• 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.

Moderated Global Warming Discussion

Status
Not open for further replies.
This is a biased and hyperbolic statement. Look at the wording: it's very unlikely to be less than 1.5C but we can't exclude temperatures above 4.5C.

No, it's not hyperbolic or biased. It's a good explanation of the state the science at the time the IPCC report was written (which BTW hasn't actually changed much since).

While the most probable estimate was (and is) 3 degrees, there was a very steep decline in probablility for lower sensitivities, with 1.5 degrees being the 95% mark. On the higher end, there was a fat tail that exceeded much further - sensitivities above the range of 4.5 degrees were still within the 95% probability.

http://cdn.greenoptions.com/e/e1/1000x800px-e12af180_sensitivity-big.gif

The wording in the report matches this situation well. The Annan and Hargreaves paper wasn't out at the time IPCC report was written, of course. And it doesn't really change much, the essence is just that if they're correct, both extremes are more unlikely than previously estimated.

In other words, IPCC:s "likely to be in the range 2 to 4.5°C with a best estimate of about 3°C" should in their opinion be changed to "extremely likely to be in the range 2 to 4.5°C with a best estimate of about 3°C"

This is cherry picking, this is pseudoscience.

Bull.

that the climate sensitivity to a doubling of atmospheric CO2 is extremely likely to be close to 4C, extremely unlikely to be higher than 4.5C and very unlikely to be below 1.5C

No, it does not. I have no idea where you pulled those odd numbers from (and i probably don't even want to know), but they're certainly not from the paper's conclusion.

But that's not even your biggest mistake: "Annan and Hargreaves concluded that the climate sensitivity to a doubling of atmospheric CO2 is probably close to 3°C, it may be higher, but it's probably not much lower." does not refer to the paper, but rather this text by the authors, which was linked to, just like i did above:

http://julesandjames.blogspot.com/2006/03/climate-sensitivity-is-3c.html

...where the authors write:

"Climate sensitivity is 3C
Plus or minus a little bit, of course. But not plus or minus as much as some people have been claiming in recent years :-)"
 
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/technol...above-the-arctic/story-fn5iztw3-1226156860504

But researchers found that this year the Arctic cold snap lasted more than 30 days longer than any previously studied winter, causing the rare ozone depletion.

So cold weather caused the hole. Climate change caused the warming that caused the warmth. No wait, that's not right...
The CFCs caused the cooling that caused the hole; the hole caused the warming that caused the cooling that made the hole. Um??

Or is it that global warming will be good for the ozone layer?

Confused. :)
Seems that you forgot to quote the next two paragraphs in that article...

"Day-to-day temperatures in the 2010-11 Arctic winter did not reach lower values than in previous cold Arctic winters," said lead author Gloria Manney of NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California.

"The difference from previous winters is that temperatures were low enough to produce ozone-destroying forms of chlorine for a much longer time. This implies that if winter Arctic stratospheric temperatures drop just slightly in the future, for example as a result of climate change, then severe Arctic ozone loss may occur more frequently."
My bold

So the temperature wasn't as low, but was within a band hat promoted ozone depletion for a longer period than normal. Not exactly the same conclusion that you came up with. There, hopefully you're not so confused.
 
This thread is about AGW, whose effects are felt at the earth's surface. Articles about temperatures in the stratosphere are therefore off topic.

For information about rising surface temperatures in the Arctic, see: http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/reportcard/

Well, not exactly -- AGW implies that there will be stratospheric cooling, so discussions of stratospheric temperature are germane. Not that this particular article is.
 
I would like the AGW deniers here to explain to me this last summer's Arctic ice melt?

OK, Let me handle this one from the denier side.

Ben- take some ice out of your freezer and observe it for 10 minutes. You might just notice that it
MELTS! Seeing is believing! The Arctic ice was outside in the SUMMER! Ice melts in the SUMMER!

It should be blatantly obvious to anyone that the satellites that record the ice coverage can't be kept in PRECISELY the same position every year.
Someone read somewhere that the satellites were at a slightly lower angle in orbit this year. Now think about the curvature of the earth and the ice. As it turns out the satellites were only reading the highest points of the curved ice and the area around that "dome" could not be seen by the satellites, again, due to the lower positioning relative to the ice. The areas that couldn't be recorded were originally thought to have no ice, but that mistake has since been corrected.

So satellite data is unreliable due to the fact that they can't be in EXACTLY the same spot each year and, yes kids, ice melts in the summer and there may be some variation. GOT IT?

Although the above article hasn't quite completed peer-review in the Oil and Gas Journal previous Artic Sea Ice data sets will soon be considered to be laughable.


How well did I do?
 
Is it OK to post recent Greenhouse study?

http://arxiv.org/abs/1110.1365
It is by a team of 15 scientists.
Here are the various universities, institutes they are from:
1 Columbia University Earth Institute, New York
2 Center for Health and the Global Environment, Harvard Medical School, Boston
3 Department of Environmental Studies, University of North Carolina at Wilmington, North Carolina
4 Global Change Institute, University of Queensland, St. Lucia, Queensland, Australia
5 Integrative Biology, University of Texas, Austin, Texas
6 Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, Germany
7 Stockholm Resilience Center, Stockholm University, Sweden
8 Southhampton University, United Kingdom
9 University of Aberdeen, United Kingdom
10 Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences, University of Colorado
11 Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, LOCEAN, Paris (hosted by Ifremer, Brest), France
12 Earth and Planetary Science, University of California at Santa Cruz

They seem to be trying to cover most of the pertinent dimensions of the problem and our possible responses. Part of the article is technical.
I don't know a lot about Greenhouse effect issues. I got the general impression that these are first-class people trying to do a respectable up-to-date job covering the main issues. If you think they're wrong about anything I'd be curious to know your reasons.
 
Last edited:
Is it OK to post recent Greenhouse study?


Possibly. The best way to find out would probably be to post whatever it is in the study which you think is worth discussing.

So far all you've posted is a list of the universities and institutes with which the researchers for the study are associated. If that's what you're interested in discussing, then I'd say the answer is no, it is not okay -- at least not in this section of the forum. This section of the forum is for discussion of politics. I don't see anything political in that list of institutions.

Is there perhaps something political you're interested in discussing at the link you included in your post? If so, it would be helpful if you summarized briefly (or quoted briefly) what it is at that link which you're interested in discussing. As a matter of principle, I do not click links in OPs unless the thread starter specifies clearly what it is at the link which they think is worth reading and discussing.
 
http://arxiv.org/abs/1110.1365
It is by a team of 15 scientists.
Here are the various universities, institutes they are from:
1 Columbia University Earth Institute, New York
2 Center for Health and the Global Environment, Harvard Medical School, Boston
3 Department of Environmental Studies, University of North Carolina at Wilmington, North Carolina
4 Global Change Institute, University of Queensland, St. Lucia, Queensland, Australia
5 Integrative Biology, University of Texas, Austin, Texas
6 Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, Germany
7 Stockholm Resilience Center, Stockholm University, Sweden
8 Southhampton University, United Kingdom
9 University of Aberdeen, United Kingdom
10 Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences, University of Colorado
11 Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, LOCEAN, Paris (hosted by Ifremer, Brest), France
12 Earth and Planetary Science, University of California at Santa Cruz

They seem to be trying to cover most of the pertinent dimensions of the problem and our possible responses. Part of the article is technical.
I don't know a lot about Greenhouse effect issues. I got the general impression that these are first-class people trying to do a respectable up-to-date job covering the main issues. If you think they're wrong about anything I'd be curious to know your reasons.

Looks Kosher to me, especially for the politics folder. Was there anything in particular you wanted to discuss, or are you trying to present the entire paper as being representative of your argument?
 
This thread is about AGW, whose effects are felt at the earth's surface.

I have to call anthropocentrism on that. AGW is about what happens to the thin skim of fluids on a planet like ours if you increase the CO2 content of the gaseous part. We naturally take an interest in what it means for us down here where we live but that's not really what it's about.
 
I would favor a class action lawsuit against Koch brothers and the like to force them to pay into a fund to compensate for future damage (crop failure, oceanfront property values etc.) and if any harm can be established so far, to recover for already incurred damage.

Does anyone think there is a legal basis? Has this been tried? Is there some better remedy or line of action?

I've been aware of the Greenhouse emissions problem since I helped with a NAS/NAE study in the 1970s (at which time I was actually skeptical of the warnings!:o) but I am not very well informed about the current political situation.

I'm puzzled by right wing denial of the danger. It looks to me as if it might be due to a propaganda campaign funded by carbon tycoons plus a know-nothing tendency to blame government regulation for all wrongs. I see an analogy with the Tobacco Industry and scientific evidence of the link to cancer. But basically it is confusing. the evidence is so plain (see the article!) how can anyone deny it? and messing with the weather in this way is in nobody's interest.
 
Last edited:
How about humanity paying into a fund to reward the US for dumping greenhouse gasses well in excess of our population size, since global warming and increased CO2 will be a boon to humanity?
 
I'm puzzled by right wing denial of the danger. It looks to me as if it might be due to a propaganda campaign funded by carbon tycoons plus a know-nothing tendency to blame government regulation for all wrongs.

Speaking as a right-winger, I'm puzzled by the denial by those aware of the danger of the only possible solution:

climatechoice.jpg
 
I just wonder what the calculations and logic are behind this.

Nuclear Power doesn't produce greenhouse gases. With breeder reactors you can get the half-life down to decades (easily storable until it is safe). It kills far, far, far less people than coal or oil per kilowatt of energy produce (we're talking about 2-3 orders of magnitude fewer). Renewable resources aren't going to be able to replace all energy generation even theoretically for a decade or two easy.

Heck, Coal puts out more radioactivity than Nuclear Power.
 
I think it is off topic to start secondguessing the market, the safety regs and all that about the replacement mix of power generation methods, the mix of transportation means etc.
That is a whole other discussion. Various forces will determine what replaces carbon and the outcome is secondary. The first question is: Can we reduce carbon emission? And by what policy means?

I've been reading the Hansen et al article (http://arxiv.org/abs/1110.1365 ) and I see that it has a reference to a book I did not know about (The Case for a Carbon Tax) by a person I didn't know about, Shi-Ling Hsu.
This book just came out last month, September 15. Hardcover and paperback both out.
http://www.amazon.com/Case-Carbon-Tax-Hang-ups-Effective/dp/1597265314
Here's the paperback version:
http://www.amazon.com/dp/1597265330/
The Case for a Carbon Tax: Getting Past Our Hang-ups to Effective Climate Policy
Dr. Shi-Ling Hsu PhD JD
THE AMAZON PAGE LETS YOU READ QUITE A LOT OF THE BOOK. It has the "look-inside" feature. Free browsing includes almost all of the first 53 pages, and the table of contents. Here is some promo stuff from the publisher.
====quote====
Product Description
There's a simple, straightforward way to cut carbon emissions and prevent the most disastrous effects of climate change-and we're rejecting it because of irrational political fears. That's the central argument of The Case for a Carbon Tax, a clear-eyed, sophisticated analysis of climate change policy.

Shi-Ling Hsu examines the four major approaches to curbing CO2: cap-and-trade; command and control regulation; government subsidies of alternative energy; and carbon taxes. Weighing the economic, social, administrative, and political merits of each, he demonstrates why a tax is currently the most effective policy. Hsu does not claim that a tax is the perfect or only solution-but that unlike the alternatives, it can be implemented immediately and paired effectively with other approaches.

In fact, the only real barrier is psychological. While politicians can present subsidies and cap-and-trade as "win-win" solutions, the costs of a tax are immediately apparent. Hsu deftly explores the social and political factors that prevent us from embracing this commonsense approach. And he shows why we must get past our hang-ups if we are to avert a global crisis.

Reviewer comment:
“Shi-Ling Hsu’s book is the most thoughtful and sweeping book on carbon taxation in existence. It is must reading for anyone interested in climate change policy. The book covers every angle, and does so with moderation and wit.”
(Kevin Hassett Director of Economic Policy Studies, American Enterprise Institute )

"Who''s afraid of a carbon tax? Not Shi-Ling Hsu, who builds an accessible, well-informed, and undeniably persuasive case for the superiority of carbon taxes over alternative climate change policy instruments. He also delves into individual and group psychology literatures to explain why the superiority of carbon taxes seems not to be grasped by the public and its representatives. Altogether a vital contribution to this, our most important debate."
(Douglas A. Kysar Professor of Law, Yale University )

"Shi-Ling Hsu has written a thought-provoking defense of carbon taxes. His discussion of the policies, politics, and psychology of carbon taxes is highly readable and an extremely useful resource. Although the political winds in North America change from year to year, the challenge of pricing carbon is unavoidable in the long term. This book has staying power."
(Janet E. Milne Director, Environmental Tax Policy Institute, Vermont Law School )

"A must-read for anyone concerned about the wellbeing of their children and grandchildren. An objective, clear-sighted revelation of the sine qua non for stabilizing climate and preserving a livable planet."
(James E. Hansen Director, NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies )
 
Last edited:
Nuclear Power doesn't produce greenhouse gases. With breeder reactors you can get the half-life down to decades (easily storable until it is safe). It kills far, far, far less people than coal or oil per kilowatt of energy produce (we're talking about 2-3 orders of magnitude fewer). Renewable resources aren't going to be able to replace all energy generation even theoretically for a decade or two easy.

Heck, Coal puts out more radioactivity than Nuclear Power.
Just did some research to see if the conclusion was fair. Answer no. It fails to mention the fact that Denmark gets most of its energy from non-renewable sources.

Observed energy consumption is the registered energy consumption within a calendar year. In 2009 renewable energy covered 17.6% of total observed energy consumption, as opposed to 16.7% the year before. In 1990 this figure was 6.3%.

Source http://www.ens.dk/en-US/Info/FactsA...atistics/Documents/Energi Statistics 2009.pdf
 
Just did some research to see if the conclusion was fair. Answer no. It fails to mention the fact that Denmark gets most of its energy from non-renewable sources.

What are you talking about? They get less than 30% from renewable sources according to that.

Wind, solar, etc, can't handle baseline energy needs either. They fluctuate a lot over the course of a day, a week, a month, a year. Energy needs fluctuate a lot as well, but on a schedule that's completely unrelated. Without a method to efficiently store excess energy at peak energy production times, you can't have enough energy to cover peak energy need. Such a method for efficient energy storage does not yet exist.

Your Link said:
Increase in the share of renewable energy
Stated according to the EU’s method of calculation, the
share of renewable energy grew from 18.8% to
19.7%. In 2009, electricity from renewables accounted
for 27.4% of Danish domestic electricity supply. Of this
figure, wind power accounted for 18.3%.
 
Last edited:
Here are the two strongest policy recommendations I can find in the Hansen et al paper that got me started on this thread:
==quote http://arxiv.org/pdf/1110.1365 page 22, conclusions at the end==
Analysis of the economics and assessment of arguments for or against a rising carbon tax are provided in The Case for a Carbon Tax (Hsu, 2011). An across-the-board price on all fossil fuel CO2 emissions emerges as the simplest, easiest, fastest and most effective way to phase down carbon emissions, and this approach presents fewer obstacles to international agreement.
The chief obstacles to a carbon price are often said to be the political difficulty, given the enormous resources that interest groups opposing it can bring to bear, and the difficulty of getting the public to understand arcane economic issues. On the other hand, a simple, transparent, gradually rising fee on carbon emissions collected from fossil fuel companies with the proceeds distributed to the public is described succinctly by DiPeso (2010), Policy Director of Republicans for Environmental Protection.
==endquote==

So it looks like the Hansen et al authors like the carbon tax ideas that Shi-Ling Hsu describes in the book that just came out.

I'll quote a sample bit from Hansen et al http://arxiv.org/pdf/1110.1365
==excerpt from page 20==
...
...
Infectious disease spread.
The spread of infectious diseases is influenced by climate change in two ways: warming expands the geographic and temporal conditions conducive to transmission of vector-borne diseases (VBDs), while floods can leave “clusters” of mosquito-, water – and rodent-borne diseases (and spread toxins). With the ocean the repository for global warming and the atmosphere holding more water vapor, rain is increasing in intensity -- 7% overall in the U.S. since 1970, 2”/day rains 14%, 4”/day rains 20%, and 6”/day rains 27% since 1970 (Groisman et al., 2005), with multiple implications for health, crops and nutrition.
Tick-borne Lyme disease (LD) is the most important VBD in the U.S. LD case reports rose 8-fold in New Hampshire in the past decade and 10-fold in Maine (affecting all of its 16 counties). Warmer winters and disproportionate warming toward the poles mean that the changes in range are occurring faster than models based on changes in average temperatures project. Biological responses of vectors (and plants) to warming have generally been underestimated, and may be leading indicators of warming due to the disproportionate increase of winter minimum and high latitude temperatures.
Pests and disease spread across taxa: forests, crops and marine life.
Pests and diseases of forests, crops and marine life are favored in a warming world. Bark beetles are overwintering (absent sustained killing frosts) and expanding their range, and getting in more generations, while droughts in the West dry the resin that drowns the beetles as they try to drive through the bark. (Warming emboldens the pests while extremes weaken the hosts.) Forest health is also threatened in the Northeast U.S. (Asian Long-horned beetle and wooly adelgid of hemlock trees), setting the stage for increased wildfires with injury, death and air pollution, loss of carbon stores, and damage to oxygen and water supplies. In sum, forest pests threaten basic life support systems that underlie human health.
Crop pests and diseases are also encouraged by warming and extremes. Warming increases their potential range, while floods foster fungal growth and droughts favor whiteflies, aphid and locust. Higher CO2 also stimulates growth of agricultural weeds. More pesticides, herbicides and fungicides (where available) pose other threats to human health. Crop pests take up to 40% of yield annually, totaling ~$300 billion in losses (Pimentel)
Marine diseases (e.g., coral, sea urchin die-offs, and others), harmful algal blooms (from excess nutrients, loss of filtering wetlands, warmer seas and extreme weather events that trigger HABs by flushing nutrients into estuaries and coastal waters), plus the over 350 “dead zones” globally affect fisheries, thus nutrition and health.
Winter weather anomalies.
Increasing winter weather anomalies is a trend to be monitored. More winter precipitation is falling as rain rather than snow in the Northern Hemisphere, increasing the chances for ice storms, while greater atmospheric moisture increases the chances of heavy snowfalls. Both affect ambulatory health (orthopedics), motor vehicle accidents, cardiac disease and power outages with accompanying health effects.
Drought.
Droughts are increasing in frequency, intensity, duration, and geographic extent. Drought and water stress are major killers in developing nations, bringing disease outbreaks including water-borne cholera and mosquito-borne dengue fever (mosquitoes breed in stored water containers). Drought and higher CO2 increase the cyanide content of cassava, a staple food in Africa, leading to neurological disabilities and death.
Food insecurity.
Food insecurity is a major problem worldwide. Demand for meat, fuel prices, displacement of food crops with those grown for biofuels all contribute. But extreme weather events today are the acute driver. Russia’s extensive 2010 summer heat-wave (over six standard deviations from the norm, killing over 50,000) reduced wheat production ~40%; Pakistan and Australian floods in 2010 also affected wheat and other grains; and drought in China and the U.S. Southwest are boosting grain prices and causing shortages in many nations. Food riots are occurring in Uganda and Burkino Faso, and the food and fuel hikes may be contributing to the uprisings in North Africa and the Middle East. Food shortages and price hikes contribute to malnutrition that underlies much of poor health and vulnerability to infectious diseases. Food insecurity also leads to political instability, conflict and war.
==endquote==
 
I just wonder what the calculations and logic are behind this.

If you have a 1,000 megawatt nuclear reactor, you're running carbon-free 90% of the time.

If you have 1,000 megawatts of wind power capacity, you're running on coal or natural gas more than 60% of the time.

Wind and solar require conventional power stations to operate in reserve capacity for when the sun isn't shining and the wind isn't blowing. Even when the wind is blow and the sun is shining the backup stations are running at 10% to 20% of their full capacity so they can be quickly throttled up if the wind dies down.

When you have wind and solar, you are always burning even just a little bit of carbon. Not so with nuclear. Nuclear doesn't require fossil fuel crutches.
 
Just did some research to see if the conclusion was fair. Answer no. It fails to mention the fact that Denmark gets most of its energy from non-renewable sources.

First, the graphic I posted never said that either nation replaced 100% of their power generation.

Second, the reason Denmark gets most of their power from non-renewables is because they invested in wind rather than nuclear. Had they invested in nuclear, they would have been able to replace far more than a meager 17.6%.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom