Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 Next
Comments 17401 to 17450:
-
Eclectic at 03:47 AM on 18 October 2017It's a natural cycle
Postkey @29 , yes that video presentation evoked both laughter & boredom, simultaneously.
Postkey, as you increase and extend your knowledge of climate matters, you will soon discover two things :-
(A) For all their imperfections & uncertainties, the scientists aim to present things as honestly & truthfully as they can.
(B) The anti-science propagandists (such as Mr Heller/Goddard) do not hesitate to mislead and deceive. They will cherrypick / "doctor" / fabricate . . . to whatever extent they think they can get away with. They aim to outright deceive the reader — or at least get him thinking that with so much "controversy" then he might as well put the climate/AGW issue on the backburner 'cos it seems nobody knows what the hell's going on. ~Either of those outcomes will satisfy the propaganda industry, as represented by GWPF, Heartland Institute, and other such "front" organizations. (And you will notice, Postkey, that the more scientifically-ignorant their audience, the more these proagandists extend their lies & deceptions. You will see that in places as diverse as Wall Street Journal op-eds and "lie & spin" websites like WattsUpWithThat or JoNova. They are completely shameless in their disregard for truthful presentation.)
Postkey, as for the AMO — what do you mean by "a statistical base"? There are very short-term trends (e.g. the ENSO) having a short up-or-down effect on the global surface temperature, but which (when you think it through) are incapable of altering the long-term climate trends produced by real drivers of climate change (e.g. long-term solar activity changes / Milankovitch-cycle insolation / Northern Hemisphere ice albedo changes / continental drift positional effects / and of course Greenhouse gas alterations).
But as for long-term (decadal) oceanic events such as the AMO — do they actually exist as some sort of real physical cycle, or are they only a collection of random natural variations that we interpret in our minds as some sort of "real" thing? ~Interpret in a similar way as our minds "see" a Face in the Moon . . . when in reality we are only observing a random asteroidal-bombardment pattern on the Moon's surface.
Still, whatever existence the AMO has or doesn't have — it does not and cannot cause significant climate change in the real way that Greenhouse gasses & other such "drivers" do.
That video presenter was way off into crazy territory. Either from his own ignorance or from his insane Conspiracy Theory beliefs or from some underlying extremist-political ideation. And he was certainly shooting himself in the foot by using the mendacious Mr Heller as his "rock". BTW, the presenter seemed to be "into" some form of agricultural permaculture (which in general I would say is a reasonable thing) but he hints at a Survivalist-type tendency — which is crazy-wrong in regard to apocalyptic "ice-age" threats . . . but which might well make some sense if North Korean nuclear attack occurs! ~Alas, if the ongoing Global Warming gets very bad, then there will be no "hiding out in the mountains" for would-be Survivalists, since the climate change itself and the hordes of climate refugees will render such plans null & void.
-
Bob Loblaw at 03:34 AM on 18 October 2017Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races
NorrisM @ 90:
"Those items are not listed by you, but I assume they would include all "external costs" which can be directly attributed to FF use."
Wrong assumption.
"your proposal for a carbon tax which, I assume, you would suggest should be $90/t taking the mid point"
Wrong assumption.
Can you understand how it is difficult to have a discussion with you when you are making incorrect assumptions? At best, it's impolite. At worst, it's a strawman fallacy. You call it "an assumption". I call it misrepresenting my position. Please answer the last part of my question: are you willing to retract your statement and fully admit that it was a misrepresentation (even if not intended)?
"Your proposal of a massive carbon tax on FF"
There you go with the emotional words again. "Massive" by what objective definition? You argue uncertainty in things like IPCC numbers, then use highly subjective adjectives in your own arguments.
"Your analogy of the window coming crashing down from a large high rise building has to be revised in one slight manner. The window is travelling at one foot per year. Lots of time to figure out how to get out of the way. "
And you can only move at one inch per year. We can either discuss the analogy as is, or keep revising it, but so far you are just avoiding actually answering it.
-
RedBaron at 02:08 AM on 18 October 2017Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races
Norris,
Who needs a tax anyway? Many many billions of dollars go into subsidizing fossil fuels and industrial ag, the two biggest causes of AGW. Before we tax even more, we should stop sibsidizing AGW in the first place. That might even work alone without any need of tax schemes at all. I know certainly coal is on its last legs without massive subsidies and same goes with industrial agriculture. Pretty sure that it won't be too long before renewable energy becomes the best in every case and at no additional costs..in fact a reduction in costs.
As far as the tractor goes, that is a spurious argument. The amount of fossil fuel used by a tractor is insignificantly tiny compared to the soil sink potential of the land the tractor plants.
-
NorrisM at 01:08 AM on 18 October 2017Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races
Bob Loblaw @ 88
I am responding to your request re #68 versus my first comment in #70.
I think your position on the level of a carbon tax is summarized by the following paragraph in #68:
"The argument behind a carbon tax is to monetize the external costs. Choosing the lower limit means continuing to fail to monetize a portion of the (likely) external costs. Choosing the lower limit increases the likelhood that a large fraction of the external costs will be born by others (non-fossil fuel or reduced-fossil fuel consumers). The fossil fuel sector of the energy business has had a large competitive advantage by virtue of the fact that is has operated in a system that leaves much of the true cost externalized. Choosing the lower limit of such costs fails to level that playing field."
My reference in the first paragraph in #70 was only meant to refer to the items that you would include in the above quoted paragraph and nothing more. Those items are not listed by you, but I assume they would include all "external costs" which can be directly attributed to FF use.
Perhaps part of our problem is that I am focussing on getting the US public onside but the issues remain with China and India as well. But my comments will largely be directed to the US because if you do not get the US onside, I highly doubt that you will get China and India to go along with any serious carbon tax.
Here are my problems with your proposal for a carbon tax which, I assume, you would suggest should be $90/t taking the mid point:
1. Firstly, your proposal is unrealistic both in the US and I suspect in China and India. The American public is NOT onside notwithstanding vagues climate worries evidenced in the Pew Reseach 2016 paper I have referenced before. They are not satisfied that all GW is AGW. If you just want to talk in theory then so be it but what is the use of that?
2. The "health costs of pollution" appeals to the libertarian spirit of Americans because they can clearly see these effects of CO2 just like what occurred with SO2 (acid rain). The Chinese public as well will "sign on" to costs of pollution for obvious reasons. I suspect (without knowing what went into the lower $17/t estimate) is that basic health costs incurred by the public directly attributable to pollution constitute this figure. Once we start getting into putting some dollar value of each human life lost, I get into having problems with it. I want to limit this charge so something we can measure knowing that the reduction of pollution will also have the benefit of saving lives. But putting a "cost on a human life" is very problematic. How the studies get to $90/t I do not know. I am quite sure that the upper level of $350/t has included all adaptation costs related to rising sea levels around the world, the cost of increased drought, damage from more intense hurricanes etc. I have no idea whether they then offset those costs with increased benefits of other areas of the world being more arable. If these studies only limit the adaptation costs to North America then I stand corrected. I would like to see the Clack et al studies on converting the US power grid to 80% wind and solar but so far cannot locate them.
3. Although "logically" you can justify this very high number, it is a "global" number I suspect and does not look at each country and ask what costs will be incurred by that country. As a result, you are asking Americans to pull money out of their pockets in the form of carbon taxes to pay for the costs of adaptation in other parts of the world. Or, are you suggesting that all of the carbon tax be refunded to the Americans who paid same at their local gas station or for their natural gas used to heat their home. I suspect not. Do these funds stay in each country or, as I believe, was agreed in the Paris Agreement, large transfers are made between the developed countries and the undeveloped countries? So are large transfers of American taxes to go to China and India? These are real problems with a carbon tax beyond "pollution costs".
4. As noted in 10.6.2.1 of Chapter 10 of the IPCC 2014 Report, the price of carbon can also be considered from other standpoints, namely what price level of CO2 emissions is required to limit atmospheric concentrations to a given stabilization level? I suspect that the upper levels of these studies is focussed on this but I do not know.
5. However before we elimate the use of FF, we should have some very clear studies as to what the costs will be for implementation of a change from FF to wind and solar with other sources for base load backup and for the costs of new power grids then we are whistling Dixie because until you can tell the American public how much comes out of their pockets, they will not get onside.
6. I see that the IPCC study suggests that the total costs of electrical power generation changes (not heating or transportation) would be something less than 1% of world GDP. Does that mean that a small island in the Pacific spends its own 1% of GDP? Or does it mean that the US public will be asked to pay for it?
7. Your proposal of a massive carbon tax on FF (which would have to be supported by an equivalent duty on imports from other nations) would put millions of poor people into poverty in China and India and elsewhere in the world because their governments have only in the last generation pulled them out of poverty relying on globalization and cheap FF energy. This point has been made by both Nigel Lawson and Alex Epstein. I have never seen it refuted. Tractors in fields do not work with electric batteries. Trucks cannot deliver produce any distances without diesel fuel for the transportation.
Your analogy of the window coming crashing down from a large high rise building has to be revised in one slight manner. The window is travelling at one foot per year. Lots of time to figure out how to get out of the way.
So I agree that the "external costs" of FF are well beyond the pollution costs but there is simply no consensus on how you share the substantial costs of changing the infrastructure based upon FF into one based upon RE backed up by either hydro, nuclear or FFs for base load. Until you come up with some solutions, you do not throw the baby out with the bath water.
My point is that until you do come up with some answers, it would be politically expedient to levy a carbon tax that only represents the pollution costs.
-
Postkey at 00:44 AM on 18 October 2017It's a natural cycle
MA Rodger @30.
Thank you for your reply.
-
MA Rodger at 00:34 AM on 18 October 2017It's a natural cycle
Postkey @26,
I would concur with the replies so far. I note the oft-repeated word "lie" that features in the YouTube you link to (narrated by "Diamond(?) from the Oppenheimer Ranch Project") which is a pretty good description of the entire video. In the main, the descriptions provided of the data presented is nothing but nonsensical verbal diarrhea, although within this nonsense description, the data presented is mainly genuine. There are however parts of the video where even the data is entirely misrepresented.
Featuring large in the misrepresentated data is the laughable attempt by Tony Heller to graft on satellite Sea Ice Extent data onto Vinnikov et al (1980) Figure 5 (or more exactly Hoffert & Flannery (1985) fig 5.2).
Note H&F(1985)'s fig 5.1 reproduces Vinnikov et al's temperature graph. Heller would have had a more difficult time misrepresenting this temperature data, and also explaining it in light of his fictional ice record. (The image here is the same data as H&F fig 5.1 but presented by Robock 1982.) 
As for Fig 5.2, as presented by H&F(1985), this at first glance reproduces Fig5 of Vinnikov et al (1980) faithfully. (The original was is published in Russian in Soviet Meteorology & Hydrology Vol6.1 and isn't on-line.) But while the caption of Vinnikov et al's Fig5 is roughly reproduced by H&F(1985), the actual data presented has become misrepresented by the caption. As shown within this Vinnikov slide show, V(1980)fig5 is a plot of the annual ice coverage for the months of July, August & September and not the plot of a 12-month annual average. That is how a value of 6-7 million sq km can be plotted for the period 1925-75 and how any grown-up splicing of more recent ice coverage would be plotting levels of 4-5 million sq km over the last ten years.
Which brings us to the AMO. The video attempts to suggest that the Arctic Ice Cover matches the wobbles of the AMO. Frankly, that is risible. Even with Heller's nonsense graph it is risible. So I can quite understand Eclectic @27 saying "It was the best laugh I've had this week !"
-
Postkey at 00:16 AM on 18 October 2017It's a natural cycle
Eclectic @27.
Thanks for your reply, I'm glad you 'enjoyed it'.
Is there a statistical base to the 'Atlantic multidecadal oscillation'?
-
cjones1 at 22:32 PM on 17 October 2017The war on coal is over. Coal lost.
Coal has many uses and ways to bring down costs in power generation will likely be explored. The COP accelerated the conversion of plants to natural gas, but that could slow down if the cost effectiveness of remaining coal fired increases.
Many believe thst the dangers of Carbon pollution have been exaggerated while reduction of other particulates remain a concern. Renewables remain a viable alternative in off grid locations, but without subsidies will still have to compete on the open market.
-
Daniel Bailey at 21:19 PM on 17 October 2017It's a natural cycle
"the slightly-less-than-truthful Tony Heller [ aka "Steven Goddard' ]"
BwaHaHaHaHa!!!!!!!
-
Eclectic at 21:04 PM on 17 October 2017It's a natural cycle
Postkey @26 , thanks for the youtube video reference.
It was the best laugh I've had this week !
Spoiler Alert : the video is a complete waste of time. Rubbish from beginning to end. A rant from a crackpot who bases his opinions on the slightly-less-than-truthful info supplied/concocted/doctored by the slightly-less-than-truthful Tony Heller [ aka "Steven Goddard' ]. Plus a large dose of insane Conspiracy Theory.
The ranter also has a bad case of AMO on the brain [Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation]. And, from his stargazing at the charts, he predicts [on zero scientific basis] that the Earth is just about to plunge into a Grand Solar Minimum which will devastate the planet with a mini-ice-age.
Too many other laughable points to mention here. Yes, the Fall of the Roman Empire; the (European) Black Death Plague; and other grand historical events — all caused by cold weather. And our ranting friend is clueless and self-contradictory about the decline of arctic ice.
Sorry Postkey, but on climate this guy has no science and no sense. ~ A 15-minute video of yawning [seen it all before] rubbish.
-
Postkey at 19:07 PM on 17 October 2017It's a natural cycle
Hello,
Have you discussed the alleged 'Atlantic multidecadal oscillation'?
“ we
06:56
talked about the Atlantic multidecadal
06:58
oscillation this is the actual sea
07:01
surface temperatures of the Atlantic and
07:04
it goes into 60 years cycle there's 30
07:06
up 30 down warm and cold phases warm and
07:09
cold warm and cold if you go look at the
07:12
data it matches the Atlantic
07:14
multidecadal oscillation perfectly”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fK03WG4t30U&feature=youtu.beThanks.
Moderator Response:[JH] Poorly disguised sloganeering snipped.
Please note that posting comments here at SkS is a privilege, not a right. This privilege can be rescinded if the posting individual treats adherence to the Comments Policy as optional, rather than the mandatory condition of participating in this online forum.
Please take the time to review the policy and ensure future comments are in full compliance with it. Thanks for your understanding and compliance in this matter.
-
nigelj at 18:15 PM on 17 October 2017Global climate impacts of a potential volcanic eruption of Mount Agung
Im no chemist, but it's just several articles and research papers say SO2 converts to sulphuric acid and is a big factor in cooling, along with dust. I'm reluctant to think that would be wrong, unless someone has compelling evidence. Basic chemistry like this is rarely wrong
SO2 can convert in gaseous form to SO3, and to sulphuric acid, its just very slow and probably not hugely significant. Most of the conversion would be another quicker easier pathway through water, I go along with that. Don't volcanoes blow out a lot of water vapour pretty high up?
-
BBHY at 17:42 PM on 17 October 2017The war on coal is over. Coal lost.
Clean coal really does exist; it's when we leave it in the ground.
-
nigelj at 17:06 PM on 17 October 2017Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races
NorrisM @ 87
"For example, if you want to lay at the doorstep of CO2 emissions all of the future costs related to adaptation do you not have to offset those costs with the benefits of FF to society?"
Yes, but the general view is the benefits of fossil fuels are outweighed by their costs due to climate change, human health and the availability of affordable alternatives.
"It is a very complicated area. Perhaps rising sea levels is a "cost" of what we have enjoyed up to this time. Another issue relates to which nations should pay for these rising sea level costs. Where do you stop?"
You should include sea level costs. You should include the full costs (externalities) of burning fossil fuels as others note. Anything less becomes arbitrary, with no logical and rigourous cost basis. This is not some negotiation about an out of court law suit settlement Norris! Its basically carbon accounting and is an economic exercise.
Anyway I notice you lawyers always sue people for the absolute full costs of everything you can think of.
"I have now carefully read the NOmAA Clack June 27, 2017 paper debunking the Jacobson study.Anyone fully reading this Clack paper could not possibly rely on the Jacobson study for anything as to the costs of the US oving to a full RE solution. "
Have you read the jacobson response to the Clack debunking as below?
web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/CombiningRenew/Line-by-line-Clack.pdf
Until you do this you cannot form a balanced picture. The Jacobsens rebuttal shows Clack has made many incorrect and foolish claims. You also have to apply some commonsense. They both agree a near 100% renewable grid is actually technically possible, and its more about costs.
"Two serious issues relate to providing base load electricity from other than wind and solar sources (a cost nigelj conveniently leaves out when referencing how "cheap" land based wind power is) and the time and cost of building a continental high-voltage grid system that could support the transmission of intermittent nature of wind and solar power. "
You wanted cost comparisons of renewable generation and fossil fuel generation and I gave you those. As you can see costs are very similar.
Its true upgrading the grid and some gas fired backup for intermittency issues will add costs, but not hugely. Most studies say it will cost approximately 1% of a countries gdp per annum to convert from a totally fossil fuel powered grid to renewables, with about 10% gas backup and also transmission grid upgrades (as you suggested). You said something that you have done tax law, so will appreciate 1% of gdp is not huge. I did the calculations for my country from first principles (its simple enough) with very conservative numbers, and got about 1.2%, and this tells me the studies are sensible, and my own calculations are roughly right. Of course America already has some renewables and hydo etc, so it would be less.
1% of per annum gdp equates to about 1% of our individual incomes and one third of what we spend on the old age pension each year, so that puts some meaning to it.
Of course reducing emissions has other costs, but renewable energy is the big one.
"I continue to hear references to CCS as a possible method of reducing CO2 emissions. Everything that I have read is that this technology has a long way to go before it could be seriously considered viable. If anyone has any information on this it would also be appreciated. "
Depends what you mean. Carbon capture and storage as in burying CO2 in tanks underground or in rock fissures, from coal fired power stations, is experimental, difficult and expensive, so you are essentially correct in what you have read. So are similar technologies attempting to extract CO2 from the air. We cant count on it, and this is why its important to reduce emissions at source. Its commonsense anyway, and obviously a difficult thing, and there are big risks with leakage of underground CO2 over time.
There are some better options of a natural kind. Using enhanced natural carbon sinks like planting forests, and better soil management through special farming systems has promise and is proven, and cost effective and is covered in the last IPCC report. Although frankly land available for new forests isnt very large, so it cant be scaled up all that much. Soil sinks use land already under cultivation, but it would be a slow process shifting to such a system scaled well up globally. I think as a quick mental guesstimate natural sinks could offset about 10% of our emissions. But clearly its not enough to prevent the immediate problems, and means we have to rigorously cut emissions at source. This sort of thing is all easilly googled.
-
william5331 at 12:14 PM on 17 October 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #41
What I really got a chuckle over was a previous article which said that coal, that great supplier of base load, shuts down when it really gets cold. Who would have thought.
-
Bob Loblaw at 11:24 AM on 17 October 2017Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races
NorisM: "A SCC that only relates to pollution costs and not to presumptions as to the costs attributable to climate change is a reasonable one. That is the only point I am making. And, by the way, I have suggested $30/t not $17/t. "
Your definition of pollution costs is very restrictive. Basically, you have doubled down on your argument that we ignore a great many possible/likely costs, which, as I have stated, is betting on all uncertainties falling in your favour.
..and you only went for $30/t after your initial claim of $18/t was shown to be at the extreme.
"Another issue relates to which nations should pay for these rising sea level costs. Where do you stop?"
Why are you ignoring all the arguments made for bring in these externalities into the cost of fossil fuels? The rising sea level costs are externalized costs of burning fossil fuels. Your argument appears to be that these cost should not be borne by the fossil fuel production/consumption portion of the economy? Who else do you have in mind? The taxpayers that bail out the disaster areas? That's who is largely paying now, as many of these areas are uninsurable.
"...we should have a very good handle on what are the costs of the alternative energy solution. "
The "We need certainty" argument. Again, not a good approach to risk management.
A thought experiment: you are walking along a sidewalk in the downtown of a major city. I see a large window break loose from the top floor of a tall building. You are not aware of it. As I see it fluttering down, I realize it might hit you. When do I warn you to get out of the way, and when are you justified in taking action?
- As soon as I see it start to fall?
- When it is half way down, and it is looking more and more like it will hit you?
- Just before it reaches ground level, when I "have a very good handle" on where it will land, and it's where you are standing?
Time after time, you are arguing for the status quo, and closing your mind to any evidence that leads a different way.
I have answered some of your questions. If you want to continue, I want you to answer one question for me:
- In comment 79, I pointed out that your statement "...if I misrepresented your position" suggested that you could "not appreciate the difference between what I said in comment #68 and your first paragraph in comment #70". Have you reviewed those two comments, and are you willing to either support a position that you accurately represented my postion, or are you willing to retract your statement and fully admit that it was a misrepresentation (even if not intended)?
-
nigelj at 10:31 AM on 17 October 2017The war on coal is over. Coal lost.
Crazy stuff. If Trump is thinking coal exports, it isn't looking good.
Related article on trends with coal plants globally, and falling global coal production since 2013, and a little piece of "fake news" thrown in.
www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/oct/16/world-going-slow-coal-misinformation-distorting-facts
-
Eclectic at 09:50 AM on 17 October 2017Global climate impacts of a potential volcanic eruption of Mount Agung
Aleks @49 and prior :
your suggestion (or explanation?) does not accord with reality.
The levels of H2O, OH, CH4 etc in the stratosphere are low but not zero. Which is [part of] why the "degradation" rate of SO2 is two orders of magnitude slower than in the troposphere.
Aleks, you are oversimplifying the situation. Worse, you appear to be ignoring the reality — that gasseous SO2 (and any IR properties it may have) does relatively quickly "degrade" into radiation-reflective particles which produce a global cooling effect for up to two years or so.
Your suggestions seem confused. Please clarify whatever point it is that you are seeking to make.
-
NorrisM at 09:25 AM on 17 October 2017Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races
Bob Loblaw @ 85
The range used for SCC in the IPCC Chapter 10 is not a high-low range based upon the same assumptions. If that were the case, then I agree the use of a mid point range would be appropriate. But that is not what this range is. It is a range based upon different estimates of costs included in the calculation of SCC for each of the three ranges. If you read all of Section 10.6 of Chapter 10 of the IPCC 2014 Report you will see that the authors clearly acknowledge that the "low end" SCC is based upon an analysis of the health impacts of pollution. That was my point. I am saying this is something you could "sell" to the American public at this time. We have to inject some "realpolitik" into this discussion in the era of a Republican-controlled government. A SCC that only relates to pollution costs and not to presumptions as to the costs attributable to climate change is a reasonable one. That is the only point I am making. And, by the way, I have suggested $30/t not $17/t.
When it comes to then adding into the calculation of SCC many other things including the capital costs of all adaptation around the world you get into some very murky waters as acknowledged by the IPCC report. For example, if you want to lay at the doorstep of CO2 emissions all of the future costs related to adaptation do you not have to offset those costs with the benefits of FF to society? It is a very complicated area. Perhaps rising sea levels is a "cost" of what we have enjoyed up to this time. Another issue relates to which nations should pay for these rising sea level costs. Where do you stop?
And furthermore, before we start applying a carbon tax that does much more than just compensate for pollution costs (so that it simply becomes a crude tool to discourage use of FF over other sources of energy), we should have a very good handle on what are the costs of the alternative energy solution.
I have now carefully read the NOAA Clack June 27, 2017 paper debunking the Jacobson study. Anyone fully reading this Clack paper could not possibly rely on the Jacobson study for anything as to the costs of the US moving to a full RE solution. Two serious issues relate to providing base load electricity from other than wind and solar sources (a cost nigelj conveniently leaves out when referencing how "cheap" land based wind power is) and the time and cost of building a continental high-voltage grid system that could support the transmission of intermittent nature of wind and solar power. The existing grids do not seem to work well with this kind of electricity.
The Clack study references two studies (one of which Clack was a part) which concluded that an 80% decarbonization of the US electric grid could be achieved at reasonable cost. These studies are referenced in Notes 1 and 2. So far, I have not been able to locate these papers. If anyone can help it would be appreciated.
I continue to hear references to CCS as a possible method of reducing CO2 emissions. Everything that I have read is that this technology has a long way to go before it could be seriously considered viable. If anyone has any information on this it would also be appreciated.
-
aleks at 08:50 AM on 17 October 2017Global climate impacts of a potential volcanic eruption of Mount Agung
Eclectic @46
I fully agree with you on the issue of sulfite aerosols formation "at warm troposphere conditions", but I'm not sure that it applies to stratosphere: reaction may be fully stopped because of liquid water absence at low temperatures.
I see also that you mark ozone participation in the processes associated with SO2 in the stratosphere. I would just like to clarify: ozone is not an accelerator of a process, it directly reacts with SO2 forming SO3.
Rob Honeycutt@47
We discuss not about long-lived and short-lived gases in all, but the behavior of the gaseous SO2 ejected by a volcano to the height 16-18 km. Because of absence OH-radicals catalyzing SO2 oxidation by O2 in these conditions, the reaction of stratospheric ozone with SO2 is much more probable than with CFCs.
MA Rodger@48
When it comes to chemical problems (in this case SO2 oxidation), it's indispensable without the knowledge of chemistry. Sorry for "chemical theorising". The drop of SO2 levels is a fact, but it does not mean that oxidation of SO2 by oxygen is a reason for it. We may think about SO2 oxidation by ozone or just about lowering relatively heavy molecules of SO2 from the stratosphere to the troposphere where they react with water/
-
One Planet Only Forever at 06:18 AM on 17 October 2017Trump’s plan to bail out failing fossil fuels with taxpayer subsidies is perverse
The debates about taxes and subsidies in this string, and in general, commonly spin endlessly because they miss a major consideration ... the Objective! CBDunkerson@8 opened with that key point.
"... subsidies and other government funding are a good idea when they promote a public good."
What I would add is the criteria for determining the 'public good'. The term 'public good' is used a lot but seems to be very open to interpretation.
I consider the Sustainable Development Goals published in 2015 by the UN to be the best compilation of criteria for the 'public good'. It is a very detailed and robustly based set of criteria that are open to improvement 'if a Good Reason for the improvement with a Solid Basis' is developed/presented.
Using that Objective Reality as the basis for determining the Public Good, rather than leaving the term open to everyones' subjective reality (personal interest) potentially contradictory to the objective reality (public interest), it becomes very apparant that the Trump Administration and many other 'supposed leaders/winners in the USA and elsewhere' are up to No Good because they can get away with benefiting from that understandably less acceptable behaviour.
-
NorrisM at 00:10 AM on 17 October 2017Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races
Bob Loblaw, nigelj and michael sweet
I have just returned home and do not have the time to get into a very interesting discussion relating to SCC. I have now at least read the full IPCC Chapter 10 on Mitigation and Costs which was very instructive.
What I do want to correct is my 64% statement which was made based upon what I thought I had read in the Clack June 2017 paper commenting on the deficiencies of the Jacobson study. My eyes are getting bad because he uses 6% of the continental US not 64% (I actually thought it was 64% not even 60%). I am completely off the mark on this and felt I should correct it with a specific comment. I thought I was backing up my comments with facts but I at least did make reference to the Clack study, just had it wrong so at least it was "falsifiable".
eclectic.
Just now saw your reply to my post on the michael sweet article on the Jacobson study. Thanks for the reply. Comments duly noted.
-
MA Rodger at 16:50 PM on 16 October 2017Global climate impacts of a potential volcanic eruption of Mount Agung
It should also be pointed out that satellite measurements of stratospheric SO2 directly and conclusively demonstrate the drop in SO2 levels following the volcanic inputs. The literature is unequivocal (for instance - Carn et al (2009), Pumphrey et al 2015). The chemical theorising of aleks is uncalled for and flat wrong.
-
Eclectic at 12:09 PM on 16 October 2017SkS Analogy 10 - Bathtubs and Budgets
Wol @25 , just a thought from me :
In actual practice at SkS, you will find that serious/intelligent "sceptical" debate is encouraged. That said, there is in fact very little serious/intelligent "sceptical debate" to be found anywhere let alone in the columns of SkS ! Sure — unintelligent and/or non-serious [ = trolling ] debate abounds . . . and deserves to be snipped [here].
The self-called "skeptics" have such a low level of truthfulness, that they would (and do) bad-mouth SkS at every opportunity. Nothing whatsoever would be improved by giving them a free rein here at SkS. Quite the contrary, indeed !! SkepticalScience would be overrun & trashed by posts oozing malice & idiocy. (Just observe the current fate of most public website comments columns that lack proper moderation monitoring! )
Wol, you are far too kind-hearted. I respectfully counsel you to ignore the delicate sensibilities of denialists/"skeptics". Denialists won't be convinced by anything, to change their minds to a sane realistic attitude to AGW.
The only moderation plea I have is for Moderator comments to be kept in the traditional "green boxes" where they are easy to see, and are not half-buried in the text of regular posts.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 11:47 AM on 16 October 2017Global climate impacts of a potential volcanic eruption of Mount Agung
alecks... Straight from the IPCC (AR4):
Long-lived greenhouse gases (LLGHGs), for example, CO2, methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O), are chemically stable and persist in the atmosphere over time scales of a decade to centuries or longer, so that their emission has a long-term influence on climate. Because these gases are long lived, they become well mixed throughout the atmosphere much faster than they are removed and their global concentrations can be accurately estimated from data at a few locations. Carbon dioxide does not have a specific lifetime because it is continuously cycled between the atmosphere, oceans and land biosphere and its net removal from the atmosphere involves a range of processes with different time scales.
Short-lived gases (e.g., sulphur dioxide and carbon monoxide) are chemically reactive and generally removed by natural oxidation processes in the atmosphere, by removal at the surface or by washout in precipitation; their concentrations are hence highly variable. Ozone is a significant greenhouse gas that is formed and destroyed by chemical reactions involving other species in the atmosphere. In the troposphere, the human influence on ozone occurs primarily through changes in precursor gases that lead to its formation, whereas in the stratosphere, the human influence has been primarily through changes in ozone removal rates caused by chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and other ozone-depleting substances.
-
Eclectic at 11:14 AM on 16 October 2017Global climate impacts of a potential volcanic eruption of Mount Agung
Aleks @45 , as you rightly say: the conversion of [infra-red] "absorbent" gasseous SO2 into [visible-light] reflectant sulfate aerosols is a somewhat complex process — the process rate is important, and is accelerated by ozone and H2O.
D.J.Eatough et al., 1994 , states conversion rates of 1% - 10% per hour in warm tropospheric conditions : such rates implying a stratospheric rate being up to about 100 times slower — which rate fits well with the description you will find on the NASA website.
Observations by NASA, NOAA, JMA and other meteorological organizations, all indicate that volcanic eruptions (sufficient to reach the stratosphere) cause global cooling for a year or two. And this is the evidence that demonstrates the relative [lack of] importance of duration & effect of gasseous SO2.
That being so, I do not see the point you are trying to lead to. Please explain yourself more clearly.
-
Wol at 09:58 AM on 16 October 2017SkS Analogy 10 - Bathtubs and Budgets
https://skepticalscience.com/comments_policy.shtml>>Moderator Response:
[JH] Blatant sloganeering sipped.Please note that posting comments here at SkS is a privilege, not a right. This privilege can be rescinded if the posting individual treats adherence to the Comments Policy as optional, rather than the mandatory condition of participating in this online forum.
Please take the time to review the policy and ensure future comments are in full compliance with it. Thanks for your understanding and compliance in this matter. <<
Moderator: I respectfully can't agree that the sort of posts to which you append this standard reply are not helpful: if the poster reads replies from scientifically literate people surely there is a chance that he might be educated?
In addition, looking back over the months, this "standard" reply does allow the deniers to claim that all sceptical (in their terms) debate is quashed.
Just a thought.
Moderator Response:[JH] We will continue to moderate comments posted on this website in accordance with our standard practices. If a comment is not in compliance with the SkS Comments Policy it will be appropriately dealt with.
-
Wol at 09:38 AM on 16 October 2017SkS Analogy 10 - Bathtubs and Budgets
ubrew12:
>>Without quite realizing it, he thinks the future will be flat as a pancake, because the past has been, and that is a prediction. As it happens, a more arrogant prediction than looking forward and telling folks what you see ahead of us.<<
An excellent analogy/example and one I hadn't thought of.
-
aleks at 09:01 AM on 16 October 2017Global climate impacts of a potential volcanic eruption of Mount Agung
Comments about SO2
SO2 converts in the stratosphere to sulfuric acid aerosols (Eclectic@22, nigelj@31). For this process is necessary: a) mole concentration of H2O should be not less than of SO2, b) SO2 must be oxidized to SO3. Reliable data about H2O/SO2 ratio are unknown. Because of low temperatures in upper troposphere and stratosphere water converts to ice so aerosols of sulfurous acid will form in “lower atmosphere” (Eclectic@30). Oxidation of SO2 to SO3 in not an easy process: in chemical technology it requires high temperatures and special catalyst, in the atmosphere it catalyzed by hydroxyl radicals (J.J.Margitan. J.Phys. Chem., 88, 3914 (1984) ). http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/j150659a035
So, I can't agree that “ SO2 in its gaseous form is short lived” (Kevin C @25). These facts are also important for estimation of possible effect of SO2 on ozone layer: Bob Loblaw @36 refutes it. The ozone is only one available oxidizing agent in the stratosphere that can oxidize SO2 without catalyst, and SO2 during eruption emitted close enough to ozone layer. Additionally, please pay attention to the lower graph in HK@34 post: altitude vs. SO2 amount. There is an interesting minimum of SO2 concentration between 20 and 40 km (what is ozone layer altitude?).
Rob Honeycutt@17. “SO2 isn't a greenhouse gas”. At first, sorry for inaccurate link to region of IR-absorption. In this case, it is important that SO2 does absorb IR-radiation. It does not include into IPCC list, but such generally recognized greenhouse gas as water-vapor also absent there. -
nigelj at 07:04 AM on 16 October 2017SkS Analogy 10 - Bathtubs and Budgets
Interesting article highlighting problems of geotech engineering solutions to climate change. This includes problems of reflection of sunlight, and risks and problems of extracting CO2 through technical fixes, like altering ocean chemistry, and irrigating deserts to plant plant trees.
I dont see how you can be clear on what the effects and risks are from some little isolated experiment over a small part of the atmosphere. This would not be sufficient to account for wide scale atmospheric effects you get in reality. Some of the ideas would also not be easily or quickly reversed, if they went wrong.
We should stop emissions, and stay with more measured enhancements to natural carbon sinks that are a known quantity with low risks.
-
nigelj at 05:46 AM on 16 October 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #41
Regarding your article on these irrational, absurd fossil fuel subsidies. This article pointed out politicians receive considerable campaign donations from fossil fuel companies and a lot of lobbying pressure in general, and the potential for this to affect their decision making. It seems unfortunate to me, and equally unfortunate that there are no limits in law on campaign donations in America, and no consideration of other funding methods. Its very unfortunate, because powerful corporate lobbying groups can entirely dominate.
The very fine American Constitution has limits on government, to prevent abuse of power by government. But it doesn't have any limits on activities of private sector and other lobby groups, and funding provided by private sector lobby groups who can equally abuse their power. Is this not a massive inconsistency?
-
Bob Loblaw at 02:17 AM on 16 October 2017Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races
NorrisM @ 80:
"What I would like you to respond to is my point that we should not rush into solutions which are extreme from a standpoint of costs when we find that the solutions proposed today are not very appealing from an aesthetic standpoint.
So, what you would like me to do is to follow you on your tangent. OK, I will (for now).
NorrisM: "...solutions which are extreme from a standpoint of costs..."
Me: Objection, your honor. Assumes facts not in evidence.
You have used the emotion-laden "extreme" without quantifying actual costs. I find this odd, given that you previously argued in favour of picking the lowest possible social cost of carbon (SCC) from the IPCC. Now, your choice of words suggests that you are focussing on the possible highest costs of proposed solutions.
I respond to your "what if?" scenario with another: what if the SSC is on the high end of the IPCC estimate, and the costs of moving off fossil fuels is on the low end? And instead of proceeding, we wait another 30 years hoping to get a better answer (fewer uncertainties), and by then it is simply too darn late?
I"ve seen excuses like yours for decades. You are choosing the ends of the uncertainty ranges that favour your pre-existing bias. This is a very bad approach to risk management. Hoping that every uncertainty will fall in your favour is hoping for a very unlikely outcome.
-
MA Rodger at 20:59 PM on 15 October 2017Global climate impacts of a potential volcanic eruption of Mount Agung
aleks @41.
The comment by Eclectic @30 you are referring to evidently concerned the greenhouse properties of SO2 (specifically in the stratosphere). Thus it would concern the lifetime of SO2 in the stratosphere alone. This stratospheric SO2 lifetime is significantly longer than the tropospheric SO2 lifetime, a few weeks rather than a few days. And, as set out up-thread by Eclectic @22 (which you apparently "did not find"), the aerosols resulting from stratospheric SO2 persist for much longer, many weeks, a few months or potentially a couple of years or so, this being dependent on the aerosol size, height and location. See for instance Kleinschmitt et al (2017).
In your citing (& your misquoting) of the OP, the OP noted that the geographical location of the volcanic eruption is a factor, the volcanoes discussed being "all located in the tropics close to the Equator, which allows the sulfur dioxide injected into the stratosphere to spread easily across the hemisphere." This is not the case for volcanoes further from the equator (eg. like the 1980 Mt St Helens eruption). -
RedBaron at 17:21 PM on 15 October 2017SkS Analogy 10 - Bathtubs and Budgets
@GeoffThomas,
You said, "I realize that 365 billion kGs of carbon/year is not enough, although it is more than that in terms of carbon dioxide, - times 3.5+ but all those figures are conservative"
Actually they are at least an order of magnitude too small, assuming the technique is used to it's full potential. That's because the true value of biochar is in jump starting the liquid carbon pathway by providing a habitat for AMF to get started, and AMF to all the heavy lifting when it comes to carbon sequestration. I had place a link in my previous answer, can we reverse global warming, if you scroll down you will find the technical brief on how it works.
Technical Brief: The Liquid Carbon Pathway
You are just counting the biochar, but in reality, managed properly, it's the glomalin and humic polymers that end up making the vast bulk of the carbon in terre preta. The biochar is just the scaffolding for the living biology that pumps carbon in the soil at a rate of 5-20 tonnes CO2e/ha/yr. Remember, all it takes is 8 tonnes CO2e /ha/yr if all the arable land in the world did this. (integrated in cases of crop and animal husbandry combined) So we are roughly talking about 1/2 the solution actually. (reducing fossil fuels use with solar wind and hydro being the other 1/2)
-
nigelj at 12:15 PM on 15 October 2017SkS Analogy 10 - Bathtubs and Budgets
Geoff Thomas, thank's for the information on biochar.
I have to confess I didn't know anything much about it, and had to go a google and read a couple of articles, which totally support what you say. It appears to have a whole range of benefits, and more to the point adequately proven benefits. This alone suggests its an obvious thing to promote.
Its interersting and relevant because my country is hugely dependent on diary farming.
I'm a little bit interested in the use of carbon sinks in the wider sense to mop up emissions. I think Evan is right that storing carbon underground and geotech approaches have so many obvious problems, and can't be counted on. It's one thing to be optimistic about technology when progress is clearly being made and plausible, like battery technology, and another thing to have delusional faith in schemes that even commonsense should tell you are implausible or not cost effective.
But I think natural carbon sinks have some value, and biochar is part of this. I think its probably a case of promoting a combination of things from biochar, to tree planting, to better soil management as various other people talk about on this website.
I think its a case os 1) cutting emissions and 2) promoting natural carbon sinks. Carbon sinks wont do it alone, but will help mop up some emissions. I think its a slow process, but would deal with maybe the difficult aircraft emissions.
However while trees have the most mass storage potential some real problems are clear. For example all these forest fires lately are probably linked to climate change, and undermine this particular carbon sink, and theres evidence some forests are becoming net CO2 emitters, and theres limited land for growing trees. And demand for timber is huge.
In contrast farming and soil management is just a change of methodology, not requiring more land. So it may have more practical potential in the longer term.
-
GeoffThomas at 11:15 AM on 15 October 2017SkS Analogy 10 - Bathtubs and Budgets
Evan @19, yes it is an interesting aspect, although I live in a cattle area and those farmers tend to be conservative. I am not giving up however.
Another mob doing research is Ithaka institute in Germany, http://www.ithaka-institut.org/en/ct/94-Cascading-use-of-biochar-in-animal-farming.
In the credits for the above u-tube is a Stephen Joseph, he is doing some amazing research on the more complex aspects of Biochar, -cat-ion exchange enabling etc, a researcher well worth watching.
-
Evan at 05:09 AM on 15 October 2017SkS Analogy 10 - Bathtubs and Budgets
GeoffThomas@18, thanks for your interesting post. I was not aware of this, and will certainly study this more. There are so many angles to climate change, and whether or not it is as easy as you suggest (feeding charcoal to cows to sequester carbon), it certainly is informative to see additional, creative contributions to the "silver buckshot" we need to get ahead of this problem.
-
nigelj at 04:51 AM on 15 October 2017Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races
NorrisM @83
You claim 64% of America would be covered in wind turbines. I think you are simply mistaken. I think you probably read 64,000 something as 64% as we all do this sort of thing on occasion. 64% of America would not be covered in wind farms even commonsense should tell you this you would be talking billions of wind turbines.
The following article is from an industry expert. To completely power America with wind farms would take the area of Rhode Island, which is roughly in the ballpark area of under 1% in the Jacobsen study. Its certainly not 64%.
And it does depend somewhat on power of individual wind turbines and how densely spread the wind towers are to optimise things. Different people have different views on the ideal spacing,so estimates will all vary a bit, but not up to 64%.
The expert goes through his calculations in detail so its all there.
www.businessinsider.com.au/wind-turbines-to-power-earth-2016-9?r=US&IR=T
An excerpt:
"4.082 billion megawatt-hours (the average annual US electricity consumption) divided by 7,008 megawatt-hours of annual wind energy production per wind turbine equals approximately 583,000 onshore turbines.
In terms of land use, those 583,000 turbines would take up about the total land mass of Rhode Island, Hensley says, since wind projects typically require 0.74 acres of land per megawatt produced.
To make his calculation, Hensley considered that the average wind turbine has an output of 2 megawatts of power, and is 40% efficient. That means it can reach its full power-generating potential 40% of the time, since wind is not always blowing and farms sometimes shut down for routine maintenance. That percentage also accounts for electrical grid constraints — if an electrical grid receives more much power from a wind farm than it can handle, for example, managers will turn off a few turbines."
-
NorrisM at 03:07 AM on 15 October 2017Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races
Michael
I will be home in a couple of days and will reference the paper because I thought I had this right. It astounded me when I read it.
-
liua at 01:47 AM on 15 October 2017Other planets are warming
Hi there. I found this claim very interesting and I was intrigued how this claim could support the idea that climate change in natural and not caused by anthropogenic factors. However, I think that it is crucial to taken into account the atmospheric conditions as well as the orbital eccentricity of each respective planet as these can vary greatly so we cannot use these planets as exact analogues for Earth to explain our temperatures.
Additionally, I have checked with the external references cited in the author’s piece. The original researchers have only created models in predicting a potential increase in temperature on Jupiter as a result of the whirlpool and sunspot activity on this planet. I also want to point out that although the luminosity of the planet’s may change, this is not proportional to the temperature of a planet or celestial object.
-
michael sweet at 00:32 AM on 15 October 2017Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races
Norris,
According to the supplemental information to the article you cite about 600,900 km2 of land is required to generate the power. The USA is about 9,000,000 km2. Your argument is based on a fabrication.,
You invariably choose the most extreme, or fabricated, data. A better choice is the middle of wait,area.
-
GeoffThomas at 16:18 PM on 14 October 2017SkS Analogy 10 - Bathtubs and Budgets
Nigelj@2 Biochar has been suggested before but few on this list have taken it up, partly because it requires some info.
However, creating Biochar by feeding Cows, Charcoal, needs no explanation. According to a quick Google search there are 3.2+ Billion cows on our planet, and the demand for their meat will not stop any time soon, - in Australia, there are 28 Million, - outnumbering the people. If you feed a cow between 200 and 400 gms of charcoal per day, it becomes heathier, requires less feed, puts on more weight and is more placid, - see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_JPoItRWYSQ&feature=youtu.be
so 300 gms (a conservative average) times 3.2 Billion (+) per day, gets app. 1 kg per 3 cows, so app. 1 billion kgs per day, fed to them with their molasses, and then shat out as Biochar, enzymes and all, then buried by the ubiquitous dung beetle, there to enrich the soil and allow it to sequester more carbon in the process, - win,win.
I realize that 365 billion kGs of carbon/year is not enough, although it is more than that in terms of carbon dioxide, - times 3.5+ but all those figures are conservative, do not take into account all the other meat etc. animals that human beings have been blessed with, nor the sequestration possible with that carbon stimulating the soil, nor that taking charcoal for flatulence is well known to humans, so apparently the cows do not fart much methane, - don't know if it affects their burping..
Perhaps there could be a Charcoal tax rather than a carbon tax? - could be politically more acceptable. :)
-
Evan at 11:58 AM on 14 October 2017SkS Analogy 10 - Bathtubs and Budgets
Eclectic@14. Thank you for your comments. My point in quoting Fox news was certainly not to suggest the tide has turned at Fox news, no pun intended. My point was to counter the misinformation of cjones1@10 that "sea levels have fallen." Apparently it is so obvious that they are riaing that not even Fox news suggests they are falling.
-
Digby Scorgie at 11:22 AM on 14 October 2017SkS Analogy 10 - Bathtubs and Budgets
cjones1 @10
What made you think you could get away with your gish gallop of garbage at a website run by climate scientists and frequented by a large number of science-literate people?
-
Evan at 10:49 AM on 14 October 2017SkS Analogy 10 - Bathtubs and Budgets
Eclectic@14. Thank you for your comments. My point in quoting Fox news was certainly not to suggest the tide has turned at Fox news, no pun intended. My point was to counter the misinformation of cjones1@10 that "sea levels have fallen." Apparently it is so obvious that they are riaing that not even Fox news suggests they are falling.
-
Eclectic at 10:20 AM on 14 October 2017SkS Analogy 10 - Bathtubs and Budgets
Nigelj @11 , it is bold of you to oppose the ideas of Cojones1 (at post #10 ).
Think back 80 years of history, and you will see how the Gish Gallop of ideas of Cojones1 brought about some major changes in Europe especially. If I recall correctly, the well-known Allied soldiers' marching song also mentioned Cosmoswarrior1 as having something similar.
And thank you for your comments, RedBaron @12 . . . though it is distinctly ironic to see the RedBaron flying against the Central Powers of Cojones1 .
Evan @13 , it is certainly tempting to think "the tide has turned" at FoxNews, and that they will in future be reporting truthfully on Global Warming matters. But their track record is discouraging, in that regard.
Yes, a fine Gish Gallop of ideas @10 . . . indeed a bathtub full of them! But an overflowing bathtub seems to have failed to bring any Archimedean enlightenment to Cojones1 .
-
nigelj at 09:56 AM on 14 October 2017Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races
NorrisM @80
I think you and Popper are largely wrong on this particular issue. In some cases drastic action simply is clearly needed. Take the obvious example of Samsung’s problem smartphones with the burning batteries, and they immediately took them off the market and had a product recall. They did not phase them down over a five year period. I can think of environmental problems that demanded a similar response, and others that suggest a more incremental response, so we are left with no option other than to look at each case on its merits, and evidence, and this includes climate change. And climate change requires a fairly rapid response now.
I totally disagree with your assertion that we have plenty of time. The Paris accord shows we certainly do not, so therefore any carbon price would need to be ramped up fairly promptly. Because of dithering, badly informed, self interested climate scepticism we are now backed into a corner where a fairly rapid response is required. However a $30 carbon price is ok if its ramped up fairly promptly.
I disagree with your claim that some NOAA study by finds wind power would cover 64% of the landmass of America. I think you have misinterpreted the study or mixed things up. NOAA are also not remotely involved in renewable energy they do atmospheric research.
The original Jacobsen study said about 0.3% of land area, a study by Clack and others claims 6% of land area, but this study is not gold plated, and has also been counter refuted by Jacobsen. But 64% just doesn’t make any sense, unless the turbines were many miles apart. In any event much wind power could be offshore if it bothers you that much.
I also disagree with your assertions that wind power is expensive. Again you have been shown many times costs are almost equal to coal and have never been able to refute this with any source material. You just make yourself sound disingenuous. The following is just one random example you should have been able to google in literally five seconds.
oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Wind-Energy-Now-Directly-Competing-With-Coal-On-Cost.html
It’s a foolish argument to say do nothing because technology will get better or cheaper. We would never do anything if we thought like that.You fail to consider the simple fact that nobody wants to build nuclear power, and it has only a slight cost advantage over wind, and this is likely to disappear in the near future anyway. However leave it to the market to decide.
-
Evan at 09:29 AM on 14 October 2017SkS Analogy 10 - Bathtubs and Budgets
Fox news tends to down play the risks of global warming, ocean acidification, and climate change. However, here is a quote from Fox news.
"Rising sea levels caused by climate change is expected to exacerbate storm surge flooding."
-
RedBaron at 08:52 AM on 14 October 2017SkS Analogy 10 - Bathtubs and Budgets
cjones @10
You got caught in the merchant of doubt minefield. I get it. They can be sneaky and have fooled many. But be sure that while yes indeed from time to time CO2 levels have been higher, it was certainly not a good thing. Actually it is associated with several mass extinctions.
The logic fallacy of the merchants of doubt fallacy goes a little like this: CO2 was higher in the past, and life thrived in the past, so current higher CO2 levels will make life thrive even more.
The problem is we also had many mass extinction events in the past too. And sure enough if we look closely at the fossil record, we find that the mass extinctions mostly happened either directly or indirectly from this high CO2 levels when they went on runaway feedbacks for various reasons.
The evidence is pretty clear actually, although still debated and not certain, it is pretty likely. Far more likely than runaway CO2 being a good thing.
Great Dying 252 million years ago coincided with CO2 build-up
Ocean acidification and the Permo-Triassic mass extinction
and not only the permian extinction. It is actually a common theme in many mass extinction events.
Doubling Of CO2 Levels In End-Triassic Extinction Killed Off Three Quarters Of Land And Sea Species
-
Daniel Mocsny at 08:25 AM on 14 October 2017New research, September 25 - October 1, 2017
Tom13@8:
#6 - the bumble bees range is quite large, as shown for the eastern common bumble bee. A global temp change of .5c over the last 50 or so years isnt going to make an iota of difference.
What is an "iota of difference"? A 5% reduction in the population of a species? A 1% reduction? 10%? A difference too small to measure? And how would you know how much impact a 0.5°C change in average temperature will cause without any attempt to measure it?
You seem to be saying a change in average temperature in a given location in a species' range has no effect other than to make that location exactly like some other location in the species' range at a different latitude or altitude. That is, you are making an unstated ceteris paribus assumption that you must justify.
Your assumption is shaky because a species depends on much more for its survival than just the average temperature at a location. A species also depends on the distributions and life cycles of many other species with overlapping ranges. Those other species adapt to climate change at different rates - some may relocate rapidly in response to a changing average temperature, while others may move only slowly. As a result, a rapid warming in a given location does not instantly transform that location into an exact duplicate of another location at a different latitude or altitude.
Many species lack the ability to store much food, so much of an ecosystem operates on a "just in time" basis. Disuptions to the familiar schedule may, for example, impact migrating birds that find themselves arriving before or after the insects they feed on to get the nutrition they need to lay eggs and raise their young.
With thousands of interdependent species having overlapping ranges all shifting at different rates in response to a rising average temperature, conditions at a given location will be in flux for many years. During that time, some combination of changing factors may turn out to be hostile to a given species, which lacks the ability to ride out the storm. By analogy, if the spot where you are standing is under a flood, your ability to breathe right now isn't helped by knowing the flood will abate in a few days.
Impacts on one species can cascade through an ecosystem, affecting other species that depend on that species. These cascading effects take time and introduce a response lag to a given disruption. (For example, as pine beetles benefit from warmer winters, they need some years to build up their numbers and wipe out forests.) Thus even if the impact of a given warming over the past 50 years on a given species may not be visible now, the impact may not have yet fully played out. By analogy, consider a young adult tobacco smoker who appears to be in good health, or a professional gridiron football player who appears neurologically normal. Unseen damage is accumulating from their respective chemical and head trauma insults. It may manifest more visibly in 20 or 30 years. If physicians could only study young smokers and football players, they might not guess what's in store for many of them.
Global average temperature has hardly stopped rising. The temperature rise over the past 50 years is but a tiny fraction (perhaps a fifth to a tenth) of what the next century will see, barring drastic action to halt human-caused greenhouse gas emissions. Humans remain solidly on pace to heat the Earth to levels Earth has not seen in millions of years, by restoring atmospheric carbon dioxide to levels Earth last saw millions of years ago.
The roughly 5°C rise in average global temperature between the previous glacial maximum and the year 1750 was also less than the daily and seasonal temperature variation at many locations on Earth. But that seemingly small global average temperature change melted at least a vertical kilometer of ice from what is now Chicago. If we've already caused a temperature change equal to 10% of that post-Ice Age temperature change in just the past 50 years, how could it not be having, and be yet to have, impacts?
Prev 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 Next
