomass within Europe. Of course, the costs of installing extra generation capacity may be far beyond the discrepancy between the two grid costs evaluated here.

       So even excluding the severe costs of building the PV and wind generating stations themselves, europe will need to spend hundreds of billions of euro's on grid upgrades alone.

       Anyway, I urge everyone to read and understand this report. It wasa commissioned by Greenpeace itself, so it is not possible to dismiss this report as non-Greenpeace propaganda. It is a serious matter. These costs will arrive out of the blue for european citizens, since no proponent of intermittent renewables is warning them in advance. To the contrary. In my work, when I present these results, I frequently get told that we can pay for these costs by reducing the 'subsidies' on fossil fuels! And thusly, the story comes full circle! By (falsely) thinking that there are billions of dollars of 'fossil fuel subsidies' in Europe, decision-makers in europe think that there is billions of dollars of cash waiting to be 're-allocated away' from fossil fuels to renewables! This is nothing but excruciating nonsense, and it pervades thinking about sustainability on all levels. We have a lot of work to do to dispell such nonsense. I hope some who read this will join in and help remove it.

       Specifically, I hope SkS will devote some space to addressing these important questions, whereas today it does nothing. To the contrary, the pages on SkS that address 100% renewable scenario development gloss over and marginalise these serious issues. In the past, I have tried unsuccessfully to correct this. I notice some of the same commentators in this thread were active at that time, also to deny my evidence and conclusions then. I hope this will stop someday, so we can work together to stop fossil fuel hegemony and climate change once and for all. Thank you.

        

43337. Tom Curtis at 19:34 PM on 29 July 2013
       2013 SkS Weekly News Roundup #29B
       

       JvD @38, one engineering solution to the problem of intermittency requires massive increases in transmission infrastructure.  Others do not.  In particular solar thermal plants solve the intermittency problem for solar with no requirement of extra transmission infrastructure at all.  Other means of storing energy for later use (eg, pumped hydro) also restrict the need for increased infrastructure.  Further, simple changes of social habits or building designs can exploit energy at the time of its production rather than later, again obviating the need for increased expenditure of transmission.  In Qld and the moment, for example, there is a special rate for power in appliances that only use them in off peak (ie, night) time.  This is used primarilly for heating water.  Switching that to a special rate for power to heat water that is only provided when there is excess capacity from intermittent sources would significantly reduce the need for expanded tranmission infrastructure in Qld.  If electrical cars become common, use of the same tarrif structure to encourage recharging from intermittent power would almost eliminate the need for substantially increased levels of renewable supply.  Altering feed in tarifs so the gave a greater financial reward for using power in site at time of production rather than minimizing daytime usage (as the current feed-in tarif does) would also reduce the costs.

       It is your tendency to portray engineering issues as IRRESOLVIBLE PROBLEMS (in capital letters) that makes it hard for me to take you seriously.

43338. Earthling at 19:24 PM on 29 July 2013
       Each degree of global warming might ultimately raise global sea levels by more than 2 meters
       

       If each degree of global warming is likely to raise sea level by more than 2 metres in the future, why did the 0.75º C global temperature rise of the last 100 years only cause 21 centimetres of sea level rise, less than one tenth of 2 metres?

       And why do so many people mention "Business as usual," when no such thing has ever existed in the history of our ever changing human society?

       
       

       
       

43339. JvD at 19:21 PM on 29 July 2013
       2013 SkS Weekly News Roundup #29B
       

       scaddenp wrote

       You are avoiding the main question here. I assume that you do in fact agree that removing price support will result in energy cost of FF fuel go up? And that this will make renewables cheaper? And that higher cost of FF will result in less consumption? If you agree with this, then removing these forms of price support will be an effective means of reducing CO2 emissions.

       There is no 'price support' in Saudi Arabia, or other oil producting countries. Since the oil age began, they have been supplying their populations with energy at the cost of production. Should they now choose to add 600% domestic taxes to that energy, - in order to equal the international market price of energy -  this will reduce co2 emissions only to the degree that their citizens become unable to obtain energy. Whatever the percieved benefits of this for the Saudi population or the world, such a move will do nothing to improve the competitiveness of intermittent renewables across the wider space of UN member countries. Absolutely nothing. (-snip-).

       Now, you are free to call it a 'mistake' on the part of Dr. Romani if you would choose to do so. But I know better, since the issue of countries like Saudi Arabia supplying their own citizens with energy priced at cost is not a new phenomenon. In fact, the most important study on this issue - the joint OECD/World Bank,OPEC,IEA report I linked to above - clear lays out this situation. (-snip-).

       (-snip-). Whether Saudi Arabia raises taxes on domestic energy will have no impact at all on the competitiveness of intermittent renewables within UN member nations. It is a purely a domestic tax issue for Saudi Arabia. It has no wider international significance.

       Moderator Response:

       [DB] Multiple inflammatory snipped.

43340. JvD at 19:00 PM on 29 July 2013
       2013 SkS Weekly News Roundup #29B
       

       CBDunkerson wrote:

       Granted, transmission distance is generally going to be much less for rooftop solar than traditional centralized grid power and the transmission infrastructure is already in place so there isn't really any significant additional cost to transmit rooftop solar power over it. However, the more rooftop solar power is generated the less money the power companies make. At a certain point this would impact their ability to maintain the power grid and thus impact costs to people receiving transmitted solar generated power. You can't go 100% solar (or even 50%) without adding in some cost for distribution and/or storage.

       You are almost correct. What is missing here is the understanding that switching to 100% intermittent renewables will always add very strongly to transmission and distribution cost. We can look at Germany and Denmark for a real-life example. Both countries are about 20% switchted to intermittent renewables, and already they are forced to invest billions in additional transmission and distribution infrastructure that would not be needed if they maintained baseload power generation. As these countries move further to achieve the required 95% reduction in co2 intensity of power generation, the additional cost of transmission and distribution will balloon exponentially.

       Why? It has to do with the much hyped 'feature' of intermittent energy sources that their intermittency is said (by their proponents) to "even-out" as they are spread geographically. In other words: if there is a lot of wind in the north of Europe while there is little wind in the south of Europe, the excess wind generation in the north can be transmitted to the south, and vice versa. Obviously, in order to benefit from this geographical spread, you need many GW's of additional grid infrastructure that would otherwise not be necessary. This cost is not paid for by the wind farm owners.

       (-snip-).

       (-snip-).

       (-snip-).

       http://www.poyry.com/sites/default/files/imce/files/intermittency_-_march_2011_-_energy.pdf

       For example, poyry concludes difinitively (page 4):

       Wind and solar output will be highly variable and will not ‘average out’

       (-snip-).

       Moderator Response:

       [DB] Inflammatory snipped.

43341. Riduna at 10:21 AM on 29 July 2013
       Each degree of global warming might ultimately raise global sea levels by more than 2 meters
       

       The Potsdam press release is full of generalities and too imprecise for critical review but it may be worth noting that it refers to global warming – average or surface is unstated – rather than Arctic amplification combined with increasing penetration of warm ocean currents. Both have an effect on the rate of mass loss from ice sheets, the degradation of permafrost and, in the Arctic, the release of carbon from onshore and continental shelf deposits. Obviously the latter will increase temperature amplification, speeding up the loss of land based ice in the Arctic.

       That effect is not likely to occur in the Antarctic where methane deposits lie beneath massive ice sheets and lower temperatures are maintained by stratospheric ozone depletion and insulating circumpolar winds. Even time scales referred to, “several millennia”, are too broad to be meaningful or permit comment on the finding that an increase of 1°C in global temperature = 1 metre sea level rise. That broadly accords with the findings of others, as does an estimated 2100 average global surface temperature 4°C-6°C above the preindustrial, assuming business as usual. However, the admonition that we must prepare to “adapt” is nonsense.

       Average global temperature is very likely to exceed 2°C by 2050 and at least twice that by 2100, even if we make strenuous efforts (very unlikely) to reduce CO2 emissions to zero by 2080, as currently proposed. If the findings of Levermann et al are largely correct (a big if), try “adapting” to 4 metres sea level rise and extreme wind events causing tide surges which take actual sea level rise to 6 metres or more.

43342. Andy Skuce at 08:12 AM on 29 July 2013
       Update on BC’s Effective and Popular Carbon Tax
       

       JasonB@36

       You are correct about the Washington gas prices being higher in border towns than in Seattle. The last time I looked, a couple of days ago, the USD per gallon prices in border towns were: Sumas $3.91; Blaine $4.07 and; Point Roberts $4.69 (cut-off by direct road link to the rest of the US). Seattle prices were $3.55. All of which goes to show that American retailers know how to take a profit on the other side of an arbitrage opportunity.

       The cross-border gas price problem also points to the limits of unilateral carbon taxes in the context of free trade. Border tarriff adjustments will probably be needed eventually if one side of a trading partnership  adopts a carbon tax and the other does not. My understanding is that this might be allowed under WTO rules (unsurprisingly, legal opinions differ), but that this would not be allowed (or practicable) under NAFTA, the N American free-trade agreement.

       I agree that part of the relative increase in BC cross-border shopping is due to the proximity of the  border and the toll-free ease of crossing it. All of the Southern Ontario border crossings involve bridge tolls. It would be interesting to see what happened to cross-border traffic if a border-crossing fee were to be imposed by the US government. It is unkikely that this will happen, due to pressure from US merchants in northern border states.

       Tom@35

       I appreciate you making those corrections. Thanks!

43343. s_gordon_b at 04:19 AM on 29 July 2013
       2013 SkS Weekly News Roundup #30B
       

       The trendy meme that we can have our steak and save the planet too (your link above to "Can Agriculture Reverse Climate Change?") seems to be more or les entirely based on the claims of biologist Allan Savory, with cheerleading by Michael Pollan and others. But his extraordinary, counter-consensus claim hasn't held up to scientific scrutiny: Why Allan Savory’s TED talk about how cattle can reverse global warming is dead wrong. It would be nice to see an SkS item on this (it would seem) myth.

       Moderator Response:

       [RH] Hotlinked URL that was breaking page formatting.

43344. dvaytw at 02:47 AM on 29 July 2013
       16 years - Update and Frequently Asked Questions
       

       Hey guys - the "16 years" video is now locked as "private".  What gives?

43345. JasonB at 01:33 AM on 29 July 2013
       Update on BC’s Effective and Popular Carbon Tax
       

       Thanks for the update, Tom.

       I'm a little curious how you attributed the increase in border crossings to carbon tax vs exchange rate changes.

       An interesting anecdone: I remember talking to a couple we met on the street one evening in Vancouver in 2011 who happened to mention, laughing, that they actually drove across the border to fill up (we'd been discussing how weird it is to live so close to another country — it takes three days of driving just for me to leave my home state!), but in doing so they also pointed out that they lived in the south of Vancouver so it wasn't far to go. They also failed to mention anything about the carbon tax (I didn't even know they had one until reading about it on SkS) and indicated that the'd been doing it for a long time.

       It surprises me that a 7c/litre tax would dramatically increase the number of people for whom the trip would be worthwhile; it has always been worthwhile to fill up on the way home to Canada, but to make a special trip just because the fuel is cheaper? On the other hand, I recall the Canadians were very chuffed at the time (or possibly during the 2009 trip, I forget) about the appreciation of the C$ against the US$, and that I can imagine being a big driver in making cross-border shopping trips a lot more worthwhile, especially since domestic prices in the US seem to be almost completely immune to exchange rate fluctuations.

       I can see that you're comparing BC with other provinces, but I wonder if that could simply be due to the very close proximity of the major population centre to the border making those cross-border shopping trips relatively more attractive to a larger percentage of the population vs other provinces?

       Regarding the historical fuel price comparisons, you probably need to focus on prices at petrol stations close to the border; I doubt anybody would go all the way to Seattle just to get fuel and I expect the price of petrol will rise the closer the station is to the Canadian border.

       Just in case you (or Russ) has got nothing better to do. :-)

43346. Tom Curtis at 00:12 AM on 29 July 2013
       Update on BC’s Effective and Popular Carbon Tax
       

       It turns out that I have made a number of mistakes over the last few days. One I will attribute to tiredness, and the folly of doing analysis as an attempt make insomnia more profitable. The second I will attribute to my unfamiliarity with foreign exchange. In either case, the mistakes are substantive so everything I have written in this thread up to this point should be disregarded, and I apologize for having inadvertently mislead anybody, or for any confusion I have created.

       The first mistake I will adress is the most recent. It arose because I confused the symbol USD/CAD as US dollars per Canadian dollar, whereas in forex it has the meaning (apparently) US dollars exchanged to Canadian dollars, ie, the inverse of that which I took it to be. Therefore the chart in post 34 should be as follows:

       

       Clearly the trend in the fuel price difference is rising, and by 6c US per gallon per year. The trend rised faster prior to the introduction of the Carbon Tax (12.7 c per gallon per annum, Aug 2005-Dec 2007) than after (6.9 c per gallon per annum, Jan 2010 to current). Taking the trend from the actual introduction of the carbon tax reduces the trend to 1.8 c per gallon per annum, but that is due to the large spike at the beginning of the period which may be in part an aberration due to misalignment introduced by the digitization process. Regardless, the price differential over the last 12 months was 26.9% higher than that in the 12 months immediately preceding the introduction of the carbon tax, something that would certainly encourage more frequent cross border trips to refuel, and in particular more frequent last stop refueling when returning from the US for other reasons. Therefore, contrary to all that I have said prior to this post, this data definitely supports the contention that there is likely to have been substantial carbon leakage from BC to Washington state.

       The second mistake is that pointed out by Andy Skuce @29 above. I'm not sure that mistake is the best word, for I am still convinced my analysis shows that a major cause of relative change in cross border trips is common across all provinces of Canada except New Brunswick (which clearly has a superimposed substantial negative trend). However, by not examining the absolute figures I missed germaine additional information.

       First, consider the absolute anomaly in one day road trips to the US across several key provinces:

       One thing this shows clearly is that Canada minus British Columbia, when it comes to one day border crossings, essentially just means Ontario. That is not surprising given that they rank third and first in population respectively, and both have major centers of population very close to the US border. Quebec is unusually low in border crossings, but given the francophile nature of quebecoise culture, that is probably not surprising.

       More interesting is the anomaly data relative to the period preceding the introduction of the tax, and scaled by SD prior to that introduction:

       

       Just to be quite clear what has been done here, section B of the graph shows each data series (Canada, BC, etc) divided by the mean of that data series from June 2005- June 2008.  By doing so, we convert the absolute figures into a direct index of change relative to the pre-tax era.  It turns out that BC one day road border crossing have increased by 135.8% (mean of the last twelve months of data) relative to the pre-tax rate of crossings.  Section A of the chart then normalizes the data of section B by dividing by the value for Canada less BC.  The normalized data for BC shows an increase 2.08 times the rest of Canada (last twelve month mean), showing that approximately half of the cause of the increase is BC specific.

       Finally, here is the individual reagional data baselined from June 2005-June 2008, and divided by their standard deviations over that period.  It is important that this not be misunderstood as indicating the size of the change.  Rather it indicates the size relative to previous variation.  The very high values for BC are a factor of the large (150% increase) and the relatively small variation pre-tax.

       

       The very large (13.8 Standard Deviations mean over the last twelve months) indicates clearly that the 150% increase in vehicle crossings is not down to random factors.  It has a cause, and the dominant factor, responsible for at least 50% of the increase, is likely to be the Carbon Tax.

       For comparison, I have also included the exchange rate data which shows that it is the dominant factor prior to July 2008, but of secondary (or even tertiary) importance thereafter.

       So, in summary:

       1. The introduction of the BC carbon tax was followed by a marked (150%) increase after July 2008.
       2. Approximately fifty percent of that increase is likely attributable to the carbon tax, with rest of the increase attributable to some combination of national factors, similar factors between Ottawa and BC, or coincidence of unlike causes between Ottawa and BC.
       3. It is at least possible that the majority of the additional effect is also attributable to the carbon tax, with different factors in Ottawa causing a similar rise and thereby concealing the influence of the carbon tax.
       4. Exchange rates remain a significant influence.  At a minimum it would account for about 10% of the BC increase, but may account for as much as 50%. 

       Once again I apologize for my errors, and in particular I apologize to any body who was mislead by them.  I further apologize to Russ, whose understanding of the situation has been clearly vindicated.  I further withdraw my claims regarding the CTF and CTV BC, which are not justified on the evidence I now have.  I to maintain, however, that my comments about the necessity of analysis for justifying an argument is correct.  It is, admitedly, much less embarassing, however, when you get that analysis right.

43347. michael sweet at 23:38 PM on 28 July 2013
       A tale told in maps and charts: Texas in the National Climate Assessment
       

       Ray,

       Hansen (summarized here) has estimated from data that approximately 98% of heat waves have been caused by AGW. While there is still scientific discussion about the exact proportion of heat waves caused by AGW, your "primarily to natural variability as was the Russian heatwave in 2010" is certainly not a consensus statement.  While Hansen's data applies to hot summers and shorter heat waves like Russia's are not directly applicable, it seems reasonable that if 98% of hot summers are caused by AGW, most short term heat waves are also due to AGW.  AIR, Ramsdorf estimated an 80% chance that the Russian heat wave was caused by AGW, hardly "primarily natural variability".  This is an area of active research.  I note that in the past scientists have been conservative in their estimates.  It will be interesting to see the conclusions in the next IPCC report.

       Grindup: you have not counted the cooling caused by aerosols in your calculation.  When coal use declines, the aerosol cooling effect will decrease.  The exact cooling caused by aerosols is poorly estimated, but is likely around .5C.  That needs to be added to the heat in the pipeline.

43348. bouke at 19:49 PM on 28 July 2013
       Each degree of global warming might ultimately raise global sea levels by more than 2 meters
       

       Indeed. The idea that it takes 30 degrees of warming for the 60m of Antarctic ice to melt is too absurd to take serious. So, lets take a look at what the paper really says. In the abstract it is stated:

       we are committed to a sea-level rise of approximately 2.3 m °C⁻¹within the next 2,000 y

       I'd guess the melting continues after 2000y. Perhaps, if you´d consider the first 4000y it would be 4m °C⁻¹. So it seems to me the 2.3m number is rather arbitrary, dependent on how long you define ´ultimately´.

       Although, In defense of the paper, they did call it ´multimillennnial´ sea level rise, and 2000y is the shortest timeframe that can be called so.

43349. grindupBaker at 18:41 PM on 28 July 2013
       A tale told in maps and charts: Texas in the National Climate Assessment
       

       @Me#6 typo: Dr. David Randall.

43350. grindupBaker at 18:40 PM on 28 July 2013
       A tale told in maps and charts: Texas in the National Climate Assessment
       

       @william #5 Dr. James Hansen says his best estimate with feedbacks for CO2 doubling is +2.8 Celsius (climate sensitivity) and Dr. Davis Randall says +2.4C. 400ppm is 52% of CO2 doubling assuming steady feedbacks, so that's +1.3 to +1.5C. I recall somebody (maybe Dr. Kevin Trenberth) saying "another 0.5 degrees in the pipeline" so that fits with +1.4C if it is +0.9C now (I keep forgetting the base times). Apparently, +1.4C is a reasonable projection. The oceans are ~1,000 years behind land and air because of their mixing rates so it would generally stay somewhat below +1.4C for ~1,000 years, likely with little fits and starts like we've already seen because of variation in ocean mixing.    

Prev  859  860  861  862  863  864  865  866  867  868  869  870  871  872  873  874  Next