Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 913 914 915 916 917 918 919 920 921 922 923 924 925 926 927 928 Next
Comments 46001 to 46050:
-
Dikran Marsupial at 21:29 PM on 2 May 2013Roy Spencer's Catholic Online Climate Myths
The comment "No one knows whether it is currently warming, because we only see warming "in the rearview mirror"...after it has occurred." is a bit like saying "we cant tell whether a skydiver is currently falling because we only see his falling "in the rearview mirror"... after it ocurred". Of course we can't tell whether it is warming or cooling solely from observations over too short a timeframe, but that doesn't mean we don't know whether it actually is warming or cooling. If someone shows you a photograph of a skydiver in mid air, most of us would be happy with the idea that he is falling, because we are aware of something called "gravity". Similarly there is a good deal we do know about the physics of climate which suggests there is good reason to expect the climate to be warming, even though the observations do not unequvocally show this if you look at too short a period.
Essentially this is just word games, with no scientific or statistical justification.
-
michael sweet at 20:25 PM on 2 May 2013Global Warming: Not Reversible, But Stoppable
Mark Banner,
I have made one comment and you have conceded that your original estimate is off by at least 100%. You are clearly aware of this issue since you conceded the point and replied immediately. Tom and others have made numerous other points that show you are hopelessly optomistic. Since you know your original proposal is off by at least 100%, why should I consider it until you include all the other costs you previously have not mentioned?
-
JasonB at 20:08 PM on 2 May 2013Roy Spencer's Catholic Online Climate Myths
Ray @ 11,
It's a bit hard to get past the rather childish namecalling, but I'd start by noting that Monckton's first obvious and unequivocal error appears in only the second paragraph:
The satellites reveal the inconvenient truth that there has been no global warming for approaching two decades.
How on earth does he work that out? I thought he might have been cherry picking with his "approaching two decades" qualifier, since the satellite record itself is nearly 25 years long, but no — I can't get "no global warming" from UAH using any start date anywhere near two decades ago. Perhaps you'll have better luck, using either http://www.skepticalscience.com/trend.php or http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:1983/plot/uah/from:1983/trend.
Of course, I was being charitable there, because his first error appears in the very first paragraph:
With John Christy he presents the monthly real-world data from the microwave sounding unit satellites that provide the least inaccurate global temperature record we have.
But I suppose that one could be considered equivocal, since one might think that after all these corrections it must be getting pretty accurate by now:
Trying to decode the flowery Monckton-speak, his first "point" appears to be that while the planet has been warming, and the science that Monckton agrees with says that adding more CO2 will cause more warming, Spencer is right to say that nobody knows if it is currently warming — i.e. at this very instant — because in the short term natural variation can temporarily mask the underlying warming.
To which I'd reply to Monckton: If you see something lying on the ground that looks like a dog turd, feels like a dog turd, and smells like a dog turd, by all means go ahead and taste it, because who knows, right? You might get lucky.
In any case, defending Spencer's claim on the basis that it's possible that right at this very moment the underlying warming is possibly being masked in the surface temperature record (since he talks about the "17 year pause", which of course doesn't exist when the oceans are taken into account) by natural variability and we won't know that until sometime down the track is damning Spencer by faint praise indeed. "Charitable" doesn't begin to do it justice.
Anyway, I gave up reading at that point; life's too short.
-
JasonB at 19:34 PM on 2 May 2013Global Warming: Not Reversible, But Stoppable
Tom Curtis @ 67:
Hopefully if the AI were intelligent enough to employ a concept of justice, it would recognize that such an action would be punishing the future genearations for their forebears crime of not giving sufficient consideration to the well being of future generations, which would be ironic, but not just.
It's an interesting philosophical question: exterminating humanity now as punishment for the crime of burdening future generations would, of course, prevent those future generations from ever existing, but does never existing mean they are being punished? The AI might take the view that the world has been screwed up so badly that those future generations would wish they'd never been born and that being born would actually be punishment. It might also take the view that, by definition, you can't punish someone who will never exist.
I don't know — given the differences of opinion we find even among our own species, I find it very difficult to imagine what a super-intelligent AI might find "moral". I do know that I wouldn't like to bet my future on it agreeing with me.
(As an aside, I'm not sure a concept of justice is something that has an intelligence threshold ("intelligent enough to employ a concept of justice"); that's why I talked about "morals" instead. I suspect the two concepts are orthogonal. Even if it were moral, there's a real risk that it could be so far advanced relative to us (due to the lack of inherent intelligence limits that we face) that it would care as much about us as we care about ants, or even the bacteria on our hands that we routinely wipe out with anti-bacterial soap, and simply not recognise that morals ought to apply.)
Further, given that carbon sequestration technologies are still novel, it is reasonable to assume that per unit costs will come down with time.
That's possible if better technologies can be found. But the reverse is also easily possible, as you note below. Think about CCS, for example — it makes sense that we'd start sequestering in the sites that would cost us the least to use. But as those sites became full, we'd need to start searching further afield, and using sites that were previously rejected because they weren't as cheap. How much of the cost of CCS is technology-related and how much is unavoidable due to the laws of physics?
The same logic would apply with reforestation, not only because we'd start with the cheapest land and gradually work our way up to the highly valuable land that is being used for other things, like growing food, but also because worsening drought, etc., might make it more and more difficult to achieve.
I think many options also use a fair bit of energy, and there's a real risk that energy will become increasingly expensive in real terms as the free ride we've all been one comes to an end.
Of course, it is also reasonable to assume an increasing marginal cost for each additional tonne sequestered (unless we decide we are going to simply ignore economics). Given that, further delay pushes up the mean per unit cost of sequestration. Bahner gives us no reason to think that improvements in technology will push down costs faster than diminishing efficiency with amount sequestered will push them up.
Not ony that, but the total number of units that need sequestration will of course also increase under BAU, so increasing the cost per unit and increasing the number of units doesn't sound like a recipe for cheapness to me.
-
Ray at 19:24 PM on 2 May 2013Roy Spencer's Catholic Online Climate Myths
It would be good if Dana would address and refute the criticisms by Christopher Monckton (referred to in comment 10 from Carlton Benson III) as these portray a very different picture of Dr Spencer and his speech from that given here. Such contrasting views about the same person and the same speech are very confusing to the layman
-
Carlton Benson III at 17:28 PM on 2 May 2013Roy Spencer's Catholic Online Climate Myths
Comments also appeared here: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/01/nuccitelli-gets-a-bruising-by-the-factual-hand-of-monckton/
-
Tom Curtis at 16:41 PM on 2 May 2013Global Warming: Not Reversible, But Stoppable
JasonB @65, excellent points about AI. I do, however, take exception to the tongue in cheek (?) claim that, "Heck, if it were moral, it might decide that would be just punishment for our attempt to push the problem onto future generations to solve." Hopefully if the AI were intelligent enough to employ a concept of justice, it would recognize that such an action would be punishing the future genearations for their forebears crime of not giving sufficient consideration to the well being of future generations, which would be ironic, but not just.
Further, given that carbon sequestration technologies are still novel, it is reasonable to assume that per unit costs will come down with time. Of course, it is also reasonable to assume an increasing marginal cost for each additional tonne sequestered (unless we decide we are going to simply ignore economics). Given that, further delay pushes up the mean per unit cost of sequestration. Bahner gives us no reason to think that improvements in technology will push down costs faster than diminishing efficiency with amount sequestered will push them up.
-
JasonB at 14:44 PM on 2 May 2013Global Warming: Not Reversible, But Stoppable
Deus ex Machine = Deus ex Machina. Autocorrect can be a pain sometimes. :-)
-
JasonB at 14:41 PM on 2 May 2013Global Warming: Not Reversible, But Stoppable
No, it's extremely pessimistic, because:
1) It relies on IPCC economic growth projections, which will be shown within the next 1-2 decades to be far, far too low. They neglect the economic effects of artificial intelligence, which will be spectacular. Probably the best work in this area has been done by Robin Hanson. He uses a standard neoclassical (Solow-Swan) growth model to estimate annual ecomomic growth that could approach 45% per year (see page 6) by 2025. Needless to say, the IPCC does not have anything close to that.
Just because an economist using a simplistic model can "estimate" ridiculous figures does not mean that the IPCC "will" be shown to be far, far too low because they neglect effects that "will" be spectacular.
Seriously, suggesting that AI will save the day is nothing more than a Deus ex Machine that deserves no more respect than Roy Spencer's belief that (literally) God will save the day.
There are two serious problems with this faith in AI:
1. Even if computing power increased enough to perform the necessary computation in realtime to simulate a human-level intelligence, we still have no idea how to write software that would harness that computer power to do so. A computer without software is just an expensive paperweight.
2. If we did manage to create such an artificial intelligence, there's no reason to believe even in principle that it would be limited to our own levels of intelligence nor that it would be benevolent. (The only computational models inspired by biological brains, i.e. artifician neural nets (ANNs), cannot be programmed — they must be trained, just like a biological brain; and just like a biological brain, you can't guarantee that the product of your training is what you would hope for and not, for example, a homicidal sociopath. You can't program Asimov's Three Laws into the ANN, you'd need to try to teach it moral behaviour and hope for the best.) How do we know that it won't decide that the best course of action is not to go all Terminator on our ass but instead let rising CO2 levels wipe out the competition? (See point 4.4.) Heck, if it were moral, it might decide that would be just punishment for our attempt to push the problem onto future generations to solve. In other words, such an outcome could well be an apocalyptic nightmare scenario just as easily as a get-out-of-jail-free card.
To go from "We really have NFI how to create such an AI" to "It will be developed in the next 20 years and will add x% growth to our GDP" is just ludicrous, especially when your own link warns "Since competitive wages are proportional to per-intelligence production, rapidly declining wages imply rapidly declining per-intelligence production, due to an intelligence population growing much faster than total production. Wages might well fall below human subsistence levels, if machine subsistence levels were lower." Oops.
2) It assumes a cost of $1000 per metric tonne of CO2 removed. Humans have the rest of this century to get costs down, and I'm sure they will be well below that number when it is used.
That seems like a big assumption. How do you know costs to remove CO2 will go down? After all, the inflation-adjusted price of oil has been rising over the longer term (Link), which is not an unsurprising outcome as the resources become more and more difficult to extract, and oil is likely to remain a key source of energy for a while yet. It would be challenging adjusting to the cost pressures of an important energy resource at the same time as having to dedicate an increasing share of our energy resources to bringing down the atmospheric levels of CO2. In addition, changes to the environment brought about by the rising CO2 levels could well increase the cost of methods that would remove it. You appear to be begging the question.
-
chriskoz at 13:35 PM on 2 May 2013Leave It in the Ground, Climate Activists Demand
As popular article, this text is riddled with over-simplifications, e.g.:
Since CO2 resides in the atmosphere for hundreds of years, emissions of 50 years ago have the same impact on the climate as those emitted today
Not quite. Emissions of "50 years ago" have the same impact on the climate today, as "those emitted today" will have in 50y (because of lag in surface warming).
On the longer term (several centuries), the cumulative emissions will have the same warming potential, regaredeless when they were emitted, and regaredeless of emission rates, not because "CO2 resides in the atmosphere for hundreds of years", but because fossil-fuel carbon resides in the atmosphere-ocean circulation for several milenia, which is virtually infinite on human timescale. So, our FF burning activity will have impact on climate not for your 50y but for many Ky, possibly preventing the next glaciation cycle.
An interesting is this new concept of “mitigation" potential: "it is harder for the U.S. to reduce carbon emissions because of existing infrastructure than it is for poor countries [...] who haven’t built them yet". Well, if they continue quibbling over such details, while not paying attention to what I just said in the paragraph above, how could they be regarded as reasonable, responsible poeple? How can we expect the agreement and responsible action from their discussions?
-
Tom Curtis at 11:32 AM on 2 May 2013Global Warming: Not Reversible, But Stoppable
Bob Loblaw @63, point very well made.
In fact, even with "real" growth rates at those levels, the social and economic disruption would be difficult to distinguish from an episode of hyperinflation. I doubt sustained growth rates greater than 10% per annum without the social disruption caused by the rapid obsolescence of jobs and training that would accompany it rising to the point where it would kill the "growth". Further, such rapid growth would inevitably drive hyperinflation on those goods whose production could not keep up with the rate of economic development - such goods as food, for example.
-
Tom Curtis at 11:24 AM on 2 May 2013Nils-Axel Mörner is Wrong About Sea Level Rise
In a prior post, I reffered to a photoshopped picture used by Morner as "evidence" of the lack of sea level rise in the Maldives. I have been unable to find the scientific paper in which it was located, and so must withdraw the claim that it appeared in such. Never-the-less, Morner has frequently used this tree in his presentations about sea level rise, including at WUWT and in an interview for 21st Century Science and Technology (PDF).
The story Morner gives is that he knew of the tree from visits to the Maldives in the 50s, and that its continued survival in the tide zone is evidence that sea levels have not risen. That basic story has some embellishments I will discuss below. Two accompany the story, four different pictures (plus B&W variants) of Morner's Tree are used. There are two grainy "before pictures". One of those has a mark identifying it as a propriety photograh in the lower right corner, strongly suggesting it is a stock photo and has no relationship to Morner's tree (other than species and isolated location). There are also to "after photos", of which one, due to the distinct slope of the intertidal zone where it is located, is also obviously not the same tree as the other. It is not at all clear that either of these dubious photos was actually provided by Morner, although both have circulated among climate "skeptics" as illustrating Morner's tree.
The two "genuine" photos are produced below from WUWT. The "before" tree is in the lower left corner, the "after tree" in the upper right corner.
The first thing to notice is that they are not identifiable as the same tree. Indeed, if the large oval stone in the left foreground of the upper picture is the same stone as that in the right midground of the lower picture, they are not the same tree. The upper right tree is far closer to the stone than is the one in the lower right. Probably the stones are merely similar, rather than the same, in which case the pictures are still not of the same tree.
That, however, is a minor point.
Far more significant is the photoshopping of the upper right picture. This is far clearer in the version of the picture from the 21st Century Science and Technology interview, used as the basis of the picture below.
If you look closely at the picture you can see two edit lines where two pictures have been grafted together. The first in order of editing (marked by the orange arrow) is shown by the sharp cut off of the tree's shadow along with a subtle change of colouration in the stones. I am not expert on imaging fraud, so it is possible that I am wrong about that one, although I doubt it.
The second edit line is definite. Not only are the rock colours on either side of the line clearly distinct, but there is a clear discontinuity between the roots and lower branches of the tree and the leaves and upper branches. The discontinuity even orphans a sawn of branch on the left side of the tree, leaving it apparently floating in mid air.
Not only is the photo fishy, so is the attached story. The tale that the island on which the tree is located, Viligilli (or Villingili) is a prison island falls on the simple fact that no prison is located on the island (see also google map). The notion that the tree was uprooted and then replanted fails on the fact that the roots shown are solidly attached to the earth below, with no disturbance of that Earth. And with that part of the tale, so also goes the theory that Australian science students are both vandalous and fraudulent.
DJ at WUWT quotes a discussion of the story by a purported Maldivian. That anonymous source claims Viligilli was a prison island until 1973, which rescues part of Morner's story. They also go on to say, however:
"The tree is called ironwood (Pemphis acidula). It’s known for its resilience against salt and is usually the dominant species in very high wave energy and salt spray zones. Having traveled to over 600 islands in Maldives I have witnessed a number of such one ‘tree’s’. The tree in question simply has withstood erosion in the last 10 or so years while weaker trees around it fell. Aerial photographs of 1968/1969, 1998 and 2004 shows that the area is relatively stable with occasional erosion. There have been a number of trees in this specific area of the island like the one in question which have remain separated from the island. It is part of the erosion process. The tree most likely was there 50 years ago but it certainly was not alone as it is now. It is these kinds of adhoc observation based conclusions rather than rigorous assessments which make me question the findings of Morner."
(My emphasis)
If we accept the authenticity of this Maldivian (and hence the partial corroboration of Morner's account) then we must also accept their expertise on such isolated trees.
Indeed, on first principles we can see that account to be correct. If sea level is falling, the intertidal zone will be in the process of being colonized by a species (Pemphis acidula) that can grow in that region. We would consequently expect to see few mature trees, but a significant number of immature trees colonizing the zone. A stable sea level would be evidenced by a number of mature trees in thickets, as is common for the species. Only with rising sea levels would sole mature survivors of former thickets remain. So, in as much as Morner's photoshopped picture is evidence of anything, it is evidence of rising sea levels. But it takes the sort of "skepticism" that can't even notice such blatant photoshopping to not notice that.
-
Mond from Oz at 10:09 AM on 2 May 2013Forks in the Road: Last Exit to Two Degrees
We need to look very carefully at the contribution of the other GGs, and in this connection I note that T.J.Blasing ( CDIAC, Recent Greenhouse Gas Concentrations, updated Feb 2013) calculates a combined 1.04 Watts per square meter of increased radiative forcing from CH4, N2O and O3, plus a small 0.34 from the others. That totals to 1.384 W/m, surely not an insignificant addition to the increased radiative forcing of 1.85W/m from CO2 alone. Butler (the NOAA Annual Greenhouse Gas Index 2012) calculates a CO2 equivalent of 473 ppmv for 2011. And that, with all the uncertainties, says to me that we have already, very probably, jumped the 2 degree barrier.
-
Bob Loblaw at 09:31 AM on 2 May 2013Global Warming: Not Reversible, But Stoppable
Andy Skuce: "if we lived in a world where the economy doubled in size every few days?"
That depends on exactly how you propose to measure the size of the economy. If you want to use GDP without accounting for inflation, then we have historical events that tell us how things will go. It's called hyperinflation, and it's not a pretty sight.
-
dana1981 at 08:12 AM on 2 May 2013Roy Spencer's Catholic Online Climate Myths
Alexandre @8 - we do have the contradictions database, but it just lists generic arguments, not attributed to specific individuals.
-
Alexandre at 08:00 AM on 2 May 2013Roy Spencer's Catholic Online Climate Myths
Contrarians often contradict one another (well, they often contradict themselves...) For example, Spencer says it's some random cloud feedback that drives climate, whereas Willie Soon says it's the sun.
Would it be possible to assemble an "alternative theory" database to compare just how heterogeneous the small "skeptic" lot is? Is there already such a thing somewhere?
The Climate Misinformer database here at SkS is great, but each misinformer page looks more like a Gish Gallop (understandably) then the alternative theory the guy in question defends.
Just for the record, I have never seen a climate skeptic say publicly that some fellow skeptic was wrong - even though each of them proposes very different things.
-
Tom Curtis at 07:38 AM on 2 May 2013Global Warming: Not Reversible, But Stoppable
Completely off topic, but to cool not to mention: Hanson 94 at least got one prediction right:
"The future is hard to predict. We may feel confident that eventually space will be colonized, or that eventually we'll make stuff by putting each atom just where we want it. But so many other changes may happen before and during those changes that it is hard to say with much confidence how space travel or nanotechnology may affect the ordinary person. Our vision seems to fade into a fog of possibilities."
(My emphasis)
Lo! The world's smallest movie!
Of course, this merely reminds me of what they say about stopped clocks, or, perhaps more aptly in Hanson's case, a clock I once saw whose hour and minute hands tracked the second hand, and hence was also right twice a day (and accurate never).
-
funglestrumpet at 06:30 AM on 2 May 2013Leave It in the Ground, Climate Activists Demand
@ClimateChangeExtremist
Make the thorium fuelled reactors the liquid flouride type. and also make them both small and modular so that they can be manufactured on a production line in each country with the modules able to be shipped by road on the final leg of the journey to their designated location for assembly on arrival and you get my full support.
While they will not replace the liquid energy that oil currently provides, they would certainly motivate the development of techniques to electrify the transport system, especially as oil climbs relentlessly higher in price.
I suppose what we really need is a Manhattan type project to resolve the final design issues and, seeing as they are so safe, a relaxation of any planning permissions that could hold up their progress. As for NIMBYs, well ...
-
william5331 at 06:30 AM on 2 May 2013Forks in the Road: Last Exit to Two Degrees
The only way I can see that the necessary measures will be taken is if America adopts representative government such as we have in New Zealand. Since this would shaft most of the congress and senate, there is zero chance that it will happen. Right from it's inception, the government of the USA has been corrupt, looking after vested interests instead of the good of it's citizens and warring on other countries to steal their resources and nothing has changed. Our only hope is that so many states, cities, businesses and private people in the states are doing what is necessary. The American people are great, their government, not. Remember Ike's warning.
-
Andy Skuce at 05:32 AM on 2 May 2013Global Warming: Not Reversible, But Stoppable
I note that Robin Hanson's 2001 prediction of doubling of GDP every 0.5 to 1.5 years by 2025 is actually pessimistic compared to his 1998 predictions of economic doubling times of mere days. Over a period of just three years he increased the economic doubling time by an order of magnitude or more. If his pessimism continued to increase geometrically, I would expect his GDP doubling time to be rather large by 2013.
I wonder what an appropriate discount rate would be if we lived in a world where the economy doubled in size every few days? I suspect that it would be so high that there would be no economic case to be made for dealing with any externality, no matter how bad, because we would all be so much better equipped to deal with it in a fortnight's time when we would all be much richer and happier. We can all look forward to those times when we can convince our spouses that there's no need to take the garbage out, because everything will be different next week.
In such a world, even if you get the estimation of how much CO2 we need to sequester wrong by a factor of two, never mind, because we will have twice the means to deal with the problem in a few days' time.
Robin Hanson, in 1994, postulated that we will one day be living as disembodied immortals in a virtual world:
Fast uploads who want physical bodies that can keep up with their faster brains might use proportionally smaller bodies. For example, assume it takes 10^15 instructions per second and 10^15 fast memory bits to run a brain model at familiar speeds, and that upload brains could be built using nanomechanical computers and memory registers, as described in [Drexler]. If so, an approx. 7 mm. tall human-shaped body could have a brain that that fits in its brain cavity, keeps up with its approx. 260 times faster body motions, and consumes approx. 16 W of power. Such uploads would glow like Tinkerbell in air, or might live underwater to keep cool. Bigger slower bodies could run much cooler by using reversible computers [Hanson].
Billions of such uploads could live and work in a single high-rise building, with roomy accommodations for all, if enough power and cooling were available. To avoid alienation, many uploads might find comfort by living among tiny familiar-looking trees, houses, etc., and living under an artificial sun that rises and sets approx. 260 times a day. Other uploads may reject the familiar and aggressively explore the new possibilities. For such tiny uploads, gravity would seem much weaker, higher sound pitches would be needed, and visual resolution of ordinary light might decline (in both angular and intensity terms).
However in the real world, nearly twenty years later, Robin Hanson is (presumably) still putting on his trousers one leg at a time.But just think about the consequences of living in a virtual world: our models would become indistinguishable from reality, there would be no telling the weather forecast from the weather itself!
I actually enjoy reading Robin Hanson's blog Overcoming Bias from time to time. He is a smart guy and his posts there are often stimulating and they lead to enlightening but often bizarre discussions. For example, there is a post in which he compares malnutrition to involuntary celibacy and which leads to commenters earnestly asking whether rape is theft, or instead a fair redistribution of goods from the haves (eg George Clooney) to the rest of us have-nots, with all of our unfulfilled cravings. Readers from the everyday world, especially women and mature men, may well recognize that, despite the cleverness, there's something missing in such discussions.
-----------------------
More seriously, we inhabit a real world in which the Keeling Curve trends relentlessly upwards towards levels never before experienced by our superfamily of tailless primates. We humans, the most numerous in that family, find ourselves unable to arrest that rising trend, even as many of us accept that it could possibly lead to a planet that is largely uninhabitable. Let's not console or distract ourselves with crazy projections of a gilded future, one in which we will supposedly be able employ our infinite wealth to undo the damage we have done.
-
empirical_bayes at 03:22 AM on 2 May 2013Roy Spencer's Catholic Online Climate Myths
@Mark SB and @"Roy Spencer", regarding:
"It does not seem likely to me that God would set up the world to work in such a way that human beings would eventually destroy the earth..."
I've often thought that if such a Deity did participate in setting things up, the Deity did exactly what Spencer cannot believe. The peak of the blackbody emissions from Earth's surface, determined by a temperature which is comfortable for much of life, is very close to that massive CO2 absorption region around 667 per cm. On the other hand, this could be seen as the delicate thermostat, carefully crafted, with idiotic human beings trampling all over it.
I personally don't buy the existence of such a Deity, but if Spencer invited the problem, he certainly has it.
-
Composer99 at 03:14 AM on 2 May 2013Roy Spencer's Catholic Online Climate Myths
Sadly, the "character arc" or "story arc" (if you will) that Dr Spencer is on appears to be the more typical one for scientific contrarians to take - and not just in climate science, but of various stripes (one thinks here of Dr Oz), where their positions become increasingly divergent from the reality presented by the evidence.
The "story arc" where they realize that their positions are off-base and change them in response to the present state of the evidence (in other words, when they start behaving like skeptics) is sadly all too rare an occurrence.
-
PhilBMorris at 01:53 AM on 2 May 2013Leave It in the Ground, Climate Activists Demand
To base the future of humnaity - of the world as we currently know it on models that suggest 2 degrees would be safe but 3 degrees won't - is quite a gambol.
The global recession of 2008-2009 resulted in a 10% drop in CO2 emmisions, a drop that was compensated for by the subsequent 'recovery' in 2010-2011. There's no likelihood whatsoever of there being massive cuts in CO2 emmisions without a significant and reliable source of energy to replace fossil fuels. Solar and wind are not only intermittent but have their own environmental costs (toxic chemical waste) or are so land intensive as to be impractical for installations of adequate size. Hydro is obviously limited geographically and also has massive environmental impact. Uranium based nuclear power carries with it risks that are unacceptable. Once can hope for a breakthough in fusion, but that breakthough has been waiting in the wings for well over 40 years now.
The only viable solution is a massive global investment in thorium based nuclear power, an energy source that would be reliable; have minimal enironmental impact; have no risk of meltdown associated with uranium based plants; do not produce weapons grade byproducts (Canadiam CANDU reactors burn weapons grade material in plants converted to use thorium as the fuel); and produce a volume of radiactive waste is a mere fraction of that produced by Uranium based plants.
Will we ever get there? I for am am not hopeful!
-
KR at 00:26 AM on 2 May 2013Roy Spencer's Catholic Online Climate Myths
dana1981 - An additional part of that correction is that the deeper subsurface Antarctic waters are (relatively) warmer than surface waters, not colder as stated in the OP.
-
dana1981 at 00:18 AM on 2 May 2013Roy Spencer's Catholic Online Climate Myths
Thanks KR - fixed.
-
KR at 23:38 PM on 1 May 2013Roy Spencer's Catholic Online Climate Myths
Regarding Antarctic sea ice expansion, according to Manabe et al 1991 (Part 1 of this set of papers), the cause is decreased mixing with deeper ocean layers, not increased as stated in the opening post. From Pg. 811:
...in response to the increase of atmospheric carbon dioxide, the excess of precipitation over evaporation increases, and surface salinity is reduced in high latitudes as noted in section 8. Thus, the static stability of the near-surface water increases and the convective mixing of cold surface water with the relatively warm subsurface water is reduced, thereby contributing to the reduction of sea surface temperature in the Circumpolar Ocean. This is why sea surface temperature hardly changes and sea ice slightly increases near the Antarctic Continent in response the increase of carbon dioxide.
[Emphasis added]
Reduced mixing with relatively warmer sub-surface waters effectively reduces the thermal mass exposed to the cold Antarctic air - slightly more ice forms.
-
Tom Curtis at 19:28 PM on 1 May 2013Global Warming: Not Reversible, But Stoppable
Mark Bahner @59 continues to live in an economic dream world! Who can blame him, it is a pleasant dream. No doubt soon he will ask us all to step into a glass elevator.
Meanwhile, back in reality, this is the pattern of economic growth over the last two millinia as J Bradford DeLong:
(Source)
The zero growth rate since 2000 is an artifact of a lack of data in that period. The rest of the curve is real and is significant. In particular, the decline in world economic growth from the 1950s and 1960s to the present day, as the world transitioned from vacuum tubes to silicon chips, is real. While the information revolution has had a real and beneficial effect on the world economy, that has been more than countered by other factors, primarilly an increase in the cost of energy and the fact that resource exploitation was essentially global by the 1960s, so that further economic growth could only be achieved by accessing resources with a lower return on investment.
For more recent data, here is the real growth in GWP from 1999-2011:
(Source, accessed today)
The effective growth real growth rate over that period turns out to be 3.5% per annum, although it would be slightly higher in PPP (Purchasing Power Parity) terms. PPP growth in GWP from 2005-2012 is 3.6% per annum.
Bahner's defence of his absurd growth rates now has two straws. The first is simple mathturbation on the 50 year average growth rate over recent history, a calculation that does not factor in the clear slide in growth rates since the 1960s, and is falsified by them. (Bahner actually throws out the results of his mathturbation as too conservative; and infates them artificially based on an assumption of the early achievement of full artificial intelligence; ie, his estimation proceedure has all the intellectual integrity of the classic "pick a number than double it" technique.) The second straw is based on an article which overstates recent real growth rate, and assumes that the introduciton of AI is the golden goose of economics without actually plotting the course of economic growth durring the information revolution. That is, it has no more intellectual credibility than Bahner's attempt, for all that the author is seeking to have it published.
Moderator Response:[RH] Fixed image width.
-
John Fisher at 19:18 PM on 1 May 2013Roy Spencer's Catholic Online Climate Myths
Roy Spencer's endorsement of an open letter from the Cornwall Alliance in which it is stated "It does not seem likely to me that God would set up the world to work in such a way that human beings would eventually destroy the earth..." expresses his starting point perfectly, and therefore his answers will always be the same, regardless of actual data.
Several familiar names here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornwall_Alliance
-
bouke at 19:03 PM on 1 May 2013Leave It in the Ground, Climate Activists Demand
Doug, it is my belief that the 2 degree limit is chosen because we're reasonably sure the carbon cycle megafeedbacks (amazon desertification, permafrost decay, methane clathrate emissions) won't start in a big way. Stop at 2 degrees and we're reasonably sure the climate stays at 2 degrees. Stop at 3 degrees, and the climate system may go to 5 degrees on its own.
-
shoyemore at 16:53 PM on 1 May 2013Roy Spencer's Catholic Online Climate Myths
Catholic Online would have done far better to interview Spencer about his membership of the Cornwall Alliance, which espouses the "greed gospel", and regards fossil fuels as part of God's bounty it would be an insult to pass up.
http://climatecrocks.com/2012/11/30/right-wing-preacher-not-using-fossil-fuels-insults-god/
Given the Papal positions on climae change and poverty, now that would have been an interesting interview.
-
Albatross at 14:54 PM on 1 May 2013Climate Sensitivity Single Study Syndrome, Nic Lewis Edition
Barry @35,
You claim:
"I often point out to people ('skeptics', usually) the error of relying on a single study, and most often it is with climate sensitivity estimates. It's good to see that caution explained here. I'm not trying to bait anyone."
I'm open to the possibiity that there has been a misunderstanding on my part. But the fact is that there are multiple, independent lines of evidence that still point to a best estimate of equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) near +3 C for doubling of CO2. As far as the limitations of using the instrumented record to estimate ECS go, Dana happened to cite one study, but there are more. For example, below is a quote from Knutti and Hegerl (2008) when referring to using the surface record and the climate's response to volcanic eruptions (such as Pinatubo) to estimate ECS [my bolding]:
"The advantage of these methods is that they consider a state of the climate similar to today’s and use similar timescales of observations to the projections we are interested in, thus providing constraints on the overall feedbacks operating today. However, the distributions are wide and cannot exclude high sensitivities. The main reason is that it cannot be excluded that a strong aerosol forcing or a large ocean heat uptake might have hidden a strong greenhouse warming."
-
Albatross at 14:47 PM on 1 May 2013Climate Sensitivity Single Study Syndrome, Nic Lewis Edition
Nick's misrepresentation of the Aldrin et al. paper is egregious. And make no mistake, it is a misrepresentation as Dana has shown and as I will again demonstrate below.
Additionally, nowhere in AR4 or meta analysis papers on climate sensitivity (e.g., Knutti and Hegerl 2008) that I am aware of do they use the mode to quantify climate sensitivity. They use either the median and interquartile range or confidence intervals. It is quite the coincidence that Lewis managed to find the one value (of many) in Aldrin et al's extensive data analysis that fits his desired narrative for a lower climate sensitivity.
Lewis could only obtain his desired number by using three cherry picks:
1) Using the mode rather than median
2) Ignoring Aldrin et al's higher sensitivity when including the indirect aerosol effect
3) Ignoring Aldrin et al's even higher sensitivity when including the impacts of clouds
Now including #2 and #3 above act to make the estimates more consistent and inline with processes the real world. That is, higher. Yet, Lewis decided to ignore those values... ;)
What Lewis has done is to cherry pick a particular scenario, then cherry pick a unconventional measure of climate sensitivity from Aldrin et al. (a value that Aldrin et al. did not even explicitly calculate or speak to anywhere in their paper) and then elevate it to front-and-centre in his abstract.
Sorry, but the above actions reveal Lewis's bias/agenda. It would also be very disappointing if a prestigious journal like J. Climate were to turn a blind eye to such shenanigans.
PS: As Barry noted at #37, Dana did edit the post based on Tom's recommendation.
-
Doug Hutcheson at 14:02 PM on 1 May 2013Leave It in the Ground, Climate Activists Demand
they simply cannot be trusted with the future of our civilisation
Sad, but oh, so true. Sadly, the imperatives of democracy do not include electors voting in a wise government, but a populist one. As long as the populace does not perceive the threat, it is not going to vote in favour of action.
-
mandas at 13:27 PM on 1 May 2013Leave It in the Ground, Climate Activists Demand
Doug
I am going to agree with you 100% about the dangers of even a 2 C rise in temperatures. But the advantage of this number is that it enables governments to do the maths on what they should and shouldn't do.
Of course, the fact that they are failing to do the maths and do what is appropriate means that they simply cannot be trusted with the future of our civilisation.
-
Mark Bahner at 13:19 PM on 1 May 2013Leave It in the Ground, Climate Activists Demand
A moratorium on investments new fossil fuel infrastructure is the obvious thing to do about this, said Asad Rehman, head of international climate at Friends of the Earth in the UK.
The United Nations is the place to get countries to begin a serious conversation about imposing such a moratorium starting Monday in Bonn, Germany, Rehman told IPS.
Ho, ho, ho! Good one! But...this is May 1st, not April 1st?
-
Doug Hutcheson at 13:03 PM on 1 May 2013Leave It in the Ground, Climate Activists Demand
All nations have agreed under the UNFCCC to keep temperatures below two degrees C, which is by no means a safe level of warming. However, scientists say we are on a path to at least three degrees C, which will trigger irreversible feedbacks leading to much higher temperatures and far worse impacts.
There's the rub: the 2° limit is an arbitrary, econopolitical construct, not a scientific one. The changes we are already seeing with 0.8°C are what I would call 'dangerous' and 2°C is, therefore, lunacy.
Not that I am religious (I'm not), but is this the reason God got cross with Adam and Eve for eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge? Have we learnt just enough to destroy Eden? Homo Stupidus stupidus.
-
Doug Hutcheson at 12:52 PM on 1 May 2013Forks in the Road: Last Exit to Two Degrees
The figure shows this is truly the critical decade if we want to stay under 2 °C without an economically drastic whiplash of 5% decrease in emission per year.
Stop the world, please - I want to get off before it crashes ...
-
Mark Bahner at 12:51 PM on 1 May 2013Global Warming: Not Reversible, But Stoppable
Your calculation for removal of CO2 is hopelessly optimistic.
No, it's extremely pessimistic, because:
1) It relies on IPCC economic growth projections, which will be shown within the next 1-2 decades to be far, far too low. They neglect the economic effects of artificial intelligence, which will be spectacular. Probably the best work in this area has been done by Robin Hanson. He uses a standard neoclassical (Solow-Swan) growth model to estimate annual ecomomic growth that could approach 45% per year (see page 6) by 2025. Needless to say, the IPCC does not have anything close to that.
2) It assumes a cost of $1000 per metric tonne of CO2 removed. Humans have the rest of this century to get costs down, and I'm sure they will be well below that number when it is used.
Regarding outgassing...approximately 50% of emissions have remained in the atmosphere for the last 3-5 decades. So even if all the CO2 that was previously absorbed gets re-emitted, the amount needing to be removed would simply double. So if the cost was down to $500 per metric tonne, my analysis would be completely intact. And if the IPCC scenarios have economic growth projections that are far too low (which they almost certainly do), then even with outgassing of all material, my estimates would be pessimistic.
-
Doug Hutcheson at 12:44 PM on 1 May 2013New Research Shows Humans Causing More Strong Hurricanes
the frequency of Katrina-magnitude storm surges doubles for every approximately 0.4°C average global surface warming
That news, while not unexpected, is not good. No doubt, the denialosphere will ring with echoes of "We've reached saturation with Katrina-sized storms, so everything is alright". Sigh.
-
Terranova at 11:27 AM on 1 May 2013New Research Shows Humans Causing More Strong Hurricanes
DSL,
I agree with you. Sensationalism was not the best choice of words. I should have used accurate.
Manwichstick,
I think we are on the same page, but as a scientist I am picky about word usage. And, looking at it from a laymans point of view, the proper word usage cuts down on misunderstandings. A lot of people only read headlines, and if you only read this headline then you are going to have a misconception that this paper is definitive. It certainly adds to the body of evidence, but the authors own phrasing should be presented.
-
dana1981 at 07:52 AM on 1 May 2013Forks in the Road: Last Exit to Two Degrees
I have to say, that cartoon by John Garrett is pretty awesome. Well done.
-
Composer99 at 04:43 AM on 1 May 2013Forks in the Road: Last Exit to Two Degrees
Curiously, a few years back Canadian expatriate writer Gwynne Dyer wrote a column along a similar vein, called "Last Exit to the Holocene".
Bottom line, then and now: if you want to live in the more-or-less stable climate which enabled human agriculture (and hence the comfortable, materially affluent civilization I daresay most of us prefer to live in), time to get cutting down on emissions.
-
Dikran Marsupial at 04:00 AM on 1 May 2013Nils-Axel Mörner is Wrong About Sea Level Rise
By the way, this isn't the first time Morner has done this sort of thing, see for example here and here.
-
Dikran Marsupial at 02:07 AM on 1 May 2013Nils-Axel Mörner is Wrong About Sea Level Rise
I'd just like to second what Philippe says, nice work indeed Tom, checking the details is hard work, and normally a pretty thankless task, but very important.
I also think it would be worth submitting a comment to the journal, fewer bad papers would be submitted if more people wrote comments papers. This doesn't matter in science as the few bad papers that get through peer review are just ignored by the scientists, but papers in climatology also generate interest in the general public, who are less able to tell the wheat from the chaff, so the importance of comments papers is much greater.
I note the journal in question requests the author to provide the names of five people who could review the paper. I really wish journals didn't do this, a good journal should have sufficiently able action editors that are familiar with the field and can identify suitable reviewers themselves. It seems to me to be a recipe for a failure of the peer-review process if you can choose freindly reviewers.
-
Philippe Chantreau at 00:41 AM on 1 May 2013Nils-Axel Mörner is Wrong About Sea Level Rise
Nice work Tom, as always. You should send a comment to the journal. Perhaps they are just in the business of selling "peer review" rubber stamping and they won't care, but then again, perhaps they will publish the comment.
-
Manwichstick at 00:14 AM on 1 May 2013New Research Shows Humans Causing More Strong Hurricanes
Terranova, I see your point, but after I've thought about it, I don't have a problem with the title for two reasons.
1) it briefly summarizes what the two articles suggest
2) "New Research Shows..." as a statement, should never be assumed to be a proven fact. I know the public thinks this way (if they are inclined agree with the premise), but I think we should do a better job of educating the public that "new research shows..." should be interpreted as "more evidence has been collected to viewed in the light of what has already been learned and should be put in context by experts in the field before we determine, what conclusions might be drawn".
When I hear "new research shows..." I try think "That's interesting," and try to avoid a reflex of such as, "Take that! - Hurricane Sandy wasn't influenced by global warming deniers!"
I want to encourage people to react a little more cerebral: "Hmmm, does this fit into our best understanding of how climate works? Do I need to re-think anything? What are the limitations of these studies? " and so on...
-
DSL at 23:23 PM on 30 April 2013New Research Shows Humans Causing More Strong Hurricanes
While I agree with your overall point, TerraNova, I think it's a little sensationalist to label the title "sensationalism." It would need at least one exclamation point, and it would need at least one exaggeration. It's well within the realm of possible (it's even likely) that human emissions are the root cause of the recent likely upswing in storm surge.
-
michael sweet at 20:17 PM on 30 April 2013Global Warming: Not Reversible, But Stoppable
Mark,
Your calculation for removal of CO2 is hopelessly optimistic. If you start to remove CO2 from the atmosphere then the ocean will begin to outgas CO2 instead of absorbing it. This means you have to remove much more CO2 to lower the atmospheric level than you estimate. Provide citations for your wild claims about how much carbon needs to be removed to lower atmospheric CO2.
Invariably the geoengineering people leave out half of the problem to make their proposals look good.
-
Terranova at 13:26 PM on 30 April 2013New Research Shows Humans Causing More Strong Hurricanes
Dana,
Your headline should be reworded to at least include either of the words "suggest" or "may" to better reflect the body of your post. Your headline appears to make a statement as if it is proven fact. Even the authors use less certain qualifiers. As a reporter, sensationalism may be par for the course, but as a scientist it should not be.
-
Global Warming: Not Reversible, But Stoppable
John Hartz - Thank you for the very relevant reference. They discuss in particular one of the lowest cost CO2 removal schemes, biological drawdown:
Although there is large uncertainty about sustainable levels of bioenergy use (...), it can be expected that sustainability constraints will limit the use of BECCS [Bio-energy with carbon capture and storage] as CDR [Carbon dioxide removal] technology. In our analysis, BECCS deployment is effectively limited to a removal of 14–15 GtCO2 per year.
That works out to ~2 ppm/year, or roughly the rate of current emissions. Given the 550 ppm Mark Bahner discusses, that means 225 years of BECSS drawdown assuming no further emissions - with that drawdown competing with food production, and with its own energy/resource costs (including fresh water and soil nutrients that will be consumed in the process).
It might be a helpful addition to mitigation, but again - CO2 removal is no panacea. And even that (relatively) low cost sequestration is still more expensive than mitigation.
Prev 913 914 915 916 917 918 919 920 921 922 923 924 925 926 927 928 Next
