Moderated Global Warming Discussion

[Kuko 4000]

Ah - well - let's see how to get there first. You won't cover this in a 3-10 minute basics.
It's more to do with economics and behaviors. I thought you were after the climate science.

I am, and I think mitigation plans are a big part of the science. Energy efficiency plays the biggest part of all solutions in IPCC, IEA, etc. mitigation scenarios (from 40-50% of all co2 reductions) and I want to understand how they approach Jevons paradox and the rebound effect.

 

[lomiller]

http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2013/08jan_sunclimate/

You go to the worst source, you don't read what it says.

So why does an eleven year cycle have a 150 year effect Haig? The paper clearly shows an eleven year cycle not a 150 year increase, look at the peaks and troughs same rough level since 1980s.



usual epic fail on your part.

Not only that, global temperature isn’t among the topics discussed. What was being discussed is how changes in chemistry of the upper atmosphere can trigger multi-step processes that impact climate in specific regions. At no point do they suggest the changes to the global budget of energy entering/leaving the Earth’s atmosphere. IE they did not at any point say that measureable changes in global temperatures would result from the processes being discussed.

 

[macdoc]

Kuko
Science can determine, to a degree, an array of best methods, but it's primarily a policy decision and there is no mitigation without decision and that is a political problem - not one that science can address.
Again look at Sweden and Norway and maybe even Denmark as models for actual programs and their outcomes rather than theory.
For interest the consequences of wind power for Denmark is mixed compared to the goals and certainly the cap and trade in Europe was poorly designed but these are policy decisions not science.

There are also alternative strategies such as dealing with methane reduction which in the short term can provide better outcomes than dealing with C02.
http://www.sciencenews.org/view/gen..._to_reduce_methane_soot_could_have_big_effect

 

[Kuko 4000]

If anyone knows more about the rebound effect I'd be very interested to hear your thoughts. The CO2 reducing potential of energy efficiency strategies is a very important scientific question. CC mitigation actions and strategies are imo much more important than talking and writing about the "climate reckless" at this point.

At the moment, I don't have a good understanding how IPCC, IEA, etc. approach this question, and they put a LOT of trust (40-50% of all CO2 reduction) to energy efficiency. I find this important to understand.

 

[DC]

If anyone knows more about the rebound effect I'd be very interested to hear your thoughts. The CO2 reducing potential of energy efficiency strategies is a very important scientific question. CC mitigation actions and strategies are imo much more important than talking and writing about the "climate reckless" at this point.

At the moment, I don't have a good understanding how IPCC, IEA, etc. approach this question, and they put a LOT of trust (40-50% of all CO2 reduction) to energy efficiency. I find this important to understand.

mmh interesting, never thought about it.

the IPCC statet

The ‘rebound effect’ has often been cited as a barrier to the implementation of energy-efficiency policies. This takes place when increased energy efficiency is accompanied by increased demand for energy services (Moezzi and Diamond, 2005). The literature is divided about the magnitude of this effect (Herring, 2006).

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg3/en/ch6s6-7-6.html

 

[Kuko 4000]

Yeah, I don't take it as a barrier, the most convincing numbers that I've seen of the rebound effect are around 10-40%, so energy efficiency strategies would still be a very good way to reduce CO2 emissions and help the economy (as long as its tied to clean energy, but these have to go hand in hand, otherwise the rebound effect will be too big).

I want to understand how for example the IPCC has taken this into account when they trust EE so much in their scenarios, does it already include the rebound effect and what estimates are they using. 40-50% is a big chunk of the CO2 emissions, and a missed rebound effect of, say 25%, could mean big problems in achieving the minimum goals.

EDIT: Thanks for the link.

 

[macdoc]

It is not a science question - it is a policy and economics approach question.
There is no science answer to it. Remember the IPCC is not a science body.
Many areas like S California have industries that are exceptionally energy efficient but no policy solution can avoid growth and upper mobility issues.

Nuclear and other renewables have no growth related issues - use all the power you can afford as it have no carbon impact.

Seems you are confusing science questions with policy and economic questions.

 

[Kuko 4000]

I guess I've been unclear. How come the question about how much CO2 reduction can be achieved through energy efficiency is not a science question?

On top of that, out of interest, I want to understand how IPCC, IEA, etc. have taken this (the rebound effect) into account in their mitigation scenarios.

 

[macdoc]

The methods of achieving energy efficiency with regards to reduced fossil use within any domain ( transport, power generation, agriculture etc ) are indeed a science question.

Rebound is not- it's an economic and policy question and economics are NOT a science as much as they'd like to claim nor is political science. They are disciplines and can be informative in terms of crafting policy.
Science can not tell you why the cap and trade was a failure.

It can tell which of two motor designs will use less fossil fuel.

It can't tell you whether the driver of the more efficient vehicle will drive more.

 

[Kuko 4000]

It can tell which of two motor designs will use less fossil fuel.

Yes, and the answer is, by measuring.

It can't tell you whether the driver of the more efficient vehicle will drive more.

So how do they know that they do drive more then? Afaik, they have measured it, and it seems so, on average. This is not science?

 

[macdoc]

It might be an application of statistics at best but it's not a science question.
How to create a policy to counter it is not a science question either.
But this is straying off topic a bit.
It depends on your presentation.
Are you trying cover off the reality of Climate change and the underlying science?
Or trying to cover off the policy choices that arise from it's reality.

 

[bobwtfomg]

Nuclear and other renewables have no growth related issues - use all the power you can afford as it have no carbon impact.

Nuclear is not technically a renewable, and the building and maintenance of both does have a carbon footprint.

 

[BenBurch]

Nuclear is not technically a renewable, and the building and maintenance of both does have a carbon footprint.

Renewable in the sense that we can breed more fuel. (Not that it really matters since there is so very much thorium.)

 

[aleCcowaN]

Let the CANDUs flourish like a palm tree!

 

[Trakar]

Since when did reality and "common sense" have anything to do with each other?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naïve_realism

Apologies for the upthread responses, I'm a catching up from a couple weeks back, and there are just some posts back here that I feel compelled to respond to!

"Common sense" is best at providing insight into the way people think and the culture they come from but very poor at describing the world and how it functions. It may have at its basis some practical experience, but this is generally sheathed in folklore, superstition and imagined fantasy framing, not objective study and understanding. Reasoned sense is what is uncommon and so sorely lacking in most societies.

 

[Trakar]

Yes, things seem to be quite unclear. I would guess that it is extremely unlikely that China, India and South American countries, etc. will not continue to escalate their levels of emissions. If you look at that link and extrapolate out at some reasonable rate of increase for those less developed nations, I think the conclusion that we should spend our efforts in preparing for the worst is a fairly good one. The fact that this may not be consistent with the dogma of some of the political left is irrelevant.

You have to realize that CO2 is not the only pollutant produced by the burning of carbon fuels. Many if not most other countries would shift away from these fuels if there were a cheap, clean alternative, and international leadership toward achieving that goal. They have no incentive to do so when they see the loudest, most technologically developed nations on the planet publically arguing about whether or not there is even a problem with such emissions and doing nothing substantive to address the problem themselves.
You must lead by example, not edict. Until the US cleans its own house, we can't expect to have any gravitas lent to our admonitions about climate change issues.

This is already far beyond being a mere academic thought-problem, we either change the path of the future we have already laid the foundations for, or we continue to suffer the consequences of our own actions at an accelerating rate. Without mitigation of some type (BAU till conditions get so bad that we no longer have the capacity to mine and burn fossil fuels), survival of our global civilization (and depending upon the nature of known and unknown tipping points - possibly the vast majority of existing species on our planet) is unlikely. So it really isn't an issue of mitigation "or" adaptation, we are already at the point where both must be vigorously pursued, and even in combination, these are not going to shield us from impacts that have already started occurring.

 

[Trakar]

I've continue debating AGW at a swedish forum where a guy claims there isnt a single scientific evidence for the AGW-Hypothesis.

I dont really now what this evidence would look like, or what evidence he would be satisfied with.

Is he right?

I prefer to start with the beginning, try directing him to the American Institute of Physics site http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.htm

To be honest, however, with the widespread availability of information and constant promotion of the topic, any one who is vigorous debating against AGW, is unlikely to accept any of the mountains of available evidence as acceptable, primarily because they aren't basing their opinions upon evidence as we understand that term.

 

[Trakar]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_carbon_dioxide

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumental_temperature_record

Compare them for yourself.


Best estimates are that doubling the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will produce a temperature rise of about 1 degree Celsius directly, and a total of about 3 degrees Celsius taking into account the inevitable positive feedbacks.

So far we have increased the CO2 in the atmosphere by about 40%, and will have doubled it by the end of this century at current rates of emission.

Bottom up

Actually, most recent studies seem to be placing higher values on those doubling estimations setting initial doubling to occur by around mid-century, by the end of this century, following current BAU trends, it is estimated that CO2 levels will be 900 to 1100 ppmv provided we have no massive natural feedback contributions or sink saturation. As for doubling effects even conservative estimates peg the fast impact at around 3 degrees C and the long-term equilibration at around 6 degrees C.

References:

http://www2.ucar.edu/atmosnews/news/3628/earth-s-hot-past-could-be-prologue-future-climate
(Article derived from: http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/ccr/aboutus/staff/kiehl/LessonsfromEarthsPast.pdf)

http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/2008/TargetCO2_20080407.pdf

http://naturalscience.com/ns/articles/01-16/ns_jeh.html

http://climatechange.pbworks.com/f/...lobal+warming+and+CO2+-+Scheffer+Cox+2005.pdf

http://www.purdue.edu/newsroom/research/2010/100504HuberLimits.html

http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/369/1934.toc

Not that any projection of potential should be seen as an ironclad prediction, but these estimations seem reasonably well supported by mainstream climate science perspectives.

 

[macdoc]

Originally

Posted by macdoc
Nuclear and other renewables have no growth related issues - use all the power you can afford as it have no carbon impact.

Nuclear is not technically a renewable, and the building and maintenance of both does have a carbon footprint.

The carbon footprint is very minor compared to say a coal plant and given the amount of uranium and thorium about plus reuse is for all human intents inexhaustible.
There is enough power sitting in the holding tanks to power the planet for 400 years without mining another ounce of uranium.
And thorium is hugely abundant.

Right now - coal is the biggest target for replacement - all else pales in comparison.
Replacing coal with shale gas would be cost effective and straight forward if the will was there.

 

[macdoc]

Speaking of coal and carbon black....

15 January 2013 Last updated at 12:59 ET

Climate change: Soot's role underestimated, says study
Matt McGrath By Matt McGrath Environment correspondent, BBC News

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-21033078