• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Global warming discussion III

Status
Not open for further replies.
AGW isn't a thing of the future, as one might have thought thirty years ago; we are in the future of then. Negative feedbacks have not prevented the warming so far and there's no reason to think they'll suddenly start to do so.
You make a very good point. I often wonder how people can possibly deny what can be measured and has hard data from multiple sources to confirm? How can anyone say AGW isn't real when it is here right now?:rolleyes:

It's like a comedy skit.

 
NOAA's State of the Climate report for November is up and 2014 is still on course to be the warmest in the instrumental record.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2014/11

The combined global land and ocean average surface temperature for the year-to-date (January–November) was 0.68°C (1.22°F) above the 20th century average of 14.0°C (57.2°F), the warmest such period on record.

They're still predicting El Niño conditions are likely to develop over the next few months.

NOAA's Climate Prediction Center estimates that there is a 65 percent chance that El Niño will be present during the Northern Hemisphere winter and last into the Northern Hemisphere spring 2015.
 
It's risky to call these things, but I think 2014-15 is going to be seen as the watershed period on AGW. Not just because of the record surface warmth, although that will have some impact on public opinion, but because people who actually matter are realising that this is not something which can not be kicked down the road any longer. AGW is happening now, within their political careers, and they need to take it seriously - if it only means means learning the right kind of things to say. We're already seeing it in fully-funded politicians no longer denying AGW but taking the "I'm not a scientist" line, so as not to come across as Inhofian.

Such a time was always going to come, of course, which makes calling it that bit safer. unlike,say, calling a watershed in the Religious Resurgence of the last twenty-five years or so. That might never go away. As for fusion power, that'll be fifty years away; one thing in a chaotic world we can always depend on.

It's going to help the transition that so many certainties are getting shredded. For instance, oil prices just fell by half in six months. All that capital sunk into fracking and suddenly the return doesn't look so good. (It reminds of the mid-80's when nodding donkeys were being put down by the thousand across Texas, it was heartbreaking.) Everthing and everywhere connected to oil is starting to look icky and it offers no hope for the future if you're under forty.

I think the momentum away from fossil-fuels is going to surprise most people in ten years. Or we'll get into a land-war in Russia, whatever. One way or another things are going to be changed and changing, for the simple reason that they can't go on like this.
 
Warming world's rising seas wash away some of South Florida's glitz

It's just past sunset and the strip at South Beach, Miami, is pumping. It is the biggest weekend of the year in America's glitziest city. The Art Basel is on, an annual fine art festival that has been overwhelmed by the world's thrillingly wealthy – and the Hollywood stars they like to play with – dropping a few million on trinkets.

The sorts of media that follow these events are beside themselves.

Somewhere in this town, New York Magazine was later to report, Leonardo DiCaprio left a nightclub this weekend in early December with "nearly two dozen women".

What was not so widely reported was that South Beach stank of ****. There is no nice way to put it. The place smelled of human waste. There had been a brief, heavy downpour but the water could not escape, so the sewers backed up and filled the roads. The traffic slowed to walking pace or seized entirely, and the models tottering between the restaurants and hotels and clubs had to pick wide arcs on the pavements to avoid the nasty pools swelling from the gutters.

Only the people seemed to take it in their stride, perhaps because this sort of thing is no longer unusual in and around Miami.

A couple of days later I stood on a sealed road in a park in the southern suburbs of Miami – again ankle deep in water – with Harold Wanless, chairman and professor at the Department of Geological Sciences at the University of Miami, to discuss why the place was so wet. The answer was not complicated. "The ocean has risen," he says with laugh. "It is what it is."

And then this, lol

As we splash along the road he stops to inspect the mangroves along the sides, he points out where the water has driven sand from the bay across the hardtop, he chats about his time investigating the rising water around South Beach.

He laughs when he tells of the low-slung sports cars that prowl the strip and how their drivers often mistake the salt water that has flooded up through the pipes onto the road for fresh water from a broken main.

"They drive straight into it, they have no idea what they are doing to their cars," he says with delight.

"Ha! Fools!"
 
Last edited:

Even ahead of major AGW sea level rises, up and down the West coast of the US over the next week we will experience the solstice King tides that bring abnormally low and high tides. Should be about 3-4 feet higher than normal tides at their max over the next 3 days or so (roughly similar to what we might expect as "normal" tides at the turn of the century).

http://www.ecy.wa.gov/climatechange/ipa_hightide.htm
 
Some good science which unfortunately Anthony Watts of WUWT seems not to understand because he let Dr. Tim Ball write an ignorant guest blog about the results: Settled science? The IPCC’s premature consensus is demonstrated by the Orbiting Carbon Observatory.
The ignorance in the blog entry is described in Tim Ball FAILS Carbon Cycle 101 at WUWT
The basic climate science fact that Dr. Tim Ball does not know is that there are CO2 sinks as well as sources.
He didn't tell his readers that plants and oceans etc absorb more each year than they emit
So the Amazon is a net sink of CO2. Thus the higher concentrations of CO2 over the Amazon should be due to human activity such as biomass burning.

Then there is the ignorance of looking at a map of CO2 concentrations from Oct. 1 through Nov. 11. That tells you nothing about how the CO2 is increasing over periods of decades (i.e. climate change). It does not even tell you whether a region is a sink or source of CO2 over a year.
 
November tied for 7th highest month. 1.17 degrees(F) over the 20th century average. http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2014/11

The denialists better hope December starts a new ice age because 2014 is going to go in the books as one of the hottest years ever (probably THE hottest).

A part of me is cheering on the high temperatures. The sooner we put the denialist BS to rest, the sooner we can start getting serious about this.

And as much as I like saving $100 a month on gas, low oil prices aren't going to help. OPEC won't meet again till June. We're going to see cheap oil for awhile, and people's buying habits will reflect it.
 
Some good science which unfortunately Anthony Watts of WUWT seems not to understand because he let Dr. Tim Ball write an ignorant guest blog about the results: Settled science? The IPCC’s premature consensus is demonstrated by the Orbiting Carbon Observatory.
The ignorance in the blog entry is described in Tim Ball FAILS Carbon Cycle 101 at WUWT
The basic climate science fact that Dr. Tim Ball does not know is that there are CO2 sinks as well as sources.

So the Amazon is a net sink of CO2. Thus the higher concentrations of CO2 over the Amazon should be due to human activity such as biomass burning.

Then there is the ignorance of looking at a map of CO2 concentrations from Oct. 1 through Nov. 11. That tells you nothing about how the CO2 is increasing over periods of decades (i.e. climate change). It does not even tell you whether a region is a sink or source of CO2 over a year.
Except keep in mind Reality Check, it is the grasslands that are the net CO2 sinks, not so much the old forests like the Amazon. Old forests are nearly net 0. And grasslands are generally only a significant sink when properly grazed. Worldwide most are either burned or plowed. The rest of course is true. We are looking at a single slice of time. The trends that develop as the data comes in over time will be interesting to see.:D
 
Last edited:
November tied for 7th highest month. 1.17 degrees(F) over the 20th century average. http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2014/11

The denialists better hope December starts a new ice age because 2014 is going to go in the books as one of the hottest years ever (probably THE hottest).

A part of me is cheering on the high temperatures. The sooner we put the denialist BS to rest, the sooner we can start getting serious about this.

And as much as I like saving $100 a month on gas, low oil prices aren't going to help. OPEC won't meet again till June. We're going to see cheap oil for awhile, and people's buying habits will reflect it.
It is a sad fact that there is a large group of corporate interests that control the media presentation of certain topics in the US of A.

So I personally am afraid that the horse and cart will go over the cliff, yes I am thrilled that governments are acting as though they will take action, but I am also afraid that they will wait another twenty years before serious action is taken.

That means that we call all pray to the FSM for some big huge dusty volcanoes or that large scale geo-engineering will be needed.

I will be 76 by then however, my daughter 50 and my son 40. So Ia lways hope that suddenly certain people will stop putting profit ahead of all other considerations....
 
And as much as I like saving $100 a month on gas, low oil prices aren't going to help.

Low oil prices WILL help as makes marginal oil sources non-viable and hastens along the transition for some energy companies to being energy companies of the future instead of oil companies of the past.

Oil companies will not spend billions on exploring for marginal oil sources.
If governments would stop subsidizing fossil we'd see it transition much faster. ( have a look at the Weaning us off thread
 
Low oil prices WILL help as makes marginal oil sources non-viable and hastens along the transition for some energy companies to being energy companies of the future instead of oil companies of the past.

Oil companies will not spend billions on exploring for marginal oil sources.
If governments would stop subsidizing fossil we'd see it transition much faster. ( have a look at the Weaning us off thread

I don't share your optimism.

Shale is profitable in the Bakken area as low as $42 a barrel and the technology is only going to bring the price lower. Oil's convenient, cheap, and the Bakken formation alone may have half a trillion barrels.

The developing world is going to be using fossil fuels for a long time, and America will be more than happy to supply it to them.
 
The developing world is NOT the problem.
Investors are souring on fossil fuel companies and I suggest at some point nations will stop underwriting them with subsidies.

Canada's renewable industry now produces more jobs than the oil industry as of recently.
This is not going to happen overnight but it will be an ongoing erosion as risks mount with fossil fuels and prices plunge on renewables.

There is a lot of pressure from ethical investors and even shareholders to move fossil companies to energy companies.

2014: Riding a Rocket, Divestment Movement Gains Momentum
The notion that most of the fossil fuel reserves on company balance sheets must stay in the ground—stranded—is no longer unthinkable.
By Elizabeth Douglass, InsideClimate News Dec 22, 2014

This was the year Big Oil and its fossil-fuel brethren began to look a lot less invincible.

An unexpected crash in crude prices forced industry leaders to cut spending, mothball expensive projects and put the brakes on new drilling. Local officials, residents and environmentalists blocked new pipelines and rebelled against the surge in shipping oil by railcar. And new limits on power plant pollution, methane releases and oilfield gas burn-off are still looming over coal, natural gas and oil operations across the country.

More threatening than all of those things, however, is something the industry has never faced before: The growing belief among global leaders, investors, scientists, and large corporations that the use of fossil fuels must be sharply curtailed—if not phased out—for the sake of future generations.

more

https://insideclimatenews.org/news/20141222/2014-riding-rocket-divestment-movement-gains-momentum

This becomes a bit of a self feeding spiral away from fossil. You know when the industry spends millions upon millions to buy elections in the US they can see the writing on the wall.
 
Last edited:
The developing world is NOT the problem.
Investors are souring on fossil fuel companies and I suggest at some point nations will stop underwriting them with subsidies.

Canada's renewable industry now produces more jobs than the oil industry as of recently.
This is not going to happen overnight but it will be an ongoing erosion as risks mount with fossil fuels and prices plunge on renewables.

There is a lot of pressure from ethical investors and even shareholders to move fossil companies to energy companies.

That's the big unknown. I don't see any pressure, though. Quite the opposite- fracking has grown by leaps and bounds, with tacit EPA approval.

ETA: Oh, and the developing world is very much the problem. China emits more CO2 now than Europe and America combined. They won't cap emissions till 2030. Coal and natural gas power plants are simply cheaper than the alternative. India is certainly not on board with reducing its emissions:

"“What cuts?” Mr. Javadekar said. “That’s for more developed countries. The moral principle of historic responsibility cannot be washed away.” Mr. Javadekar was referring to an argument frequently made by developing economies — that developed economies, chiefly the United States, which spent the last century building their economies while pumping warming emissions into the atmosphere — bear the greatest responsibility for cutting pollution."
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/25/world/asia/25climate.html
 
Last edited:
There is no moral argument to have any say in Chinese actions ....they are moving faster than anyone else and peak coal is 2016 ....currently coal has to be the major target.
The west built it's west on cheap fossil fuel and polluted the atmosphere...China has every right to do the same but of all nations they are in some ways perhaps the greenest in terms of progress.

Environment: Browner, but greener | The Economist

Feb 1, 2014 - CHINA is the world's biggest polluter, so it is no surprise that it fares ... The report's conclusions are more cheerful than most green report cards.
http://www.economist.com/news/china...ess-new-environmental-ranking-browner-greener

SHale and fracking is shortlived and more and more expensive and banned more and more places including its birthplace town in Texas.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/11/28/1348011/-U-S-Shale-industry-about-to-crash

and

How Long Can the U.S. Oil Boom Last? - National Geographic

Published December 19, 2014 ... shale, providing thousands of oil field jobs and boosting U.S. production to near-record ... Fracked wells are short-lived, with a well's output typically declining from more .

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/...il-supply-price-reserves-profits-environment/

The Saudis can put them all out of business...with something like $6 a barrel costs.

Four things are now affecting the picture. Demand is low because of weak economic activity, increased efficiency, and a growing switch away from oil to other fuels. Second, turmoil in Iraq and Libya—two big oil producers with nearly 4m barrels a day combined—has not affected their output. The market is more sanguine about geopolitical risk. Thirdly, America has become the world’s largest oil producer. Though it does not export crude oil, it now imports much less, creating a lot of spare supply. Finally, the Saudis and their Gulf allies have decided not to sacrifice their own market share to restore the price. They could curb production sharply, but the main benefits would go to countries they detest such as Iran and Russia. Saudi Arabia can tolerate lower oil prices quite easily. It has $900 billion in reserves. Its own oil costs very little (around $5-6 per barrel) to get out of the ground.

The main effect of this is on the riskiest and most vulnerable bits of the oil industry. These include American frackers who have borrowed heavily on the expectation of continuing high prices. They also include Western oil companies with high-cost projects involving drilling in deep water or in the Arctic, or dealing with maturing and increasingly expensive fields such as the North Sea. But the greatest pain is in countries where the regimes are dependent on a high oil price to pay for costly foreign adventures and expensive social programmes. These include Russia (which is already hit by Western sanctions following its meddling in Ukraine) and Iran (which is paying to keep the Assad regime afloat in Syria). Optimists think economic pain may make these countries more amenable to international pressure. Pessimists fear that when cornered, they may lash out in desperation.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2014/12/economist-explains-4
 
Last edited:
There is no moral argument to have any say in Chinese actions ....they are moving faster than anyone else and peak coal is 2016 ....currently coal has to be the major target.
The west built it's west on cheap fossil fuel and polluted the atmosphere...China has every right to do the same but of all nations they are in some ways perhaps the greenest in terms of progress.


http://www.economist.com/news/china...ess-new-environmental-ranking-browner-greener

SHale and fracking is shortlived and more and more expensive and banned more and more places including its birthplace town in Texas.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/11/28/1348011/-U-S-Shale-industry-about-to-crash

and



http://news.nationalgeographic.com/...il-supply-price-reserves-profits-environment/

The Saudis can put them all out of business...with something like $6 a barrel costs.



http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2014/12/economist-explains-4

Your ideas are naive. China may have every right to industrialize, but if you define "progress" based on what China is doing, the world is in bad shape.

emissions-graph.jpg


And oil will not bottom out at $6 a barrel.
 
Last edited:
There is no moral argument to have any say in Chinese actions ....they are moving faster than anyone else and peak coal is 2016 ....currently coal has to be the major target.
The west built it's west on cheap fossil fuel and polluted the atmosphere...China has every right to do the same but of all nations they are in some ways perhaps the greenest in terms of progress.

Three point that immediately spring to mind:

China is capping their emissions, the United States is not - a point that I see still escapes FudBucker.

1000 GW of new renewable capacity is, in the words of the irrepressible Joe Biden, is a big *********** deal.

As is the decision to peak coal consumption by 2016 - that decision along could drive new mega-coal projects into the ground, with the price of coal already in a long terms structural decline, now that China is moving then expect to watch that go tail-spinning into a death spiral. This is probably the most exciting aspect from my perspective, witnessing a complete revolution in energy markets and the old assumptions that once underpinned them.
 
Your ideas are naive. China may have every right to industrialize, but if you define "progress" based on what China is doing, the world is in bad shape.

[qimg]http://conservationmagazine.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/emissions-graph.jpg[/qimg]

And oil will not bottom out at $6 a barrel.

Oh FFS not this **** again. If you want to have this argument then please go and take it up in the US China Deal thread that you lost it in last time and don't derail this one. That way we can easily refer to the counterpoints to the failed arguments you made there and are trying to resurrect here.
 
Last edited:
Three point that immediately spring to mind:

China is capping their emissions, the United States is not - a point that I see still escapes FudBucker.

1000 GW of new renewable capacity is, in the words of the irrepressible Joe Biden, is a big *********** deal.

As is the decision to peak coal consumption by 2016 - that decision along could drive new mega-coal projects into the ground, with the price of coal already in a long terms structural decline, now that China is moving then expect to watch that go tail-spinning into a death spiral. This is probably the most exciting aspect from my perspective, witnessing a complete revolution in energy markets and the old assumptions that once underpinned them.

China is not capping their emissions. They just signed a (non-binding) agreement not to cap their emissions until 2030. America's emissions have declined recently, and the agreement with China puts far more pressure on us than it does the Chinese:

"The new U.S. goal will double the pace of carbon pollution reduction from 1.2 percent per year on average during the 2005-2020 period to 2.3-2.8 percent per year on average between 2020 and 2025. This ambitious target is grounded in intensive analysis of cost-effective carbon pollution reductions achievable under existing law and will keep the United States on the right trajectory to achieve deep economy-wide reductions on the order of 80 percent by 2050."
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press...nnouncement-climate-change-and-clean-energy-c

India, with over a billion people, disputes the entire notion of reducing emissions.

We will look back at world-wide emissions of 40 billion tons of CO2 with nostalgia in the coming years.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom