Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 Next
Comments 17301 to 17350:
-
BaerbelW at 16:48 PM on 22 October 2017The F13 files, part 2 - the content analysis
In the comments for part 1 of this series it was suggested to just have one comment thread as there is bound to be quite some overlap. In the spirit of this suggestion, here is the link to that thread:
https://skepticalscience.com/f13_copy_paste.html#commenthead
-
NorrisM at 16:08 PM on 22 October 2017Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races
Eclectic at 147
I have appreciated you comments in other respects. I think we disagree on this point and perhaps we should just move on to other things. By the way, I think the first one to use the expression I used was Voltaire.
I was going to resist this, but I am curious to know who do you think should be the arbiter on what should be allowed to be said and what should not be allowed to be said?
-
nigelj at 14:31 PM on 22 October 2017Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races
NorrisM @134
Thank's, but just on this sea level rise issue. You appeared to be quoting some panel discussion where Koonin asked some questions, and you were dubious of whether the IPCC had sufficient reasons for projections of one metre by 2100 etc. I'm mystified why you think the criticism or questions of one person is particularly significant, especially given Koonin has not put any real evidence on the table about sea level rise and why he might think IPCC have it wrong. I have provided you with IPCC explanations of why sea level rise is expected to accelerate, and I see others have done the same. Do you have any proper scientific evidence of why they might be wrong? You certainly havent provided any.
"My main point is that I do not think the politicians of the world, not just the United States, are really going to impose carbon taxes beyond what is politically acceptable so it is wasted time talking about imposing carbon taxes based upon theoretical calculations of SCC"
I agree it all has to be politically acceptable, and I have already said that Norris. You start with an appropriate lesser figure like California has and increase this over time. I think they had $30 but would have to check and it should possibly be a bit more. But this figure will have to be increased over time reasonably quickly.
But you have to consider the theoretical maximum to get the wider picture and context otherwise its hard to identify any starting figure.
"So my principal point is that you do what is politically feasible. Impose a carbon tax on the cost of pollution. "
No this seems wrong to me and a pretence that climate change doesnt somehow exist. It should emphasise both pollution and climate change. But I understand where you are coming from.
"The other thing to do is convince the public that wind and solar power (for now I am leaving alone nuclear power) can viably compete with FF, using FF as a back up source of base load power. "
Yes no question about that. I hear what you say about Trump and Republicans. I have no idea what will happen there the whole thing looks like a disaster area of epic proportions in every respect. I'm just personally interested in the science, and practical policy responses. Politics tends to be the art of the compromise. I can only advocate on what I think the scientific truth is, and the most sensible response to reducing emissions, and hope people see sense on the political side of things and try not to let partisan political emotion take control and instead think of the wider picture a bit more rationally.
"One final point, ensure that the carbon tax is dividended back to the people. If you keep it to distort the economy by investing it in RE then you lose half the electorate. "
I basically like tax and dividend. I think about half should be given back to the people and about half put into renewable energy and electic car subsidies. There are many reasons for this, and I dont have time to explain the rationale. But I dont see any reason to believe people would rebel, if some went into renewable energy. The Pew poll research you are so fond of quoting clearly found a majority were favourable towards renewable energy etc.
I just dont think R Toll has much credibility for reasons others have stated and my own reading, but $30 is a useful figure to at least consider. Personally I think a bit more as a starting point, but look at the risk of repetition, nobody is going to seriously suggest a whopping really high tax at day one, the world doesn't work like that.
-
Eclectic at 11:51 AM on 22 October 2017Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races
NorrisM @146 ,
you are (I am sure, deliberately) failing to distinguish the right to advocate genocide/mass-murder , from the right to express innocent opinion.
I am reasonably certain that jurist Sunstein (whatever his provenance) would disagree with your view that "anything goes" for freedom of speech as Freedom trumps all considerations of common sense & morality.
e.g. The stupidity of the anti-science ideas of the Flat-Earthers is one thing (since it harms no-one) -— but the criminality of a steward advising Titanic passengers to stay in their cabins & to avoid the lifeboats . . . is something completely different. ~And it's not at all innocent.
Your position is indefensible, NorrisM. Please keep your trolling mode level to 75% or below ! Even though this thread is a broad umbrella ;-)
-
Evan at 11:01 AM on 22 October 2017SkS Analogy 10 - Bathtubs and Budgets
RedBaron@30, thanks for the additional links. Interesting points you make about how much the natural cycles could be helping us.
But my basic point is that whatever the land and oceans are doing to remove CO2, we are still building up CO2 at a net 2 ppm/year, which is disasterous. At this rate we are only about 20 years from the budget for staying below 2C. So whatever promises there are for using sequestration technologies, whether natural or artificial, we had better get busy using them. If modified farming practices can be used to sequester additional carbon, that would be great.
Thanks for pointing out a side of the discussion that I know I have been overlooking.
-
NorrisM at 10:31 AM on 22 October 2017Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races
Eclectic @ 145
This has been said many times before but I am not defending what Miersch said but only his right to say it.
As soon as you start putting limits on what people say based upon your views as to what is right and wrong, you are just on a continuum with dictatorial regimes whose arch enemy is freedom of speech. One of the most important things necessary to protect our democracy is to allow people to have different views and to be able to express those different views. I am sure you have read 1984 by George Orwell. None of us want Big Brother watching.
You would do well to listen to the Sam Harris podcast I referenced and see if you do not agree after actually listening to Sunstein that Miersch should have the right to say what he says. According to Harris, Sunstein is the most quoted law professor in the United States. He is not a neo-con.
The attitude you express seems to be something that has invaded a number of university campuses in the US where students shout down anyone who disagrees with them and force university administrations to "disinvite" speakers from attending on campus. It is very troubling.
-
nigelj at 10:22 AM on 22 October 2017SkS Analogy 10 - Bathtubs and Budgets
Red Baron, I was reading carbon rich soil is some Australian grass lands go down 20 metres, which indicates the potential.
But what do you make of this? looks ominous:
www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/09/160922085737.htm
"Soil will absorb less atmospheric carbon than expected this century, study finds". It appears to be saying potential is huge but its a slow process. Or is the study wrong or out of date?
-
Eclectic at 09:49 AM on 22 October 2017Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races
NorrisM @141 , you deserve to be rapped over the knuckles for your misstatement about German journalist/denialist Miersch [see posts #114 and #129].
i.e. your quote: "He [jurist Sunstein] would strongly defend the right of Miersch to say what he wants as long as it does not promote physical harm to other persons." (unquote)
But that is exactly what Miersch is guilty of (as are all climate Denialists). He disseminates falsehood (and advocates inaction) which will promote physical harm to millions/billions of people during the course of this century & the next one.
That point is plainly obvious. Is it not, Norris?
But let us not bother to discuss the sad case of Miersch, here. (And I am not offended that you are espousing Miersch's position, for I realise you are in 75% trolling mode.)
-
RedBaron at 09:39 AM on 22 October 2017SkS Analogy 10 - Bathtubs and Budgets
@ Evan #29,
You said, "That is, the natural removal rates cannot keep up with our emissions."
You are correct. But I would like to point out the primary land based rapid removal of CO2 back into the long cycle is 99% destroyed by agriculture. Even secondary pathways are by vast majority destroyed by agriculture. Of course the rate is 100 times faster than can be removed and the sequestration rate is woefully inadequate. It's basically by all intents and purposes destroyed and actually turned into an emissions source instead, with a few rare exceptions.
Global Cooling by Grassland Soils of the Geological Past and Near Future
Farming Claims Almost Half Earth's Land, New Maps Show
-
Evan at 09:24 AM on 22 October 2017SkS Analogy 10 - Bathtubs and Budgets
aleks@27, perhaps I should respond to your comments as follows. No analogy is perfect, and certainly the atmosphere is not a closed system in the strict sense as you point out. But the point I am trying to make is that whereas pollutants are regulated in cities because of the locally high pollution that can result from high emissions, once emission rates are reduced, the outside winds flush the pollutants out of the city. In contrast, the effect of CO2 in the atmosphere does not depend on the rate at which we emit, but only on the total amount, because CO2 slowly builds up, and there is no ourside source to flush the CO2 away. Once we raise the level in the atmosphere, we are stuck with this concentration for a very long time, until the sinks to which you refer slowly bring down the concentration. These sinks act so slowly (i.e., 100's to 1000's of years) compared to the time scales that we care about (the lives of our children and grand-children), that effectively we are emitting CO2 into a closed system: once we emit the CO2 we are stuck with it for the future we care about.
-
Evan at 09:17 AM on 22 October 2017SkS Analogy 10 - Bathtubs and Budgets
aleks@27, thanks for some good points. Here are some responses.
Regarding the atmosphere being a closed system, carbon budgets developed by the IPCC account for the fact that the oceans and biosphere absorb much of the emitted carbon. The reason why I refer to the year-on-year increase of CO2 is that the yearly increase is the net effect of emissions minus uptake by the oceans and biosphere. The fact that CO2 is increasing over 100 times faster than any natural cycles in the last several million years is evidence enough that we are essentially emitting into a closed system. That is, the natural removal rates cannot keep up with our emissions. Again, IPCC estimates account for the effect of natural removal mechanisms in determining budgerts that represent the amount we can emit into what is essentially a closed system to stay below a specific warming.
Regarding H2O as a stronger greenhouse gas, yes it is. But the H2O increases in response to increases of CO2, and not independently. Again, IPCC estimates account for the fact that CO2 is the main driver and H2O simply responds. That is, the removal rates of CO2 are so slow, that we can easily build up CO2 concentrations by emitting more. This is not so for H2O. If we emit more H2O, it simply rains out in a few weeks. The only way to increase H2O concentrations is to increase the temperature of the atmosphere. Once temperature is increased by the CO2 emitted, then H2O increases as a response (i.e., positive feedback). The H2O increase for a given temperature increase is governed by the Clausius-Clapeyron equation.
Therefore, CO2 is still the driver, and H2O merely responds.
But thanks for your comments. It is good to get different viewpoints.
-
aleks at 08:11 AM on 22 October 2017SkS Analogy 10 - Bathtubs and Budgets
Some statements in the article seem to be inaccurate. "Earth atomospere has a finite volume". Does the author mean all the atmosphere which nominal borders are determined by amount of gases retained by Earth's gravity? Rather it's lower layer of the troposphere containing most of greenhouse gases. However, in this case the borders of the lower layer are also conditional because of uneven height distribution of different GHGs according their molar masses (for example, methane and CFCs).
"We keep adding GHGs into this closed system". The system is not closed: CO2 dissolved in fresh and saline water, absorbed by vegetation.
About relationship between the "budget of carbon" and "overall warming". It would be correct within the framework of greenhouse effect theory, if CO2 is indeed the main greenhouse gas. However, water vapor is stronger greenhouse gas than CO2: Th.L.Brown, H.E.LeMay a.o. Chemistry. The Central Science. Pearson. Prentice Hall. 4th Ed. 2009, p.781. Zerenboren & Kilpinen estimated the contribution of H2O to greenhouse effect of ~2/3: http://users.abo.fi/rzevenho/greenhou.PDF According to another source "water steam accounts for 36-70% of greenhouse effect". https://www.popsci.com/environment/article/2009-03/top-ten-greenhouse-gases#page-11 Moreover, in IPCC list of long-lived (only!) greenhouse gases: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPCC_list_of_greenhouse_gases the radiative forcing (rf) value of CO2 is only 0.63 of the total rf of all gases in the list. So, the contribution of CO2 in any case will be much less than 50%. That's why analogies between atmosphere and a bathtub, as well as between CO2 in atmosphere and water in a bathtub seem to be doubtful.
-
John Hartz at 05:59 AM on 22 October 2017Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races
Recommended supplemental reading:
The most effective clean energy policy gets the least love by David Roberts, Energy & Environment, Vox, Oct 21, 2017
-
Bob Loblaw at 05:56 AM on 22 October 2017Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races
NorrisM:
I agree that current federal politics in the US represent a completely dysfunctional response to the risks of climate change, and getting Trump et al to change course is highly unlikely.
- It's "The United States of America", not "The State of United America", and individual states can and will take action. California is implementing a cap-and-trade system, for example (and partnering with Ontario and Quebec, last I heard). The whole premise of the article we are commenting below (I intentionally avoid the phrase "commenting on", unfortunately) is that other politcal pressures and actions are happening in the US outside the federal level.
- Europe is far more advanced that the US in implementing measures (although much more needs to be done), and although the US is still a major world economy it, does not need to remain one if it chooses not to.
- Although China is a huge carbon emitter, they are also rapidly developing alternatives. They will own the future if countries follow the US lead and hop off the bus.
- If the rest of the world decarbonzes, and the US does not, the US will become an increasingly unimportant player.
- As damages increase, political pressures can and will change.
I completely disgaree with your phrasing of "actual pollution costs (not an extended definition)". Your position represents a continuation of externalities that distort the economic costs related to fossil fuel use. Just because you want to label uncertainties in these costs as "vague", "theoretical", etc. does not mean that the best estimate of these additional costs is $0.
Your item 2 is more likely if we remove fossil fuel subsidies, and correct the distortions caused by the externalities. Your argument against assertive action amounts to "it's too hard", and the implicit choice is that you would rather deal with the consequences of letting climate change happen.
- That you keep repeating shop-worn denier talking points about uncertainty, models, etc. suggests that at some deep level you are still believing or hoping that the science is all wrong and no significant change is needed.
- From a position of risk management, I ask "what if the science is correct, and things are as bad (or worse) than the predictions? Do you have a plan that amounts to anything more than "I really hoped this wouldn't happen"?
As for your last point: monetary transfers to help developing countries is an active point of international discussion. It will be difficult, but I have not given up hope that the international community will find a solution.
- Remember: the best way to minimize the need for these transfers to areas that have been impacted is to prevent the damage from happening in the first place. Arguing about who will pay for the damage to the car is wasting valuable time that could be used to apply the brakes and prevent or reduce the collision.
Your position amounts to appeasement. Chamberlain did not achieve "peace for our time".
-
NorrisM at 04:43 AM on 22 October 2017Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races
Bob Loblaw
Could you respond to my principal point that anything beyond what I am proposing is simply not realistic in the political environment existing not only in the US but in Europe?
To repeat, what I am proposing consists of two things:
1. Carbon Tax based upon actual pollution costs (not an extended definition) that does not exceed $30/t CO2; and
2. Measures within each country to change their energy mix from largely FF to a combination of wind and solar supported for base load power either by natural gas, hydro or nuclear power.
Attempts at asking the US, Europe or China to compensate all of the other countries of the world who will be impacted by sea level changes by imposing some very large carbon tax and distributiing these funds to the undeveloped countries of the world is not in the cards. Do you or do you not agree with this last comment?
-
NorrisM at 04:34 AM on 22 October 2017Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races
eclectic @ 129
"Still when you have time, NorrisM (and perhaps on another thread) it would be interesting to discuss why the Anglophone court system entirely fails to protect the public from the fake news and false information disseminated by the likes of journalist Miersch."
I agree this is not the place to discuss Freedom of Speech but you might want to listen to a recent podcast of Sam Harris (just finished listening to it) interviewing Cass Sunstein, a law professor at Harvard and a former official of the Obama administration. In that podcast he provides a detailed analysis of where the legal limits are on freedom of speech and the importance Madison ascribed to this in the drafting of the US Constitution. He would strongly defend the right of Miersch so say what he wants as long as it does not promote physical harm to other persons. Opinions on what should and should not be done should not be restricted by governments. It is a slippery slope.
-
MA Rodger at 04:07 AM on 22 October 2017Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races
HorrisM @132/133.
Thank you for clearing up your source. Do note that this question you quote is not "based upon the questions posed in the APS panel conducted by Koonin" or is it "Koonin is asking the question." The question was set by the APS Climate Change Statement Review Subcommittee (which was chaired by Koonin) as part of the Workshop Framing Document. The relevance of the question can perhaps be judged by it not featuring within the resulting workshop. Indeed, contrary to your insistence that it is, your implied interpretation of IPCC AR5 is not correct. Firstly, the question itself is not entirely factual. The required average SLR 2015-2100 would be 9mm/yr not the 12mm/yr presented in the question (a relatively small but worrying error) while the acceleration through the 20th century is reported in AR5 Sec 3.7.4 at roughly 1mm/century thus in agreement with the 0.01 mm/yr^2 described by the question (although a simple comparison between 20th century & 21st century accelerations is singularly naive, even tantamount to cherry-picking as explained by Bob Loblaw @139). But beyond these errors, the most egregious of all is your parroting of this somewhat misguided question as though it was not compatible with the AR5 projected 1m SLR by 2100. The question is first asking "What drives the projected sea level rise?" to which the answer is 'GMST' and then asks "To what extent is it dependent upon a continued rise in GMST?" to which the answer is 'pretty-much entirely but with the exception of the potential for the onset of large-scale grounding line instability in the marine-based sectors of the Antarctic ice sheet.' Your interpretation of the substance of the question as being incompatible with 1m SLR by 2100 is thus flat wrong. -
Bob Loblaw at 03:03 AM on 22 October 2017Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races
More math:
NorrisM: "...and an order of magnitude larger than implied by the 20th century acceleration of .01 mm/yr2 found in some studies (AR WG1 Report Section 3.7.4). "
Are you cherry-picking the lowest rate the IPCC found? Or are you using a source that cherry-picked the lowest rate?
Please look at the post over at Tamino's I referred to previously. The observed acceleration over the past 50 years is 4x the number you quote. (Was about 1.5, now 3.5; 2/50 = 0.04 mm/yr^2). The most recent IPCC report referenced earlier shows rates of acceleration closer to what you state when considering the entire 19th and 20th centuries, but Tamino's post looks more closely at recent changes. (And yes, under his real name, Tamino has published statistical climate data analysis in the scientific literature.)
In the IPCC AR5 chapter referred to earlier, it states "...acceleration continues throughout the century in RCP8.5, reaching 11 [8 to 16] mm/yr in 2081-2100."
-
Bob Loblaw at 02:40 AM on 22 October 2017Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races
NorrisM: "...would require an average rate of up to 12 mm/yr for the rest of this century"
Let's do some math. It is now 2017. There are 83 years left in this century.
- 83 years x 12 mm/yr = 996mm.
- The IPCC graph I posted earlier shows that current sea level rise was already about 0.25m above pre-industrial values in the year 2000 (+/-).
- 0.25, + 0.996m = almost 1.25m.
If we account for the fact that this claim (and the IPCC projection) was made earlier than 2017, the error gets worse.
Can you please, NorrisM, look more closely at the credibility of some of these sources? Koonin is not "factually correct".
...and the IPCC projections are not linear. Because they look at the physics, and project the results based on our current understanding of the link between temperatures, preciptiation, and ice sheet dynamics.
-
Bob Loblaw at 02:25 AM on 22 October 2017Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races
Note:
In #135, where I refer to the Copenhagan Accord, I think I actually mean the Paris Agreement (most recent).
-
Bob Loblaw at 02:22 AM on 22 October 2017Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races
Lomborg using Richard Tol as a source? Bad idea. Tol is an outlier in these sorts of studies, and he's had to issue multiple corrections to gremlin-filled papers he's written (and refused to acknowledge the impact of other errors in them).
[Andrew Gelman Critque of Tol's work]
[Retraction Watch comments on Tol paper]
Using Tol's lowball estimate is another case of hoping all the uncertainties fall in your favour.
You are continuing to rely on some very unreliable sources, NorrisM.
-
Bob Loblaw at 02:12 AM on 22 October 2017Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races
NorrisM:
Thank you for answering the questions I posed. They were not, however, rhetorical questions ("asked to make a point rather than to elicit an answer."), buth rather genuine questions asked as a sequence in an attempt to focus the discussion. Think of them more as the Socratic Method, searching for areas of agreement and areas of disagreement.
First point (minor) - I think you missed a question. There were 8, and you answered 7. I think that you missed one somewhere in 3-6, as your answers 6 and 7 look more like answers to my questions 7 and 8.
Second point: Koonin's statements about sea level rise. I linked to the full IPCC report chapter 13 in comment 122, In the table of contents, it lists the following sections:
13.4 Projected Contributions to Global Mean Sea Level
13.4.1 Ocean Heat Uptake and Thermal Expansion
13.4.2 Glaciers
13.4.3 Greenland Ice Sheet
13.4.4 Antarctic Ice Sheet
13.4.5 Anthropogenic Intervention in Water Storage on Land
13.5 Projections of Global Mean Sea Level Rise
13.5.1 Process-Based Projections for the 21st Century.
13.5.2 Semi-Empirical Projections for the 21st Century.
13.5.3 Confidence in Likely Ranges and Bounds
13.5.4 Long-Term Scenarios.
Your statement that "The IPCC report does not reconcile how they get to 1m if Koonin is asking the question" is simply wrong. The IPCC does give an extensive discussion of the literature regarding where these estimates come from. That leaves two possibiities, in my mind:
- Koonin is ignorant on this subject.
- Koonin is intentionally selecting certain forms of evidence and avoiding others in order to present a particular case.
Regardless of which of 1 or 2 is correct, Koonin has no credibility as an honest reviewer on this issue. #1 can be fixed by learning (on Koonin's part). #2 is much more difficult to change. You can, however, learn that some of the sources you are using are not trustworthy.
On question 2: yes, the IPCC may be wrong. Sea level rise by 2100 may be less than stated by the IPCC. It also may be more. There are people studying sea level rise that think the IPCC summary is too conservative - that there is a real risk of large ice sheet destabilisation by 2100 that will lead to 2-3m or more of sea level rise.
I will state again: a risk management plan that assumes all uncertainties will fall in my favour is a Bad Plan.
On answers 6 and 7:
- You say "another consideration is that this is going to occur gradually over a period of a few generations." . It is already happening now. It is going to get worse. Although it is impossible to say "this extreme weather event was caused by global warming", the number and frequency of such events is increasing according to many measures and attribution studies. What used to be rare events are now becoming common. Insurance costs are rising, and government emergency bailout funds are running deep in the red.
- Yes, Florida's real estate values may go down. People may rebuild elsewhere. People also may convince politicians to provide federal dollars and rebuild. That is what the current US habit is: federally-funded flood "insurance", which takes money from all tax-payers and gives it to the rich along the coasts.That transfer is a subsidy to those on the coast. The current market is already distorted.
- Now, what do we do about Bangladesh? Can they afford to move, and where to? You mention Lomborg: he might have an ounce of credibility if he actually was making an effort to improve lives through those other methods. He is not. He is a terrible role model, and he distorts many, many facts in presenting his arguments. He is not a credible source of information.
- You admit that the problem is global. It needs global solutions, and agreements such as the Copenhagen Accord are a step in the right direction. The U.S. has backed out, and the U.S. is risking being left behind. If the rest of the world decarbonizes and the U.S. ends up isolated, it may become the "developing world".
- On paying other countries to help them adapt vs. letting them move wherever they want. Refusing to pay, and refusing to let them move is basically telling them "I don't care what I've done to you, and I won't help in any way". If things get bad enough, you simply won't be able to stop them moving,and refugee problems will become far worse. We'll be faced with mass migrations, mass deaths, etc. Look at how many people already die trying to get from Cuba to the U.S. or across the Mediterranean Sea to Europe.
- You seem to focus on costs of dealing with the mess. Wouldn't it be nice if we could find a way to prevent the problem?
Nigelj resonds to you with the statement "Then you follow up with skeptical climate statements ". Here are some specific examples (quotes in italics), with my comments in []:
- "vague future costs."
- [Failure on your part to accept uncertainty and properly Risk Manage]
- "...based upon predictions of future temperature increases which are largely based upon models."
- [Failure on your part to understand how science makes predictions. Usually the skeptical myth "based on models" implies based on computer models, which is not our only source of information. If it means based on any sort of model, then unfortunately all of science uses models of one sort or another, so rejected models writ large means rejecting science.]
- "distorting our economy with a very large carbon tax.",
- [Failure on your part to understand that externailities are already a distortion. A carbon tax tries to remove that distortion.]
- " I do NOT think that a large carbon tax beyond the costs of pollution"
- [Failure on your part to understand that releasing CO2 and causing sea level rise, increased drought, increased heavy rainfall, etc. is a form of pollution.]
Throw in a few "China is a problem and China should pay" arguments, and you are reading from the Climate Denier's Playbook - although I'm sure it doesn't seem that way to you. You have trusted a lot of very unreliable sources of information, and it is affecting your view.
-
NorrisM at 01:58 AM on 22 October 2017Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races
nigelj @ 130
My main point is that I do not think the politicians of the world, not just the United States, are really going to impose carbon taxes beyond what is politically acceptable so it is wasted time talking about imposing carbon taxes based upon theoretical calculations of SCC. And they are theoretical when there is so much disagreement on what and what should not be put into the calculation. If you want an IPCC statement which effectively acknowledges this I can point to the section of Chapter 10 of the IPCC 2014 Report which I have read in its entirety.
Beyond the US, look what has been happening in the UK with Brexit and with the rise of ultra right wing parties throughout mainland Europe. Suggesting that carbon taxes will be imposed on these nations to compensate for future SCC in other parts of the world is close to fantasy. The Paris Agreement is the perfect example of how politicians operate. All the real cuts are after 2030 when these politicians are long gone. Meanwhile they get reelected based upon grandiose statements that do not cost their electorate in the pocket book.
So my principal point is that you do what is politically feasible. Impose a carbon tax on the cost of pollution. Of course China is onboard for this. If the Communist Party does not do something about pollution they will lose their grip on power. They know this.
The other thing to do is convince the public that wind and solar power (for now I am leaving alone nuclear power) can viably compete with FF, using FF as a back up source of base load power. Replace coal plants with natural gas which emits one-half the CO2 into the atmosphere. I appreciate that this last point is somewhat problematic with Trump in power but I do not think the Republicans are all in favour of coal.
One final point, ensure that the carbon tax is dividended back to the people. If you keep it to distort the economy by investing it in RE then you lose half the electorate. I reread section of the Lomborg book where he asks Richard Tol (I think he is an IPCC contributor) as to the "pollution cost" of carbon. I thought the range was $14 to $20/t. In fact, Tol uses the range $2/t to $14/t. I appreciate the low range of the IPCC for (I assume) pollution costs only is$18/t so I may be high on my suggested $30/t. My sense is that our economy can handle $30/t so I am not retracting that figure but I think that is the high end.
-
NorrisM at 01:29 AM on 22 October 2017Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races
MA Rodger @ 31
Hit the wrong button, here is full quote:
"The IPCC projected rise of up to 1m by the end of this century (depending upon the emissions scenario) would require an average rate of up to 12 mm/yr for the rest of this century, some four times the current rate, and an order of magnitude larger than implied by the 20th century acceleration of .01 mm/yr2 found in some studies (AR WG1 Report Section 3.7.4). What drives the projected sea level rise? To what extent is it dependent upon a continued rise in GMST?"
These were the questions provided to the participants prior to the oral hearing. Not all of the questions included in the Workshop Framing Document were dealt with in the oral hearing.
Obviously my calculation of 3 mm/yr came from the reference to "four times the current rate".
My point is that whatever you think of Koonin, you have to agree that this is probably factually correct as to what the AR5 WG1 report has to say about sea level rises.
-
NorrisM at 01:20 AM on 22 October 2017Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races
MA Rodger @ 131
The question is posed in the APS Workshop Framing Document which is also posted on the APS.org website. After showing the AR5 WG1 Figure 3.14 graph indicating sea level rises, the following question is posed:
"The IPCC projected rise of up to 1m by the end of this century (depending upon the emissions scenario) would require an average rate of up to 12 mm/yr for the rest of this century, some four times the current rate,
-
MA Rodger at 20:00 PM on 21 October 2017Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races
NorrisM @128,
In your replies to questioning set you up-thread, you appear to be presenting an interpretation of IPCC AR5 findings on SLR as set out by Steve Koonin at the "APS panel". Your actual comment was:-
"Based upon the questions posed in the APS panel conducted by Koonin from information extracted from the IPCC 2013 assessment sea levels are rising at a rate of 3 mm/yr which translates to 9.8 inches on a "linear basis". The IPCC report does not reconcile how they get to 1m if Koonin is asking the question"
I assume from this you are referring to something within the 2014 APS Climate Change Statement Workshop [transcript] but I see nothing in this workshop that provides a basis for your comment.
Can you point to the source of this?
I would add that the Executive Summary of IPCC AR5 Chapter 13 sets out quite clearly the size of the projected SLR by 2100 under RCP8.5, this being 30% already occurred (as illustrated in fig 13.27 already shown in-thread @122) thus a 1m rise would require an average SLR of 9mm/yr for the remainder of this century. Thus I don't see much chance of this Koonin character and his questioning providing any coherent assessment. (Note the 1m SLR excludes certain contributions which AR5 assesses would probably not exceed "several tenths of a meter of sea level rise during the 21st century" were they to occur.)
-
nigelj at 10:32 AM on 21 October 2017Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races
NorrisM @128
This may be of value to you. It's the last IPCC report on the section on sea level rise.
www.ipcc.ch/pdf/unfccc/cop19/3_gregory13sbsta.pdf
It describes evidence for historic rise over the last hundred years approx., and also future projections to 2100, and also the basis for these projections. Simply put, more warming is calculated to cause higher rates of ice melt in Greenland etc, and thus an accelerating curve leading to possibly 1 metre at the higher end of expectations.
They say for example :"High confidence in projections of increasing Greenland surface mass loss."
In my opinion any cost on carbon or carbon tax has to factor in an evaluation of problems of sea level rise along with all other impacts of climate change. It may not be building sea walls, but there has to be some sort of evaluation of costs, and it would be arbitrary to pick and choose which impacts of climate change to include. You simply have to consider all impacts but obviously acknowledging they are estimates plus or minus.
Of course nobody would say impose that cost immediately tomorrow as it would cause too much disruption and problems, and as you say would be politically hard work, so you would phase it in. But given the limited carbon budget remaining it needs to be ramped up reasonably quickly.
You say how do we convince the public? Then you follow up with skeptical climate statements and make that job harder.
I dont see why you are turning the issue into something about helping the poor. Im a believer we should help the poor but climate change is a cost on everyone, not just the poor. There is also nothing to suggest money that would have gone into climate change emissions reductions, would somehow go into helping the poor and pardon my cynicism but I doubt it would.
Likewise talking about the politics of immigration gets away from, the issue and is verging on a straw man as well. The most likely pathway is countries will have limits on immigration. Such market's cant be completely open as the results are too jarring. However immigration is also healthy and should be as open as possible with reasonable numbers, provided it is regulated in regard so total numbers. dont get out of control too fast. Really the question of developed countries somehow compensating less developed countries over emissions and climate change issues has to be done more based on who is the biggest emitter and who is economically struggling just from a humanitarian and social conscience viewpoint. Neither should we pay for other countries foolishness or laziness, so it is always a balancing act.
-
Eclectic at 09:56 AM on 21 October 2017Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races
NorrisM @127 , thanks for the link about Michael Miersch.
Yes that is the Miersch, and he is quite the nutcase — so we needn't dwell on him, in this thread.
I just wished to clear up [your] point on the quotation: "Germany's green energy transition is destroying vast swathes of nature ... [etc]"
It is evident that the quote is not a factual statement whatsoever, but is the title of an upcoming talk [Oct 24th 2017] by Miersch.
The talk is being organized by the GWPF — the title is inflammatory and erroneous (as usual with the GWPF!).
Internal evidence, namely the un-Germanic word "swathes", indicates that the title was probably concocted by the GWPF rather than by Miersch. Also, the GWPF likes to have something inflammatory, to attract its own nutcases to the talk.
Still when you have time, NorrisM (and perhaps on another thread) it would be interesting to discuss why the Anglophone court system entirely fails to protect the public from the fake news and false information disseminated by the likes of journalist Miersch.
-
NorrisM at 09:52 AM on 21 October 2017Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races
Bob Loblaw @ 115
You have posed a number of questions for which you have asked my views. Although I will give you my personal views, you seem to miss my main point that it is the American public which you have to convince to the rhetorical questions you have posed. If you do not get the American public onside, then for sure you will not get Mr. Trump and the Republicans onside.
But I am happy to give you my personal views for whatever value that is:
1. Agree that AGW is causing increased sea levels. I agree that the IPCC has predicted a best estimate of 1m by 2100. Based upon the questions posed in the APS panel conducted by Koonin from information extracted from the IPCC 2013 assessment sea levels are rising at a rate of 3 mm/yr which translates to 9.8 inches on a "linear basis". The IPCC report does not reconcile how they get to 1m if Koonin is asking the question. If the answer were in IPCC 2013 assessment then Koonin would not have suggested that it would take a rise of 12 mm/yr from 2014 to 2100 to reach 1m.
2. Completely agree with this statement IF the IPCC is right. If the rise in the next 83 years is only at 3 mm/yr I do not agree with this statement.
3. Completely agree with this statement.
4. Completely agree with this statement.
5. Completely agree with this statement.
6. In a previous reply to you I have said that SCC gets "complicated" once you step past actual health costs related to pollution. This statement is an example of that. Poor countries clearly need help. And one question is who should help them (see below). But another consideration is that this is going to occur gradually over a period of a few generations. People will adjust by moving away from the rising waters. This is not Noah's flood (metaphor only). If there is less land and therefore there are less children born, that will be a natural effect. By the way, the same goes for Florida and its $1 Trillion of real estate. Too bad Florida. You have had a great run but we do not have any obligation to build a massive wall for you. If it makes sense for you to do so then fine but do not expect Federal money to do so. Over the next 100 years the gradual value of that real estate will go down (is that a "cost" you would like to include in SCC - I doubt it). Perhaps wealthy people will now retire to Florida will invest and spend their time in Mexico. The Mexicans will welcome them with open arms. They could use the development. But back to the poor countries. I actually think like Bjorn Lomborg that there are many other ways of improving the lives of the poor in many more efficient ways than building dikes or distorting our economy with a very large carbon tax. These are just my views on this comment. Whether you can get the American public onside to do so which is the real relevant issue is entirely another question. I personally think there is not a chance in the world of doing so even with a Democratic government. Many Americans are not even ready to agree that all of their fellow Americans should have a basic level of medical coverage guaranteed. Are they going to spend billions of dollars on others when they will not even protect their own? There is not a President past or future who will go where the American public do not want to go unless something like the bombing of Pearl Harbor occurs.
7. Completely agree. But again this is where it gets "complicated". If you want to say that Americans in Chicago should pay for costs on each coast (leaving aside the wealthy Floridians) then fine. But if you are saying that the US or Canada should pay for building dikes around some South Pacific island that would otherwise disappear, I am out. These are very difficult philosophical issues dealing with suffering around the world. Are you in favour of the right of the poor of the world to immigrate to whatever country they can make it to? There is an "argument" that this should be so. But as soon as you say there have to be limits to immigration, then you are recognizing that the boundaries of a nation state mean something. Part of that is how much that nation state will pay to other nations based upon vague future costs based upon predictions of future temperature increases which are largely based upon models.
Although since I have got "hooked" as a climate junkie I do not read as many books, I have recently read a book by Charles Kupchan entitled "No One's World". Kupchan is a Professor at Georgetown University and is a fellow of the Council on Foreign Relations (Foreign Affairs journal). His premise is that our future world will be one where there is no one or two nations that have hegemony in the world.
On page 81 thereof (citations are at the back of the book) he comes up with some astounding figures on the comparisons of steel production (read "big" GWGs) of the US, China and India since 1980. In 1980 the US produced about 100 MM tons of steel that after 2008 dropped to about 80 MM tons and has stayed stable at that rate. Over the same period Chinese production rose from around 40 MM tons/yr to 600 MM tons/yr. India went from 10 to 65 MM tons/yr.
It is not a coincidence as to why CO2 emissions massively increased over this period. Most of it came from the "developing countries" and the IPCC expects this to be the case in the future.
So who pays for the "poor"? Is China still part of the "poor". On a per capital basis, probably it is. Do we write a cheque to China? Or should China be writing a cheque?
When it comes to calculating the SCC of carbon these are some of the "complicated" issues that I personally do not think will ever get resolved.
So if you want to say that Nero fiddled while Rome burned, you may be right but I do NOT think that a large carbon tax beyond the costs of pollution is the way to go.
-
Daniel Bailey at 09:45 AM on 21 October 2017The F13 files, part 1 - the copy/paste job
"increased heat flow into the oceans"
The oceans are warming, top-down. If increased heat flow into the oceans from subaerial volcanoes were the cause, we'd expect to not only see warming more botton-up, but we'd have to invent a whole new branch of physics to explain why rising concentrations of atmospheric CO2 aren't warming the oceans.
Per Cheng et al 2017:"OHC has increased fairly steadily and, since 1990, has increasingly involved deeper layers of the ocean. In addition, OHC changes in six major oceans are reliable on decadal timescales.
All ocean basins examined have experienced significant warming since 1998, with the greatest warming in the southern oceans, the tropical/subtropical Pacific Ocean, and the tropical/subtropical Atlantic Ocean."
And:
"The new result (Fig. 6) suggests a total full-depth ocean warming of 33.5 ± 7.0 × 1022 J (equal to a net heating of 0.37 ± 0.08W/m2 over the global surface and over the 56-year period) from 1960 to 2015, with 36.5, 20.4, 30.3, and 12.8% contributions from the 0- to 300-m, 300-to 700-m, 700- to 2000-m, and below 2000-m layers, respectively."
Larger image HERE.
-
nigelj at 08:24 AM on 21 October 2017The F13 files, part 1 - the copy/paste job
Derek, I live in New Zealand, right on a techtonic plate boundary, with significant volcanic and geothermal activity. Plus we recently had a big earthquake in Christchurch (but dont panic, very nice place overall).
Global warming is about 1 degree so in the middle of the range. We get a lot of electricity from geothermal energy, and theres no evidence of increasing trend of geothermal and / or volcanic activity that I'm aware of over the last 150 years.
Of course one country and anecdotal, but you have to start somewhere and its interesting.The whole idea that geothermal or undersea volcanic activity is driving climate change is invalid, because its contribution to warming is small, and theres no evidence of increases globally over the last century as a trend, and its hard to see why there would be. I also did some physical geography at university, so take an interest in what the earths crust is getting up to.
-
NorrisM at 06:36 AM on 21 October 2017Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races
eclectic
Here is the url from the website of the World Council for Nature which is a website dedicated to the protection of nature. I can see from this website that they are not a fan of windfarms.
I also see from some research that Michael Miersch is more than the Director of Communications for the German Wildlife Foundation. He clearly is what with website would describe as a "climate skeptic". In other words, he is in the camp of those who do not question the "97% consensus" portion but rather the questions that follow.
I personally have decided to focus my attention on an assumption that AGW is the major factor causing our temperature to rise so I have decided to focus more on what is the best approach to deal with it given the political realities not only in the US but other parts of the world.
https://wcfn.org/2017/10/19/london-conference-oct-24th/
-
michael sweet at 06:36 AM on 21 October 2017Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races
Philippe Chantreau,
I wanted to reply to you but it is too off topic. I think we agree.
-
michael sweet at 06:24 AM on 21 October 2017Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races
Here is a free copy of the McDonald Clack paper. I found it using Google Scholar.
The Connolly link I provided at 105 is for a free copy. Here is another paper, I only read the abstract. An article by BudIschak et al looks at only electricity for about 1/4 of the USA. It is a little old now.
I do not have time to read the rest of the other 115 papers for you. Read the titles to see which sound interesting. Often the free copy is listed to the right in Google Scholar. I frequently only read the abstract, which is usually free.
-
Bob Loblaw at 06:09 AM on 21 October 2017Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races
NorrisM:
As to where the image added @ comment 70 by the moderator came from, you can determine the web location by right-clicking on the image and copying the URL somewhere where you can look at it (or just opening it in another browser window). The image was loaded from here:
https://i1.wp.com/climateadaptation.hawaii.gov/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/Brief-1-Figure-4.png
-
MA Rodger at 06:01 AM on 21 October 2017Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races
NorrisM @119.
You enquire about the graphic presented within the Moderator Response @70, a comment which also referenced Slangen et al (2016).
You are correct that the graphic does not originate from the referenced paper. It appears to originate as Figure 1 in this web page which uses the graphic to illustrate the acceleration of twentieth century SLR in turn referencing Hay et al (2015) which provides its own graphics.
It is not clear why you would wish to discuss the origin of this graphic. The point you were making @70 was that SLR had been on-going for 150 to 200 years and was in your view an acceptable price to pay for all the benefits that FF has brought humanity, suggesting also that the rise in global temperature resulting from FF use cannot sensibly precipitate a quick abandonment of FF, you suggesting no more than "one "small incremental" step (which) would be better than throwing the baby out with the bath water." The Moderator comment specifically addressed the SLR aspect of your comment and was pointing out that SLR was accelerating and was the result of AGW. In this I think you got off lightly. -
Bob Loblaw at 05:59 AM on 21 October 2017Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races
NorrisM:
Here is a graph of sea level rise predictions from the 2013 IPCC report, chapter 13, on sea level rise (copy obtained from here).
Under RCP 8.5, 1m by 2100 is the central estimate. RCP 8.5 is the highest of their RCPs. The graph also includes RCP 2.6, which IIRC is the lowest. Central estimate in that case is about 0.7m.
Feel free to pick either number if responding to the questions I posed in comment 115.
With respect to examiniation of past and current rates of sea level rise, and whether a linear exptrapolation is appropriate, you can refer to this post over at Tamino's.
-
nigelj at 05:51 AM on 21 October 2017Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races
Norris @112
You copied annd pasted this quote : "Germany's green energy transition is destroying vast swathes of nature, agricultural lands and forests. In the name of climate policy, rare birds and endangered species are being killed while much of the countryside is transformed into industrial parks."
These are inflammatory, unproven claims, provided without a shred of evidence.
The following article discusses space taken up by windfarms in Germany. To quote "it finds that Germany could install 125 gigawatts of wind turbines on only 1.7 percent of the country – on land, not including offshore wind farms. Likewise, 143 gigawatts of PV could be installed on 0.9 percent of the country." This is a staggering quantity of generation on a very small area.
And "To put these numbers into perspective, a recent study by Fraunhofer IWES investigating a 100 percent renewable supply of electricity found the need for only 87 gigawatts of onshore wind along with 40 gigawatts offshore. For PV, IWES estimated that 134 gigawatts would be needed, slightly less than what the BBR found to be feasible."
energytransition.org/2015/10/does-germany-even-have-enough-space-for-renewables/
The following article shows how false and exaggerated the claims are regarding birds.
You will firstly note that most people in Germany support wind farms and solar farms from a poll taken, and its small local groups protesting, so the "nimby affect" (not in my back yard) and a few bird enthusiasts.
Regarding just the bird question. There is debate claim and counter claim, but no overall good evidence rare birds are killed,or even significant numbers of other birds. So the claims in the quote are complete nonsense and hyperbole.energytransition.org/2016/05/pushback-against-onshore-wind-power-in-germany-gets-real/
The following article from wikipedia looks at general impacts of windfarms on the environment globally in all respects, including birds, aesthetics etc. It provides evidence for and against, and links to many research papers and articles. Its balanced with a good look at all sides of the debate, as best as you will ever get.
The bottom line is impacts on birds are not nearly as large as special interest groups in the media claim. And it points out that many people fail to consider negative effects of fossil fuels on wildlife in their calculations
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_wind_power#Birds
-
paulgrace at 05:33 AM on 21 October 2017The F13 files, part 2 - the content analysis
What criteria was used to categorize issues as "minor"?
it seems to me that "outdated discussion" and "poor methodology" are the only issues that could rank as "minor", and then only if they do not arrive at counterfactual conclusions. The purpose of any paper is to improve our understanding of the natural world, and any elements that are counterfactual are indeed serious lapses.
-
NorrisM at 04:37 AM on 21 October 2017Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races
Eclectic
I am under some time constraints so I will get back to you. Are you sure this is the Director of the German Wildlife Federation that you are referring to?
-
NorrisM at 04:35 AM on 21 October 2017Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races
Moderator
Before I continue my dialogue with Bob Loblaw, could you provide the reference for the graph you provided to me earlier relating to sea level rises? I did not see that graph in the paper you cited and the only graph in that paper seemed to show a lower level of sea level rise that the one you provided. Was able to open up and read that paper without paying for it as long as I did not try to print it.
-
NorrisM at 04:31 AM on 21 October 2017Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races
michael sweet @ 105
Have now read the MacDonald, Clack paper which I found interesting. But this gets expensive downloading these papers. I know you have suggested the Connolly paper. Of the 115 you referenced, if you had to point to one more on the US could you suggest one?
-
Philippe Chantreau at 03:57 AM on 21 October 2017Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races
Michael Sweet at 113,
France certainly has expertise and experience among the highest in the World on nuclear power, and a long history of operatng without any large scale incident. And yet the Finnish Okiluoto EPR reactor is coming out at almost 3 times the original contracted price and will not be ready until May 2019, almost 14 years after construction started. It would not be surprising at all if it takes in fact 15 years to have the plant fully operational and delivering as intended. That is rather amusing (although perhaps not for the Finns), consdering that the projected useful life of the plant will be 60 years.
However, the biggest problem with Nuclear plants in the US, as with all other utilities, is the fact that a private company uses public money to finance the construction of their production unit, then operates as a private company as if they owned the darn thing entirely. Utilities are local private monopolies. When it comes to Nuclear plants, we're talking some very big money. The only good way to do it for the consumer is the cooperative utility model.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olkiluoto_Nuclear_Power_Plant
-
John Hartz at 03:34 AM on 21 October 2017Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races
Recommended supplemental reading:
Renewables will give more people access to electricity than coal, says IEA by Simon Evans, Carbon Brief, Oct 19, 2017
-
Bob Loblaw at 02:16 AM on 21 October 2017Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races
NorrisM:
I think we disagree on a lot more than you are letting on.
"Theoretical issues" is a very poor alternate phrasing for "uncertainties". I think our difference is that I want to include a larger range of SSC in planning, because I do not want to restrict our plans to hoping that costs will be on the low side. You appear to only want to deal with the "high probability, high impact" part of the risk management matrix, so please explain what you see as our differences a little more clearly.
As for who pays for the costs of rising sea levels, which of the following do you disagree with?
- Global warming from fossil fuel burning causes increased sea levels - best estimate is about 1m by 2100 (might be less, might be a lot more) under the IPCC moderate CO2 emissions scenarios.
- Rising sea level of that quantity represents a major impact with high costs for a very large population around the world.
- Benefits of burning fossil fuels largely accumulate with those that produce or burn them, whether they live close to sea level or not.
- Impacts of sea level rise affect people/places close to sea level, whether they burn fossil fuels or not.
- Rich countries can mitigate some impacts through expensive construction or protection measures.
- Poor countries can't do much but run away.
- Costs borne by people at sea level that did not benefit from the consumption of fossil fuels elsewhere represents an economic externality in the use of fossil fuels.
- Saying "tough $#!^; I don't care about other people that live in poor counties near sea level. I just want cheap gas for my Hummer" is not playing nice in the global sandbox.
The US is only part of the world. And people can avoid paying large amounts in carbon taxes by choosing alternatives - and alternatives are growing rapidly. You seem to want to appease the people that think like #8 on my list (well, they often actually start their denial with #1, but that is another story).
The ideal situation with a carbon tax, is that eventually everyone mostly avoids it because they can choose to not use fossil fuels - because by removing the economic externalities we have properly included the Total Cost of Ownership, and people will make the lower-cost choice and industry will find a way to provide it.
The taxes that go to relief efforts in Texas, Florida, and Puerto Rico eventually have to be paid. The post that we are commenting on (well, the moderators haven't told us to go elsewhere yet) is pointing out that people in the US are slowing shifting to realizing that this shift in economic priorities is valuable.
-
Bob Loblaw at 01:37 AM on 21 October 2017The F13 files, part 1 - the copy/paste job
Derek:
Geothermal heat flow is, on average, pretty small. It is tiny compared to the radiative forcing from added CO2. To quote this Wikipedia page:
Mean heat flow is 65 mW/m2 over continental crust and 101 mW/m2 over oceanic crust. This is 0.087 watt/square meter on average (0.03 percent of solar power absorbed by the Earth[15] ), but is much more concentrated in areas where thermal energy is transported toward the crust by convection such as along mid-ocean ridges and mantle plumes.
To contribute to global warming, you would have to have a significant increase in this quantity - like 10x more globally-averaged, which means probably 1000s time more in local areas. It ain't happening.
[I would try to defend classifying "geographers", as that is my background, buit "geographer" varies an awful lot and some of them are awfully ignorant on climate - such as TIm Ball.]
-
Eclectic at 00:46 AM on 21 October 2017The F13 files, part 1 - the copy/paste job
Derek @10 , yes , thanks , and your point is an important one about cost-effective use of that finite resource [time]. And it very likely is correct that your own time is better spent in "raising" the younger cohorts to be more resistant to the BS which is swallowed by that substantial minority of oldies we know as Denialists — and more resistant through better critical thinking as well as through greater insight into their own tendencies toward motivated reasoning (etc).
Still, there are millions of scientific-minded citizens — and with a great diversity of interests . . . so it is not unreasonable for some percentage of them to give part of their time to "wrestle with the alligators" right now, while teachers such as yourself tackle the longer term plan of "swamp-drainage". [Please excuse the currently over-used analogy!] So I fully support Ari Jokimaki & his colleagues in their actions here.
On a side-note, being your mention of Global Warming from mid-ocean ridge warming : I must say that even I as a non-seismologist, can see that that particular argument has more holes in it than does Swiss cheese. Yet the Denialists will grasp at every straw they can see, despite all those straws being mutually contradictory.
And on the pressure-temperature thing, I have a salient memory (from my childhood) of my grandfather's extensive library containing a science book [copyrighted 1893, if I recall properly] which declared that the scientists had calculated that the Sun's output of heat was produced by the mechanism of gravitational collapse. The scientists opined that the Sun's diameter was shrinking by around 200 feet per year. (And as has been mentioned elsewhere, the discrepancy with terrestrial geology was not addressed.)
MODERATORS : I am wondering if you would consider merging the comments columns for The F13 files Parts 1-4 . There may be enough commonality & overlap, to justify having all comments in a single thread.
-
Derek at 23:17 PM on 20 October 2017The F13 files, part 1 - the copy/paste job
Thanks @4 Eclectic and @5 Bob. Eclectic, I was actually referring to a paper I read where a geographer suggested an increase in seismicity at a mid-ocean ridge meant that there was increased heat flow into the oceans, which was in turn causing the oceans and atmosphere to warm. I'm a seismologist, and the seismology part of the paper seemed pretty poorly done. But as the link Bob posted shows, maybe this is not the best use of my time--probably better to be teaching my students how to be better critical thinkers!
-
Eclectic at 15:05 PM on 20 October 2017Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races
NorrisM @112 , your assistance please!
A link, please — I have not managed to find the source of journalist Michael Miersch's comments that [allegedly] "Germany's green energy transition is destroying vaste swathes of nature ... while much of the countryside is transformed into industrial parks."
And is his comment a sober & factual assessment, or the raving hyperbole by what the Germans call ein Spinner [= a nutcase] ?
( The latter "case" seems much more likely, if he was someone called in to address a meeting of the GWPF. )
All I have found about journalist Miersch, is that recently a German court has decided that he has been lying to his reading public (in his advocacy of false & misleading information about climate matters — in other words he has been lying about the science of Global Warming. It sounds like the court felt his wish for journalistic freedom of expression did not outweigh his untruthfulness. ) .
I must say that it is a great pity that the Anglophone courts do not similarly take action against the many liars in the Anglophone press, in connection with both the Holocaust deniers and the AGW deniers.
-
Eclectic at 12:25 PM on 20 October 2017The F13 files, part 4 - dealing with Elsevier
A frustrating experience for Ari & co-workers. "Whistleblowing" should not have to be this difficult, nor be met with multiple layers of resistance.
Interesting that a tiny group of engineers (from Cyprus) should choose to publish a paper with so many and so egregious falsehoods on a highly-important topic in a field well outside their apparent area of expertise.
As the cliched questions often go: "Was alcohol involved?" / "Was money involved?"
The response from the lead author also strongly implies a lack of intellectual honesty, on top of the major falsehoods of the article itself. But all this is in accordance with the anti-science attitude of climate-science deniers.
More worrying is the inactivity of the Journal Editor-in-Chief, in showing an uninterest in the proper performance of his editorial duties. Granted, he himself is an engineer rather than a climate scientist, and is doubtless busy with his engineering day job — but he has permitted this "climate science" article to be published in his Journal. And one might reasonably suspect that he sent it to referees who were engineers rather than those with a more climatological level of appropriate knowledge. And the upshot is that he seems almost passive-aggressive in his desire to give the "brush-off" to the well-expressed scientific complaint/critique provided to him. He deserves censure (perhaps from the N.A.S.? Or would that "cut no ice" with an engineer? )
Sad also, that the Elsevier administation has seemingly shown a less-than-assiduous effort to correct the situation. In the scientific scene, Elsevier must paint with a very broad brush, and possibly they are too big to figure they have a duty to correct a single paper, even an atrociously bad one like this case. But not a praiseworthy attitude on their part. Nevertheless, they are in the business of "delivering" science — not clothespegs — and they have a duty to do considerably better.
I would be interested to hear opinions on "where to go next".
Prev 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 Next
