by Tony Brown (tonyb)
This article assesses the impact of UK’s proposed climate change legislation.
“To achieve the target of an 80% reduction in (UK) carbon emissions by 2050 virtually all our electricity will need to come from clean sources.” – Gordon Brown, 2007
“(UK) Families will have to get used to only using power when it is available”-Steve Holliday, Chief Executive of National Grid- Sunday Times of 22 May 2011
Some months ago my colleague Ed Hoskins sent me an interesting paper he was writing, which at the time I was sceptical about. It concerned the virtually non- existent temperature reductions that would be achieved by following and exceeding the UK Governments climate change legislation that involves the rapid and progressive shutting down of most of our carbon economy. His study had added credibility, however, as he had run it past the eminent Prof Mackay who essentially appeared to agree with it. I had previously written about Professor Mackay, now Chief Scientist at the UK’s Department for Energy and Climate Change, so this reference intrigued me.
Ed’s paper has been re-written and refined over the past few months, but has particular relevance now as the UK Government wants to go out on a limb and enshrine in law further cuts beyond the current time horizon of 2020: this would be a unique commitment. A link to Ed’s entire paper can be found [here].
This policy has resulted in an explosion of anger from the UK business community over what the resultant policies and taxes would mean to them. TATA Steel is mothballing a steel mill, citing carbon taxes as one reason. This is occurring at the same time taxes are being progressively raised to pay for a raft of renewables, mostly based on wind farms, which the general public has to pay for. Add in other green taxes–fuel duty and air passenger duty amongst others– and the costs and restrictions of going green are being revealed to the British public, who seem to be the guinea pigs for much of the rest of the West.
That’s all well and good if you believe the world is heading for catastrophic warming through AGW. As a climate historian I don’t happen to agree, but even the most hardened green advocate must surely take pause and wonder if all our sacrifices–additional costs and restrictions on our lifestyle–are actually completely pointless IF Ed’s hypothesis is correct. An excerpt from Ed’s article:
“It seems that the UK government is expecting to spend about £32 billion, (~2.2% of UK GDP), according to the Stern Review [1], every year for the foreseeable future in order to achieve by the year 2100 at the absolute maximum global temperature reduction of ~0.0019°C, (less than 2 thousandths of a degree Centigrade). This temperature reduction would have to involve the total elimination of all future UK CO2 emissions. Any lesser goal for reduction as proposed could only be even less effective temperature wise. The Stern review was released in 2006, so as ever with government budgets the sum will have escalated since. If the UK is proposing to spend £32 billion ($50 billion) per annum to partially influence ~1.7% of world CO2 emissions, it means that the equivalent global spend could be as much as ~$3,000 billion per annum for the foreseeable future. At present this would amount to about ~4.5% of the global GDP, ($69,000 billion) to achieve a reduction in temperature for the whole World of 0.11 °C about 1/10 degree Centigrade, on the basis that all future CO2 emissions were eliminated.”
Before asking readers to deconstruct Ed’s paper [link here] it is useful to put in context the reality of changing from fossil fuel to renewables and the costs involved. Both myself and Ed are pro renewables. Eventually they will prove a worthwhile adjunct to other forms of power generation. However we are both against highly expensive and inefficient renewables that can’t begin to replace fossil fuel and will put a brake on the economic prosperity we have enjoyed –largely due to cheap plentiful power– since the Industrial revolution.
Introduction
In essence, we are being exhorted to change our lifestyle and switch to renewables in order to reduce emissions and keep temperatures below the 3 degree Centigrade increase projected from the doubling of C02 concentrations. This is calculated from the pre-industrial 280 ppm to the estimated 500 ppm or so that will likely be attained by the end of the Century. In order to provide aggressive carbon mitigation there is a body of opinion that believes there is an overriding aim to initially stabilise the concentrations and then subsequently reduce them to 350 ppm–generally considered a ‘safe’ level by 350.org whose luminaries include Dr. James Hansen and Al Gore.
These aims are expressed in this talk by Professor Bill McGuire who (to paraphrase) believes that if we are going to save the planet, we need to be free of carbon emissions within 50 years but will still see a 0 .6 degree C rise that is in the pipeline and can’t be avoided. 2-3 degrees Centigrade is certain unless emissions are cut to zero immediately. The expected equilibrium warming for 550 ppm is 2 to 4.5 C according to the IPCC. 1% of the world’s GDP could stabilise emissions at 500 ppm according to Lord Stern (subsequently increased to 2%.)
Anyone considering aggressive carbon mitigation policies–such as National Governments acting on the advice received from the UNFCCC/IPCC –that will have a huge and fundamental impact on their citizens lives would reasonably be expected to read the evidence and ask themselves a number of questions before embarking on a course of action- such as the following;
1. How much will implementing the carbon policies cost?
2. Do the UNFCCC /National Governments have the means to carry out its objectives-in this case to quickly implement viable alternatives to fossil fuels and thereby stabilise, then reduce, C02 concentrations?
3. How much temperature reduction (from that expected anyway) can be achieved by changing to renewables and dramatically changing our lifestyles, and does this merit the costs and actions resulting from enacting 1 and 2?
How much will implementing the carbon policies cost?
This is a basic question and one that surely should have received a great deal of attention from those eager to implement the actions needed. However, a basic cost benefit analysis seems to either not have been conducted, or those representing the views of the scientific ‘consensus’ seem reluctant to divulge the contents.
The following is from an interview between Andrew Bolt and Jill Duggan. Jill Duggan is from the European Commission’s Directorate General of Climate Action. She is the EC’s National Expert on Carbon Markets and Climate Change. She was head of Britain’s International Emissions Trading. (Additional nonpartisan profile here) As Bolt notes (March 2011):
AB: Can I just ask; your target is to cut Europe’s emissions by 20% by 2020?
JD: Yes.
AB: Can you tell me how much – to the nearest billions – is that going to cost Europe do you think?
JD: No, I can’t tell you but I do know that the modelling shows that it’s cheaper to start earlier rather than later, so it’s cheaper to do it now rather than put off action.
AB: Right. You wouldn’t quarrel with Professor Richard Tol – who’s not a climate sceptic – but is professor at the Economic and Social Research Institute in Dublin? He values it at about $250 billion. You wouldn’t quarrel with that?
JD: I probably would actually. I mean, I don’t know. It’s very, very difficult to quantify. You get different changes, don’t you? And one of the things that’s happening in Europe now is that many governments – such as the UK government and the German government – would like the targets to be tougher because they see it as a real stimulus to the economy.
AB: Right. Well you don’t know but you think it isn’t $250 billion.
JD: I think you could get lots of different academics coming up with lots of different figures “
The interview is well worth reading in full, but apparently no one in the UK Government, the EU or the UNFCCC/IPCC appears to have a clear idea of the full costs and implications of their policies–or have spelt it out to those who will have to pay for it, although we do have access to a few studies concerning the cost of carbon reduction, the most famous being that by the UK’s Lord Stern, who was responding to a brief from the UK’s treasury.
To achieve the aim of initial stabilization followed by an actual fall in emissions by the year 2020 by 20% the cost was estimated at some 2 to 5% of GDP in the initial period and an average of 1% over a 50 year period. (Higher mitigation targets involved dramatically higher costs) As it is the initial upfront costs that will concern people 2.5% of GDP each year for the next 10 years has been used as a bench mark of costs in the following table. This methodology also enables a reasonable like for like comparison with a Japanese study (referenced below). The Stern document was a nuanced report that claims cost savings would be greater than initial costs. Its aim was to eventually reduce emissions in the UK to half of the 1990 figures.
This study correlated with a much quoted UK government mitigation cost of £18 billion per annum over 40 years, which in hindsight appear substantially understated. Stern is referring to an eventual target of a global figure of one tonne emissions average per person per year, a reduction of 80% by developed countries by 2050, and assumes all countries will join in with varying degrees of carbon mitigation (this was before the Copenhagen summit).
This governmental report from Japan in 2009 estimates a US$515 billion cost for Japan over a 10 year period (i.e. $51 Billion per year with ongoing costs after that) this includes the cost of the infrastructure needed–such as the building of solar power and insulation–which would continue to provide benefit after the ten year period. The report estimated that this equated to an ongoing extra cost for each householder of some US$800 per year, a rise in unemployment and an effect on the competitiveness of industry.
Note: Japan subsequently withdrew from the Kyoto protocol following the publication of this report (but remain committed to a 25% reduction in emissions) Canada and Russia also withdrew at the Cancun summit.
Other cost estimates include those from Lomborg at a global cost of $150 billion per annum.
The estimates from government are taken at face value, although such costs do have a habit of being far larger than originally expected, and we are into unknown territory with a social, technological and environmental experiment to be undertaken that dwarfs any other joint human venture in history. Increasing human population and greater need for energy as countries develop will also all impact on emission levels and costs.
A table has been compiled [link] showing world population, gross carbon emissions by country and per head for the main emitters, the likely cost of a carbon reduction programme by head and per country, assuming a 20% overall reduction (effectively a 10% reduction as half goes into a carbon sink)
So we now know the likely costs for achieving a 20% overall reduction, which as mentioned by many parties is considered nowhere near enough. The UK’s Climate Change Act 2008 set legally binding emission reduction targets for 2020 (reduction of 34 percent in greenhouse gas emissions) and for 2050 (reduction of at least 80 percent in greenhouse gas emissions), and introduced five-yearly carbon budgets to help ensure those targets are met.
Is the enterprise feasible — can we change to renewables?
I am something of a fan of the idea of renewables, indeed I wrote a piece on Wave Energy that was published in ‘Energy and Environment’ journal last year. Frankly, it depressed me to realise how inefficient, costly and expensive renewables currently are. Wave energy is currently at a very low level of development compared to wind power-which explains why the UK’s energy policy is so heavily dependent on the latter-they really are the only game in town if legally enshrined emission limits are to be achieved.
In order to make renewables competitive, the price of all other forms of energy are being ratcheted drastically upwards to enable them to compete on a level playing field. This will be alarming news for Britons who seem to be at the sharp end of environmental tax increases. Ask any Briton about the eye watering cost of fuel for their cars (around US$10.40 for a gallon of petrol (gas) and the expense of heating their homes. My heating bill has gone up 40% in three years (ironically partly caused by a longer heating season as temperatures have plummeted in the UK over the last five years-I am not claiming this to be a trend.) Costs are expected to at least double over the next five in order to provide a subsidy for renewables and create this level playing field the Government seeks.
I mentioned at the outset that my initial interest was sparked by my renewal with the work of Professor Mackay who presumably secured his position as Chief Scientist at DECC not only on his academic qualifications, but through his understanding of the UK’s energy requirements.
In an article I wrote two years ago on the politics of climate change I referenced the following comment;
“Setting fire to chemicals like gas should be made a thermodynamic crime,” he said. “If people want heat they should be forced to get it from heat pumps. That would be a sensible piece of legislation.”
Now let it be mentioned immediately that Professor Mackay seems an eminently sensible person not given to outrageous statements, but presumably says things that chime with the climate establishment, which is why he is where he is now. His comment here reeks of common sense:
“Take, for example, the idea that one of the top 10 things you should do to make a difference to your energy consumption is to unplug your cell-phone charger when you are not using it. The truth is that leaving a phone charger plugged in uses about 0.01 kWh per day, 1/100th of the power consumed by a light bulb.”
And this:
“This means that switching the phone charger off for a whole day saves the same energy as is used in driving an average car for one second. Switching off phone chargers is like bailing the Titanic with a teaspoon. I’m not saying you shouldn’t unplug it, but please realize, when you do so, what a tiny fraction it is of your total energy footprint.”
“In total, the European lifestyle uses 125 kWh per day per person for transport, heating, manufacturing, and electricity. That’s equivalent to every person having 125 light bulbs switched on all the time. The average American uses 250 kWh per day: 250 light bulbs.”
It is clear that what he thinks and says matters, as the Department of Energy and Climate Change is an important department of the British Government, responsible for all aspects of UK energy policy, and is tasked with tackling global climate change on behalf of the UK (hence the mission to Australia as exemplified by Jill Duggan’s interview above). The UK has assumed leadership of the climate community in the absence of any direction from the US over many years, so by implication what the UK says and does matters.
As Prof Mackay said on his appointment:
“Climate change and secure energy are two of the most urgent issues facing the UK and the global community. The solutions must be rooted firmly in the science and I look forward to advising the government on how it can help deliver these important goals.”
Speaking on his first day as Chief scientist at DECC, Mackay set out a vision of how Britain could generate the threefold increase in electricity it needs, with nuclear power at its heart and expanded on his ideas on energy here.
Probably one of the elements that helped secure his current position is that he wrote a very good book on renewable energy options from which the quotes above-and those below- were originally taken . Available here online for free:
“Among all the energy-supply technologies, the three with the biggest potential today are solar power, wind power and nuclear power.
As a thought-experiment, let’s imagine that technology switches and lifestyle changes manage to halve American energy consumption to 125 kWh per day per person. How big would the solar, wind and nuclear facilities need to be to supply this halved consumption? For simplicity, let’s imagine getting one-third of the energy supply from each.
To supply 42 kWh per day per person from solar power requires roughly 80 square meters per person of solar panels.
To deliver 42 kWh per day per person from wind for everyone in the United States would require wind farms with a total area roughly equal to the area of California, a 200-fold increase in United States wind power.
To get 42 kWh per day per person from nuclear power would require 525 one-gigawatt nuclear power stations, a roughly five-fold increase over today’s levels.
I hope these numbers convey the scale of action required to put in place a sustainable energy solution. What about tidal power? What about wave power? What about geothermal energy, biofuels or hydroelectricity? In a short article, I can’t discuss all the technology options.
But the sober message about wind and solar applies to all renewables: All renewables, much as I love them, deliver only a small power per unit area, so if we want renewable facilities to supply power on a scale at all comparable to our consumption, those facilities must be big.
If you don’t want to build 1 million wind turbines, you can drill 1 million geothermal boreholes instead.”
Recently the subject of renewables was debated on this Climate Etc. thread;
“It turns out, to get on a trajectory to hit 450 ppm, we’re going to need to turn off most of our fossil fuel energy, end deforestation, and build about 11.5 new terawatts of clean energy capacity by 2033 (30 years out from the 2003 baseline).”
Judith Curry’s interest had been sparked by the study that was referenced here. The full slide show is here.
To fully understand the costs and scale of replacing fossil fuel with renewables it is desirable to read Professor Mackay’s energy article and those highlighted in Climate Etc. and Grist, all referenced above.
Grist’s inelegant title says it all “gobsmackingly gargantuan challenge of shifting to clean energy.’ So in examining the financial element and the challenges of the cost benefit analysis we are able to determine that the costs are vast and the challenge of moving to renewables appears beyond our present capabilities. Which leads us to perhaps the most interesting part of the three questions I posed at the start of this article.
3 What temperature reduction can be achieved?
Professor Mackay takes centre stage again as he has agreed to the publishing of the original reply he gave to an email by my colleague Ed Hoskins, who had posed a question to him.
Dear Ed Hoskins,
In response to your correspondence.
Where is the flaw in this logic?
Greenhouse Effect = +33.00⁰C Water Vapour causes 95% of the effect = 31.35⁰C Other Greenhouse gasses cause 5% of the Effect = 1.65⁰C CO2 is about 75% of the Effect of all GHGs = 1.24⁰C Total worldwide Man-made CO2 is about 7% of atmospheric CO2 = 0.086⁰C So closure of the world carbon economy could only result reducing the Greenhouse Effect by 86 thousandths ⁰C. The UK contribution to Man-made CO2 is ~2% = 0.00174⁰C .So closure of the total UK carbon economy could only result reducing the Greenhouse effect by 1740 millionths ⁰C.
The following response has been made: flaws are marked (*)
Greenhouse Effect = +33.00⁰C Water Vapour causes 95% of the effect = 31.35⁰C Other Greenhouse gases cause 5% of the Effect = 1.65⁰C CO2 is about 75% of the Effect of all GHGs = 1.24⁰C
Total worldwide Man-made CO2 is about 7% of atmospheric CO2 = 0.086⁰C
* Nope, steady emissions lead to CO2 concentration rising.
So closure of the world carbon economy could only result in reducing the Greenhouse Effect by 86 thousandths ⁰C. The UK contribution to Man-made CO2 is ~2% = 0.00174⁰C. So closure of the total UK carbon economy could only result reducing the Greenhouse effect by 1740 millionths ⁰C.
* Well, that’s “the tragedy of the commons”. You can always argue that it is fine for you to be antisocial because you are just one person. But there are other views of ethics, leadership, pollution. London doesn’t have smog any more, and that’s thanks to all 7 million people all following the lead of whoever went first.
Yours sincerely,
David MacKay, Cavendish Laboratory
In other words Professor Mackay appeared to give tacit agreement to the generality of the figures, but that we must all make sacrifices for the common good, even though on the surface it appears that we can make no practical difference to temperature.
At our suggestion Ed carried out some more work on his initial calculations and sourced figures from CDIAC which gave a somewhat higher figure than the ones he originally used in the communication above and which consequently altered the temperature reductions that could be achieved through aggressive mitigation and which are detailed in Ed’s article below.
Before reproducing the article it appears on the surface that the uncomfortable answers from an examination of the cost benefit analysis would lead us to conclude:
- Either the full practicalities of aggressive carbon mitigation hasn’t been properly thought through or the detailed cost benefit analysis has been deliberately obscured.
- The costs are startling at around $1000 per head per year and likely to escalate under real world conditions.
- The actual temperature reduction-if the figures are correct- is vanishingly small even if the global carbon economy was completely eliminated. This is impossible to achieve, so by any reasonable measure the reductions that will be achieved, with considerable pain and cost, by those participating Governments -mostly in the West- are so tiny as to be virtually impossible to comprehend.
- The technology does not appear to exist that would enable us to move to renewables.
So it appears we are being asked to consider ‘the tragedy of the commons’ as the basis for our carbon reduction plans, based on an incomplete understanding of the component parts of this complex jigsaw.
Several things came into my mind whilst writing this article.
- Are we being driven by over zealous environmentalists who want to ‘save’ the earth at any cost?
- Is this vast enterprise being promoted largely by politicians who see this as an excuse to raise taxes and exert more control?
- Is it being driven by sincere people who have not been apprised of all the facts of the enterprise they are promoting?
- Are Ed’s figures totally incorrect and we can actually have a much greater impact on temperature mitigation than appears to be the case?
This is where readers of this blog can help, as the intention is to have a version two of this article that takes into account expert opinion. So I am asking this question of those able to make the calculations;
Question: Temperatures are expected to rise by 3 degree Centigrade because of actions we have already taken. If the world collectively closed down their carbon economies what temperature reduction could be achieved?
a) By 2100
b) By 2200
(Please describe your calculations together with caveats or provide a reference/link.)
Note: This is NOT a discussion on whether this 3 degree figure has any merit in the first place. For those without the background that would enable them to make the calculations, I would pose two rather more philosophical questions;
- In future, precisely how and where do we get the cheap and plentiful energy that has been the cornerstone of our growing prosperity since the industrial revolution? The events in Japan have thrown up the whole subject of energy contribution from nuclear back into the melting point, a key part of Mackay’s energy mix. Similarly, the events in the Middle East demonstrate the volatility of supply and the costs of oil. Whatever your feelings about the reality or not of global warming, should we be investing this sort of money anyway in order to develop alternative sources of energy needed to keep the lights on and ensure security of supply against disruption?
- Should we reintroduce fossil fuels-coal/shale gas etc- back into the energy mix, perhaps as an interim measure for the next thirty years whilst renewables are developed into a viable energy solution?
Footnote: In his Budget of March 23 2011 the UK Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne confirmed that the UK would become the first country in the world to impose a carbon floor price. It is designed to ensure the price on carbon imposed through the EU emissions trading scheme does not fall below a set level. He said the floor price would start at £16 per tonne in 2013 and rise to £30 a tonne by 2020. However, experts were divided on the effectiveness of the new floor price. Many warn it will not be high enough to drive significant increases in low-carbon investment, while others predict it will deliver a major windfall in excess of £1bn a year to existing nuclear power plants.
Reminder: in case you missed it the first time through, here is the linkfor Ed Hoskins’ paper.
Since there is no direct link of warming to man-made co2, no linear equations or understanding of the key inputs why should we conclude that all the talking points to the opposite are politically driven nonsense??
Show me any large system exposed to sunlight with a difference in co2 and what the temps might be. The only reason co2 is the focus is the eco-green narrative and the ability to tax and regulate.
It’s socially sad but it isn’t real science.
CWON 1 – but if the objective is to reduce CO2 it can’t be about tax, because you actually end up collecting less tax by that method. The use of ETS is also about getting rid of regulation – if the market enables a reduction in CO2, you don’t need to prescribe technologies or issue guidelines and it enables opportunities for additional profits and rewards. The easiest way to develop a tax narrative is via income tax increases for the very wealthy – you can easily sell this to the 51% of voters you need more easily than the technical details about energy security, environmental discourse, science and uncertainty, precautionary principles, climate policy stabalisation assessment, green legacies, global trading schemes, UN COP frameworks ALL of which have to be defended for the policy framework to be politically feasible.
It is hardly “sneaking a tax in by the back door” even assuming that the green left are that subtle.
http://mitigatingapathy.blogspot.com/
Ah, but it’s so hard to fight the wealth. So much easier to tax everyone and take control of the lower classes and their property.
The problem with an ETS is that it is not a CO2 reduction system, it is a trading system. It works fine when there is a low cost alternative such as the switch to low sulphur fuels. However there is no low cost alternative to fossil fuels.
Thus, as we have seen with Kyoto, the end result is simply a shift in manufacturing from countries with high cost power to countries with low cost power. Since the countries with low cost power are burning coal while the countries with high cost power are using less CO2 intensive energy supplies, the net result is a gobal increase in CO2.
In other words, the UK can cut CO2 by raising the cost of power production. This will drive manufacturing from the UK to countries like China, where the manufacturing will be done with coal as the low cost power source. Then when the UK imports the manufactured good back, they have effectively imported the CO2 as well. The only thing that won’t come back are the manufacturing jobs lost and the loss of tax revenue.
The science isn’t there, but the plan will go forward anyway.
Conclusion: We live in interesting times!
Oliver K. Manuel
Bjorn Lomberg argues in favor of greener energy research as the most efficient way to spend money to fix the problem.
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/counterpoint/stories/2011/3160416.htm
The notion of “revenge” as a business principle is juvenile. It’s a sign of people who don’t understand how business decisions are made and why. Another timely example is the controversy over Boeing building a 787 line in South Carolina. The NRLB complaint alleges that, in effect, Boeing is doing it out of revenge.
Sorry, revenge is a Chicago political thing. It’s a luxury that real business can’t afford.
This comment ended up out of order, and was supposed to be one down.
In Chicago, it is more subtle than revenge. If your ward voted in opposition to the city’s rulers, your streets did not get the curbs fixed.
The key is political allocation. It comes in three forms: 1) Direct grants of a scarce resource (waivers to SF, ownership to selected unions ala GM, etc.), 2) Subsidies and rebates to favored groups (ethanol, disaster assistance, etc.), and 3) Restriction / punishment of unfavored entities (ANWR, offshore oil exploration, CAFE standards, employers, etc.)
The Copenhagen Consensus 2008 ranking shows on a benefit/cost ratio that research into “low carbon energy technologies” comes in 14th out of the 30 largest humanitarian projects. Mitigating global warming comes in dead last.
Lomborg then set up a Copenhagen Consensus on Climate to research these economics in more detail. See http://fixtheclimate.com/
They recommend research into better ways to provide renewable energy and to control climate as most cost effective. As before, a carbon tax comes in dead last.
So why are we letting fear mongers push us into mandating the worst options with the greatest costs and least benefits, in the name of “saving” the planet?
This proposed “cure” appears far worse then all realistic climate projections – especially when both natural cooling and warming trends are accounted for.
Our greatest challenge is liquid transport fuels. Globally we need about 2 trillion barrels of liquid fuel over the next 40 years. We have already used 1 trillion in light crude and have 1 trillion left. The next trillion barrels must come from new fuels. We are in serious danger of rapidly shutting down our economies for lack of developing new transport fuels fast enough. Existing oil production will be depleting at about 6.5%/year – while population continues to grow at 1.5%/year. So we will need about 8%/year in further light oil and in new fuels just to maintain global supply.
This is particularly critical for oil importing countries that will be cut off from oil exports at about twice the rate of the global decline in available transport fuels.
We have already seen the beginnings of this financial shaking in the 2008/9 economic crisis that was directly caused by the “plateauing” of crude oil production in 2005 after rising by 1 million barrels/day for twenty years in a row (from Non-OPEC peaking and OPEC cutting back production). This has far greater economic impact than some small trend in sea level which we can accommodate over time.
Now I am all for cost effective renewable energy. I believe there are ways to make it far more cost effective etc. Research into making renewable fuels cheaper than petroleum, and transitioning to new fuels should be our highest focus – not some doom and gloom cap and trade or carbon tax.
“Cap and trade” or a “carbon tax” to mitigate catastrophic anthropogenic global warming (CAGW) (aka “climate change”) is the biggest hole in the ground ever conceived in which to bury our wealth and starve the poor. OPEC will continue laughing all the way to the bank over our misdirected policies.
Everyone burying their resources instead of stewardship with good returns on investment while caring for the poor will be called to account.
This buys into the fallacy that co2 is a “problem” instead of a trace and harmless gas.
The side topics of say so2 etc. that are placed on the eco-fringe backburner are telling, total carbon regulation and controls expose the Soviet inclination of the green agw culture. It isn’t really about green eco fantasy but social domination of statism over individuals.
cwon1
But that is too politically incorrect. Thus advocate what is most cost effective.
Exactly the sort of pandering and lack of confidence that has brought the fraud to this point.
green economic thinking…
When TATA announced 1500 job losses at least partly due to the Carbon Tax one environmentally minded indvidual thought it was ‘revenge’ for Carbon Budgets and Climate Change Act. Then again Bryony is also a board member of the 10:10 campaign, whose excellent judgement gave us the ‘No Pressure’ video.
bryworthington Bryony Worthington
@sandbagorguk RT @BBCBreaking Steel giant Tata believed to be planning to cut around 1,500 jobs at three sites <<revenge for the c budgets?
20 May
http://twitter.com/#!/bryworthington/status/71503936401580032
Not 'revenge' Baroness Worthington, it is called economics, the carbon taxes introduced will make it uneconomic to produce here, it will relocate abroad… this is an inevitable consequence of a unilateral tax in a global economy, pity no MP or lobbyist seems to realise it.
But what does Baroness Bryony know about the consequences economically, she is only good friends with Ed Milliband (Labour party leader, former Minister for Energy and Climate Change) Ed made Bryony a Baroness for her work on the Climate Change Act
http://www.realclimategate.org/2010/11/climate-connections-an-alarmist-in-the-houses-of-parliament/
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/8527850/Breastfeeding-baroness-launches-quiet-modernisation-of-House-of-Lords.html
"Bryony Worthington’s appointment as a peer at such a young age was something of a surprise to her — even though she knows Ed Miliband, the Labour leader, well and played a key role helping him, as energy secretary, write the 2008 Climate Change Act.
She was director of the carbon trading think-tank and campaign group Sandbag, which she founded. She has also been a policy adviser to Scottish and Southern Electricity.
"I think Ed Miliband wanted to do something different and I was glad to accept [the working peerage] but it’s not something I was expecting," she said. "Most things you really strive for in life but this just sort of landed on my plate and it’s great privilege."
—–
This is the type of thinking that cause me great concern for the UK's energy Policy and Businesses. – revenge!?
Also, a note to David Mckay. The UK public will not accept having electricity when it is available. If only because our next door neighbours, the French will be using electricity when ever they want to (~80% Nuclear), might the public ask, Are we not a 1st world economy, can we not have the same reliable electricity as the French?
Not ‘revenge’ Baroness Worthington, it is called economics, the carbon taxes introduced will make it uneconomic to produce here, it will relocate abroad… this is an inevitable consequence of a unilateral tax in a global economy, pity no MP or lobbyist seems to realise it.
Indeed. It’s often referred to as “squeezing the balloon” and it’s a phenomenon politicians worldwide seem to have problems understanding.
A dose of political and physical energy realities will help to obtain perspective:
International Energy Agency:
As the mathematics of the mass balance does not lie, there is simply no question that the dimwitted efforts of the Western world will have no impact on worldwide CO2 emissions. Might as well spit in the ocean to raise the levels of the seas.
So what-in-the-sam-hill is the motivation of the “green” community? Socialists and leftists attempting to take more control. Yes, it really is that simple.
I totally agree.
The fact that we live in a society intimidated and frankly under-educated on general science and finance topics brought the evil this far. There are just large sections of people who will differ to self-proclaimed experts on a variety of technical or science opinions. The wild claims of progressive intellectual superiority on almost all policy topics is glaring on the agw offensive of the past 30 years. Leftist culture has with some success purged the educational community and university life as well as the traditional enclaves of media of all types to extend the canard of agw to this degree. It’s somewhat surprising that a tiny science fringed (IPCC) linked to none other the U.N. achieved the levels of credit during the peak Gore run (circa 2006-09). There is a certain cultural weakness in conservative circles that left this blind spot open. Conservatives seem unwilling to counter legislate or mandate based on their basic principals of individual rights. More often then not they choose to leave the room rather than argue. Hense conservatives are missing in many professions and fields that become tools for the leftist agenda. Main stream media, attorney’s, government workers, union based teachers etc. and of course the radical left cult that dominates the IPCC and flys under the radar too often. Government based and compensated rent seekers and agenda setters are a core issue of agw fraud and manipulation.
Brutal as it may be exposing the cummulative email and research records will be the best way cure the true problem which isn’t co2. Climategate was but a small sample of what many understand as common place.
Britain has no choice given the current and increasing reliance on North Sea gas for electricity production. They will need to transition to a greater use of nuclear energy relatively quickly and one may as well make a virtue of necessity.
‘In the frigid opening days of 2009, Britain’s electricity demand peaked at 59 gigawatts (GW). Just over 45% of that came from power plants fuelled by gas from the North Sea. A further 35% or so came from coal, less than 15% from nuclear power and the rest from a hotch-potch of other sources. By 2015, assuming that modest economic growth resumes, a reasonable guess is that Britain will need around 64GW to cope with similar conditions. Where will that come from?’ http://www.economist.com/node/14167834
As far as surface temperature is concerned – the Royal Society said that climate change is the result of ordered forcing and internal climate variability as a result of climate being an example of a chaotic system. I think we might need to calculate internal climate variability to predict surface temperature that far out.
The focus on surface temperature is nonsense at any rate. The surface temperature responds to energy transfer between the oceans and atmosphere which varies dynamically as a result of changes in sea surface temperature. The heat in the total system remains the same regardless of rises and dips in surface temperature record. For example – unless there is a fundamentally different mechanism involved – the PDO and ENSO merely redistributes heat between oceans and atmosphere and there is no net effect on global warming or cooling at all. Looking at the surface temperature record alone is very misguided.
Likwise – using simple linear equations to calculate surface temperature changes is a fundamentally misguided approach to understanding climate dynamics. It is much the same as the economic principle of caeteris paribus. It relies on all other things remaining the same – which is guaranteed not to be the case.
Shale gas will free the UK from importing gas for 50 years.
‘The U.K.’s onshore shale gas resources could be as much as 150 billion cubic meters, equivalent to 1.5 years of total U.K. gas consumption, based on British Geological Survey estimates.’
“Offshore reserves may be much higher and, while more costly to recover, could potentially deliver self-sufficiency in gas for the U.K.,” Yeo said.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-05-23/igas-jumps-to-2-month-high-on-coal-bed-methane-drilling-plans.html
Underwater frakking for gas? Perhaps nuclear is a better option.
50 years of no imports:
“The US EIA report of April 2011 for example estimate UK recoverable resources, which almost invariably increase as time progresses, at 20TCF or 566.33 BCM or over 6 years of total use. But the impact on gas prices would be far greater, since 2009 LNG imports were just over 10 BCM. So the conservative EIA figure means no LNG imports at all for over 50 years.”
http://www.nohotair.co.uk/component/content/article/141-energy-policy/1975-uk-shale-resources.html
This is a stupid calculation as it involves 50 years of gas from the north sea – that is it displaces a relatively minor import of expensive gas.
6 years of total use – but the Economist said 1.5 based on information from the British Geological Survey.
50 years of imports using a realistic figure or 15 years of imports if you use a very conservative figure.
However …
“The Marcellus had reserve estimates in January 2007 of 5 Tcf but 50 Tcf by December the same year.”
“The Barnett shale produced zero gas in 2002 but enough in Q3 2010 to supply the entire annual gas use of Sweden and Switzerland combined from Fort Worth’s Tarrant County alone.”
http://www.energytribune.com/articles.cfm/7415/Shale-Gas-LNG–the-Coming-Impact-of-Wet-Shale
I’m slightly familiar with the Tata steel mothballing case mentioned.
Wasn’t the decision to mothball made some time ago due the economic downturn, inability to generate new orders, loss of contracts with German industry due mainly to the recession, and far lower cost of labor offshore where TATA is based, with a lucrative and generous cap & trade allowance foregone because even with the wide open loopholes that amount to government subsidy of coal they couldn’t make a case to stay open?
Wouldn’t this in point of fact make, “TATA Steel is mothballing a steel mill, citing carbon taxes as one..” farfetched and insignificant “..reason”?
There are still ways of moving forward on carbon reduction – and I don’t really want to go through the no harm is proved argument yet again. The no proof of harm is proof of no harm argument is the logical fallacy of argumentum in ignorantum. Running this argument is a nonsense.
The immediate solutions are to continue to increase carbon intensity of production and efficiency in energy use, decrease black carbon and tropospheric ozone, increase global access to safe water and sanitation, education and health services, economic growth and good corporate governance, restore and conserve ecosystems and agricultural soils, fund more basic research in energy sources.
To say that there is one solution is as misguided as saying that the solution won’t
work and therefore nothing should be attempted. It is a false dichotomy when there are multiple solutions to multiple problems.
Chief
You have described a very logical set of “solutions”.
Let’s reword all this and say that we want to improve energy efficiency and reduce waste and real pollution wherever we can, we want to move away from ever scarcer and costlier fossil fuels, particularly those that have to be imported from a price-fixing cartel of nations that are generally hostile to us and we want to develop new domestic sources of energy, be that shale oil and gas, new biofuels (not silly corn-to-ethanol schemes) and other renewable energy sources, etc.
These are all solutions to a potential energy crunch “problem”.
But let’s don’t come up with silly, non-productive schemes like direct or indirect carbon taxes or carbon capture and storage in the hopes of thereby solving a “non-problem”.
Max
Chief
Sorry, in this post Fukushima period of fear, I forgot to mention nuclear power as one of the alternate solutions, including fast breeder technology with thorium to reduce the nuclear waste problem and (longer term) nuclear fusion.
Max
Where have you misunderstood me? The British have no choice – expensive gas or nuclear for much of their future energy requirements – which they need to pay for through putting a price floor under energy costs. I would not recommend it for anyone else.
Cheap gas is coming no matter how many lies you tell.
Chief
Believe we agree on technical solutions that the UK faces, now that its N. Sea oil/gas is playing out (even if the current government there does not, according to Tony Brown).
But I do not believe a “carbon tax” (direct or indirect) will accomplish anything, if that is what you mean by “putting a price floor under energy costs”. The “price floor” will happen soon enough all by itself as fossil fuels become scarcer.
Max
No harm? Warmer is BETTER. Less winter mortality. Longer growing season. And on an on.
Besides, haven’t environmentalists killed enough people with the DDT ban?
Now you want to make energy so expensive millions will die in winter?
You want to cause HARM! You and your ilk are evil.
Bruce
Winter mortality?
But isn’t winter mortality higher in warmer countries? EG Portugal vs. Iceland?
So wouldn’t warming probably lead to higher winter mortality?
Longer growing seasons may be beneficial.. but wait.
Longer growing seasons with only small changes in last and first frosts, higher irrigation demand due heat and higher chance of excess rain.. doesn’t that make for more crop failures, more expensive food, a shift to higher value cash crops (which may have lower food value or feed fewer but wealthier people), and a shift of agricultural areas away from the equator, resulting in costly changes in farm viability and land use?
And DDT bans killed who, exactly?
Can you name them?
Where they lived, how they were killed?
What date?
Which specific ban directly led to their death?
I’d be glad if you could supply some direct, specific, true facts on this claim, because I keep hearing this DDT ban claim, and looking into it, and every time the light of skeptical inquiry shines on it it shrivels up and vanishes.
“In the winter period (December to March) of 2009/10 there were an estimated 25,400 more deaths in England and Wales, compared with the average for the non-winter period (see definition below). This was a decrease of 30 per cent compared with the number in the previous winter, but is slightly higher than the level seen in 2007/08.”
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=574
“There are some 300 to 500 million reported cases of malaria each year, 90% occurring in Africa. According to the World Health Organization (WHO), about two and a half million people die of the disease each year, again, mostly in Africa, the majority of them poor children. Indeed, malaria is the second leading cause of death in Africa (after AIDS) and the number one killer of children there (with about one child being lost to malaria every thirty seconds). ”
“n India, malaria deaths went from nearly a million in 1945 to only a few thousand in 1960. In what is now Sri Lanka, malaria cases went from 2,800,000 in 1948, before the introduction of DDT, down to 17 in 1964 — then, tragically, back up to 2,500,000 by 1969, five years after DDT use was discontinued there.”
http://www.acsh.org/healthissues/newsid.442/healthissue_detail.asp
The DDT ban was mass murder. DDT, Communism and Naziism in that order.
Bruce,
Chief is many things, but ‘liar’ and ‘evil’ he is not.
In the current age,the first person to toss out references to ‘nazi’ loses the discussion. So you basically scored a goal against yourself.
You had no need to use that reference. It detracted, along with your over-the-top characterization to Chief, from some otherwise good points.
Banning DDT, even if it has been as detrimental as its harshest critics claim, is not the equivalent of genocidal ideologies.
You would have been better off simply referencing some of the credible critiques of the DDT ban than to personalize this so so much. Particularly against someone who is so rigorous, like Chief.
I’ll cut Bruce some slack on this one. Bart R asked him to identify the deaths caused by the DDT ban. After compiling a brief list that could only scratch the surface, it is understandable for one’s BP to rise and to rank the DDT ban with other documented cases of mass murder. I’ll grant him a point.
You say it was not equivalent of genocidal ideologies. Can we agree that mass murder and genocides have always started off with actions that claimed a greater good?
Stephen,
Yes, to do great evil, one must convince one’s self they are doing a great good.
And yes, incompetence and stupidity can easily be as deadly deliberate choice.
But there is a difference.
Irt BP, I am certainly one whose bp can be variable.
As Jesus predicted:
John 16:2
If your policy kills more people than Naziism you can point it out as a valid comparison point.
“Banning DDT, even if it has been as detrimental as its harshest critics claim, is not the equivalent of genocidal ideologies.”
Yes it is.
If the DDT ban was reversed within a year or 2 of malaria rates climbing again, of course they would not be the same. Leaving the ban in place was genocide.
Bruce, you comment ran afoul of an incomplete understanding of Godwin’s Law. Actually, it is pertinent and therefore applicable. If folks object, try “National Socialist”. Mass murder is a characteristic of tyrannies enforcing the “common good”.
Various. Source List and Detailed Death Tolls for the Primary Megadeaths of the Twentieth (Century). http://necrometrics.com/20c5m.htm
References to:
30 Worst Atrocities of the 20th Century: The Hemoclysm http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/atrox.htm
Question: Who was the Bloodiest Tyrant of the 20th Century? http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/tyrants.htm
Source List and Detailed Death Tolls for Man-made Multicides throughout History http://necrometrics.com/warstats.htm
And more.
There are a couple of problems with your argument Bart. Bruce’s contention about warming is hopelessly simple minded. Warming is not necessary at all – changes in cloud, ice, thermohaline circulation, vegetation etc could in fact cool Britain substantially.
‘The research suggests that once temperature rises above some threshold, adverse weather conditions could develop relatively abruptly, with persistent changes in the atmospheric circulation causing drops in some regions of 5-10 degrees Fahrenheit in a single decade. Paleoclimatic evidence suggests that altered climatic patterns could last for as much as a century, as they did when the ocean conveyor collapsed 8,200 years ago, or, at the extreme, could last as long as 1,000 years as they did during the Younger Dryas, which began about 12,700 years ago.’ http://www.s-e-i.org/pentagon_climate_change.pdf
Now there are a few people around who feel it can’t happen – but this is based on gut feeling and I am suitably contemptuous.
But even if the planet warms – surely this should lead to more summer mortalities than winter. But indeed, the winter mortalities tend to weed out the weakest individuals with a corresponding decrease in summer mortality – you have to die of something. http://www.ersj.org.uk/content/33/2/245.full.pdf
But really, Bruce’s solution for Britain is underwater frakking in off-shore shale deposits. An expensive and untried technology? This emerged from my comment above that Britain had no choice but to tax and move more into nuclear energy. They need to do it and one may as well make a virtue of necessity. Mind you some of their other options include improving the energy efficiency of the housing stock – as is happening on a large scale. This will save on energy costs for the most vulnerable and the rest can look after themselves. They have limited options and need to make the best of it.
As far as I know, I don’t have an ilk, evil or otherwise. I am an equal opportunity insulter of fools on both sides. I quoted this before from ‘The Wrong Trousers’.
‘Although it has failed to produce its intended impact nevertheless the Kyoto Protocol has performed an important role. That role has been allegorical. Kyoto has permitted different groups to tell different stories about themselves to themselves and to others, often in superficially scientific language. But, as we are increasingly coming to understand, it is often not questions about science that are at stake in these discussions. The culturally potent idiom of the dispassionate scientific narrative is being employed to fight culture wars over competing social and ethical values. Nor is that to be seen as a defect. Of course choices between competing values are not made by relying upon scientific knowledge alone. What is wrong is to pretend that they are.’ Ah – the foolish tin soldiers of the climate wars.
For Bruce’s benefit I will bring up the 2010 Hartwell Paper again – http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/27939/ We need to move beyond the simple arguments expressed in utterly simple minded idioms of science, beyond the tax or no tax – an unwinnable argument at best – to creative solutions.
The DDT problem is an interesting case in the problem of technology policy. Increasingly, humans are creating more powerful and problematical technologies. Humans being such technological creatures – I am looking forward to the first DIY gene splicing article in Popular Science. The question arises about the rational progress of very powerful technologies from the laboratory to the real world – what are the things that need to be known about the risks involved and how long is needed for an adequate knowledge base to be developed.
It is apparent that not enough was known about the risks of DDT at the time – which are now apparently fairly minor except for raptors. We now know that indoor use is mostly innocuous – although there is still some argument on auto immune problems. It was approved for residual effect interior surface dusting by the WHO in 2007. There is equally little doubt that there was a campaign of fear and loathing by hippies in the west. My wife was worried for decades about health risks of DDT spraying in her village – which stopped at some time in the 1970’s. The only risk was to her clan totem the sea eagle – but I am fairly confident that the lack of cheap alternatives to DDT resulted in deaths from malaria. If you like – I will ask for some names?
It parallels the progress of nuclear energy – it was absolutely insane to pursue nuclear power in any significant sense while there were so many open questions about the technology and when it was so outrageously expensive. There are now good solutions to safety and waste.
Chief
Well done.
Bruce flat out calls you evil and your entire ilk, and you, despite that unwarranted provocation maintain your composure, and rise above the gross personal insult to address the argument, not the man. Truly, you have turned a corner here, sir.
Now, back to Bruce’s hopelessly simpleminded arguments.
Nah, you dismantled them handily enough, even though I can tell your heart wasn’t really in it.
I’d have mentioned the supposed increasing DDT-resistance of mosquito larvae, the funding diversion, flat out corruption and political interference, administrative issues of trying to maintain programs — good or bad — in countries where land owners have significant power and prefer privacy at any cost over public eyes on their land and the people who live and work on or near their land plus programs — good or bad, the fact that the ‘ban’ discussed was only a quarter as long as is claimed.
And you did it in a Godwined thread, so you automatically win anyway, Chief.
Evil people sentence old people to death. And 100 million Africans. And don’t care.
Policies to grossly and unnecessarily inflate the cost of food and energy are evil.
Evil people like you don’t care.
Green fanatics don’t care if you kill million of old people with you cold heartless plans to make energy way more expensive.
“Almost 37,000 people died during the last cold spell in 2008, up almost 50% on the previous year. The rise in “excess winter mortality” for England and Wales was the biggest for years and the highest total in a decade. Last winter more than 90% of deaths were pensioners, who are among the least able to afford heat but the most vulnerable to cold-related diseases, such as seasonal flu, hypothermia, bronchitis and emphysema.
As fuel bills have soared the number of households in “fuel poverty” (defined as having to spend 10% or more of your income on power and heat) has risen five-fold to 6.6 million this year. Age Concern, the charity for the elderly, has warned that unless heating is made more affordable, further large-scale deaths will occur this winter.
http://www.airandwatercentre.com/blog/331/fuel-poverty-and-cold-will-kill-more-elderly-people-in-the-uk-this-winter/
Bruce
What fraction had their vaccinations up to date?
What caused these deaths directly?
Was it something that could have been prevented by turning up a thermostat?
No. This ‘fuel poverty’ lie of yours is the real evil here.
Get your vaccinations next winter, and stop gabbling after government subsidies for fossil fuels.
In the USA, Hawaiians enjoy the longest life expectancy. Up next, Minnesota. In the top 10, 8 cold states, including North Dakota. Just being there should kill them, but it doesn’t.
Among the states with the lowest life expectancy, the entire Confederacy: the South.
Perhaps the cuisine in the southern states has something to do with the death rate. It tastes wonderful but is guaranteed to shorten your life expectancy.
“In a study of both “hot” and “cold” cities in the United States — where Atlanta, Georgia; Birmingham, Alabama; and Houston, Texas comprised the “hot” group, and where Canton, Ohio; Chicago, Illinois; Colorado Springs, Colorado; Detroit, Michigan; Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minnesota; New Haven, Connecticut; Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; and Seattle and Spokane, Washington comprised the “cold” group — Braga et al. (2002) determined both the acute effects and lagged influence of temperature on cardiovascular-related deaths, finding that in the hot cities neither hot nor cold temperatures had much impact on mortality related to cardiovascular disease (CVD). In the cold cities, on the other hand, they report that both high and low temperatures were associated with increased CVD deaths, with the effect of cold temperatures persisting for days, but with the effect of high temperatures restricted to the day of the death or the day before. Of particular interest was the finding that for all CVD deaths the hot-day effect was five times smaller than the cold-day effect.”
http://www.co2science.org/subject/h/summaries/healtheffectscardio.php
JCH –
So you’re arguing that there are benefits to warming?
That’s why I moved to Florida, to live that extra 1.7 years. Since they seem to have a little longevity problem in DC, maybe politicians are carcinogenic?
Dallas –
DC may or may not be carcinogenic, but It IS conducive to mental illness of various sorts, most of which lead to delusional thought processes.
No, I’m suggesting that warming is unlikely to extend lifespans in any significant way. In 1910 the life expectancy in Hawaii was 40. My hunch would be that Hawaiians, great climate, and Minnesotans, freakin’ nasty climate, live longest because they’re generally liberal states with excellent access to healthcare, and they drink booze like fish in Minnesota which medicates them against the reason cold kills old people. Don’t know about Hawaii’s drinking habits.
Go to a nursing home. Ask to look at an Alzheimer patient who has congestive heart failure. Ask yourself whether it matters much whether they die in January or the following July. If you think it does, then warming has a benefit.
JCH –
they drink booze like fish in Minnesota which medicates them against the reason cold kills old people.
Fastest way I know to die of cold is to lie down and go to sleep in the snow. Second fastest way is to drink like a fish. Alcohol isn’t antifreeze if it’s inside you. You don’t do much cold weather/snow backpacking, do you?
This conversation has overlooked one point – that cold kills those who live in normally warmer or moderate locations in greater numbers when those locations get cold. Or when they’re forced into situations (as has happened in the UK) where they can’t afford to keep the heat on.
Hawaii rarely, if ever, gets cold. Minnesota rarely gets hot. Both are outside the envelope. The UK is, for the most part, mostly moderate. For the last several winters it’s gotten extremely cold. And their energy prices have increased. Therefore, greater deaths due to cold.
Conclusion
In conclusion, we have provided rare individual level evidence on risk factors for excess winter death in elderly people in the United Kingdom. We found little evidence for vulnerability to winter death associated with factors previously thought to predict such vulnerability. The lack of socioeconomic gradient in particular has implications for public heath policies aimed at reducing the burden of winter death, as fuel poverty relief alone may be only partially successful. The fact that the risk of excess winter death seems to be widely distributed in elderly people suggests that additional measures are needed to reach all those at risk.
“Was it something that could have been prevented by turning up a thermostat?”
They are a poor. That wasn’t an option.
And it is is renewables that are subsidized by poor people disproportionately. The price of heat is artificially inflated by subsidies to wind farms.
For further evidence on the higher correlation of cold with sickness and death see the NIPCC 2009 report Chapter 9 Human Health Effects PDF (0.5 MB)
Bull, G.M. and Morton, J. 1978. Environment, temperature and death rates. Age and Ageing 7: 210-224.
Can we get the percentage of pensioners dying each year up to say 99%?
I am in favor of that.
David Cameron is with you.
Extra payments to the elderly for fuel are being cut by 100 pounds this year.
I can’t see how increasing taxes will fix an energy supply problem. If people don’t have the money to pay for energy because of high taxes, who is going to build the facilities? Surely we aren’t suggesting that governments can build power supplies more efficiently than private industry?
It isn’t like its their money they stand to lose. Thus we get the Spanish example, go green, bankrupt the economy and get the EU to bail you out.
The net effect of high price energy in the UK will be to drive industry to countries with low energy costs, along with jobs and tax revenues. This will cut CO2 production in the UK and raise in in the countries with low cost power. There wil be no net benefit globally but it will do great harm in the UK.
Chief
Nicely written but I question the statement:
“It is apparent that not enough was known about the risks of DDT at the time – which are now apparently fairly minor except for raptors. ”
An excellent discussion of the impact of DDT and other insecticides on wildlife, in particular the peregrine falcon, is given by Derek Ratcliffe in his book: The Peregrine Falcon. I commend this book to anyone who admires these birds.
Ratcliffe associated bird kills and the raptor population decline to the cyclodiene insecticides and not DDT. He showed the pattern of bird recovery to closely match cyclodiene withdrawal. DDT was withdrawn later on.
Baxter 75 – what I’m reading is DDT was banned in 1972, and dieldrin was banned for Ag uses in 1974.
“Fracking” is the 60-year plus old technology for extracting oil and gas from rock formations. It’s neither new nor expensive. “Frakking” is sexual intercourse.
Bart R
Do not have statistics on winter mortality in warm versus cold countries, but it would be quite logical that this would be higher in warm countries, where domestic heating systems are poor or non-existent and people generally don’t know how to protect themselves from the cold.
But there are many statistics, which show that winter mortality (in all temperate regions) far exceeds summer mortality, some presented by Dr. Howard Maccabee at a recent climate conference in New York. If you want, I can try to dig up the reference for you.
To your other point, the DDT statistics appear to be correct:
One report from 2002 states:
http://www.acsh.org/healthissues/newsid.442/healthissue_detail.asp
As far as the rumors that WHO had recently lifted its ban on DDT, these appear to be incorrect. The WHO apparently never banned the use of DDT:
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2007/09/did_who_change_its_ddt_policy.php
Max
Manacker, my understanding is that the proxymorons bullied the Third World into forgoing DDT not by getting the WHO to ban it, but by getting the World Bank to make funding conditional on its discontinuance.
TomFP
The good old “Golden Rule” at work…
(Too bad several millions, mainly children died as a result.)
Max
Max
Having seen your excellent intuitive grasp of the statistics surrounding lifespan and CO2 emission, one hesitates to take on questions of statistics in other areas. ;)
Winter mortality is generally due factors that, while correlated to temperature (as winter correlates temperature), don’t give much support to either side of the +/-AGW case.
Lowering fuel costs artificially for example won’t prevent, cure, or reduce the impact of a single case of influenza. Measures that will actually relieve disease will only suffer from diversion of funds to wasteful temperature-based considerations. Surely you don’t believe the common cold is caused by cold?
A warming or cooling globe too won’t bring joy to those seeking to control and reduce the vectors of winter infections or the other deadly elements of the dark of the year.
Why should they?
These accidental impacts coming out of whatever changes are happening are not designed to make life better. They’re not designed to do anything. Hence, accidental.
Arguing benefit from accident argues putting on a blindfold and juggling chainsaws in traffic in a crowded street, drinking random mixtures of fluids found in the cabinet under the kitchen sink, or climbing the walls of the local zoo while covered in ketchup to pet the kitties.
There’s no sense to introducing winter mortality statistics, however true, to climate discussions; it’s an obfuscatory and irrelevant issue that at best reflects yet another area of increased risk by entering unknown global conditions without a plan or understanding.
Speaking of the DDT ban.
Thank you for your exposition.
Yes, the ‘environmentalists caused millions of deaths’ trope is a falsehood by simplifying a bitter and difficult world history, complicated by war, religion, politics, crime and incompetence irrespective of one’s environmental credentials.
DDT programs in regions of endemic war?
Health programs that decrease the power of local religious authority by diminishing dependence on the faith?
Straightforward application of technical solutions in the face of reactionary political agendas?
International aid efficiently channeled when every local crime boss or dishonest bureaucrat has his hand out, gun drawn, to every possible source of funds by extortion or graft?
Confusing area DDT spraying for agricultural purposes, meant to affect pests that feed on crops, for anti-malaria programs?
The resultant DDT-resistance of insect vectors of disease, and indeed the resultant growth of insect vectors no longer competing with other insects nor preyed upon by diminished hunting species, truly incompetent health management.
DDT ought have been reserved for bednets and indoor use in carefully-managed health programs, and wasn’t.
It’s idiotic believe those who lay out the narrative any other way, as at best it would lay blame at the wrong feet and at worst cause to be repeated the same incompetence while rewarding the same criminals.
The utter heartlessness of the ecoloon on display.
“In 1997, the World Bank extended $165 million in credit to India. The bank funds could be used for expensive pyrethroid insecticides, but none could be used for DDT. Similar pressures were tried in efforts to get the government of Madagascar to stop a successful program to control highland malaria by spraying house walls with DDT.
Perhaps the most egregious example of external pressures is with loans to Eritrea. Overall, 50 percent of mortality and 60 to 80 percent of morbidity in Eritrea is the result of malaria. Within the country there are 145 physicians and 391 nurses. In other words, there is a critical shortage of health professionals. The World Bank, jointly with UNICEF and U.S. Aid for International Development (USAID), provided assistance loans. The UNICEF funds were only for insecticide-treated nets. USAID funds were for environmental assessment. The World Bank funds require Eritrea to “present by the end of the second year, a program and schedule for substituting DDT residual house-spraying by chemicals or techniques that are safer to the environment and human health.”
“it is important to understand that DDT became an overnight success in the mid-1940s because it was cheap and relatively safe. There were many chemicals much more toxic to insects than DDT (for example, nicotine); but they were also toxic to humans. Even for insects, DDT exhibited only a slow toxic action. The real secret of its marvelous benefit was powerful action as a non-contact repellent and a contact irritant.”
http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/articles/Fall02/DDT.html
Bruce
Sorry, my skepticism about DDT claims was set into high gear by repetition of flat out lies told about WHO and DDT bans, so you’ll have to do better than a citation containing “..His views do not represent the official position of the University, the Department of Defense, or the U.S. Government..” in its byline to convince me of what you say.
Maybe something based in fact?
Because your source has been repeatedly debunked.
Here’s just one of many counters to it you could find in under a minute using Google: http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/03/donald_roberts_false_testimony.php
World Health Organization
“In 2008, there were 247 million cases of malaria and nearly one million deaths – mostly among children living in Africa. In Africa a child dies every 45 seconds of Malaria, the disease accounts for 20% of all childhood deaths.”
“Growing resistance to antimalarial medicines has spread very rapidly, undermining malaria control efforts.”
“indoor spraying with residual insecticides: Indoor residual spraying (IRS) with insecticides is the most powerful way to rapidly reduce malaria transmission. Its full potential is realized when at least 80% of houses in targeted areas are sprayed. Indoor spraying is effective for 3–6 months, depending on the insecticide used and the type of surface on which it is sprayed. DDT can be effective for 9–12 months in some cases. Longer-lasting forms of IRS insecticides are under development.”
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs094/en/
Tim Lambert is not someone to be believed about anything.
Bart R
Your opining on (human) hot/cold weather and DDT deaths does not change the facts.
1. Significantly more humans die as a result of cold weather than warm weather.
Keatinge et al. Heat related mortality in warm and cold regions of Europe: observational study
http://www.bmj.com/content/321/7262/670.full
(This is the study referred to by Dr. Maccabee per my earlier post.)
2. Millions have died as a direct result of the pressure put on poor nations to ban the use of DDT by misguided “environmentalists” (from rich nations).
(quotations and links already provided)
Max
Indur Goklaney authored several studies dealing with mortality from extreme weather events. This link leads to much of his work:
http://www.globalwarming.org/2010/08/16/primer-on-extreme-weather-mortality/
W F Lenihan
And what skeptical research did you do to check any of these claims?
WHO promotes indoor spraying with insecticides as one of three main interventions to fight malaria
15 SEPTEMBER 2006 | WASHINGTON, D.C. – Nearly thirty years after phasing out the widespread use of indoor spraying with DDT and other insecticides to control malaria, the World Health Organization (WHO) today announced that this intervention will once again play a major role in its efforts to fight the disease. WHO is now recommending the use of indoor residual spraying (IRS) not only in epidemic areas but also in areas with constant and high malaria transmission, including throughout Africa.
“The scientific and programmatic evidence clearly supports this reassessment,” said Dr Anarfi Asamoa-Baah, WHO Assistant Director-General for HIV/AIDS, TB and Malaria. “Indoor residual spraying is useful to quickly reduce the number of infections caused by malaria-carrying mosquitoes. IRS has proven to be just as cost effective as other malaria prevention measures, and DDT presents no health risk when used properly.” WHO promotes indoor spraying with insecticides as one of three main interventions to fight malaria
15 SEPTEMBER 2006 | WASHINGTON, D.C. – Nearly thirty years after phasing out the widespread use of indoor spraying with DDT and other insecticides to control malaria, the World Health Organization (WHO) today announced that this intervention will once again play a major role in its efforts to fight the disease. WHO is now recommending the use of indoor residual spraying (IRS) not only in epidemic areas but also in areas with constant and high malaria transmission, including throughout Africa.
“The scientific and programmatic evidence clearly supports this reassessment,” said Dr Anarfi Asamoa-Baah, WHO Assistant Director-General for HIV/AIDS, TB and Malaria. “Indoor residual spraying is useful to quickly reduce the number of infections caused by malaria-carrying mosquitoes. IRS has proven to be just as cost effective as other malaria prevention measures, and DDT presents no health risk when used properly.”WHO promotes indoor spraying with insecticides as one of three main interventions to fight malaria
15 SEPTEMBER 2006 | WASHINGTON, D.C. – Nearly thirty years after phasing out the widespread use of indoor spraying with DDT and other insecticides to control malaria, the World Health Organization (WHO) today announced that this intervention will once again play a major role in its efforts to fight the disease. WHO is now recommending the use of indoor residual spraying (IRS) not only in epidemic areas but also in areas with constant and high malaria transmission, including throughout Africa.
“The scientific and programmatic evidence clearly supports this reassessment,” said Dr Anarfi Asamoa-Baah, WHO Assistant Director-General for HIV/AIDS, TB and Malaria. “Indoor residual spraying is useful to quickly reduce the number of infections caused by malaria-carrying mosquitoes. IRS has proven to be just as cost effective as other malaria prevention measures, and DDT presents no health risk when used properly.” http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2006/pr50/en/index.html
Proper source control Max – not the unfiltered blogosphere
DDT: A Case Study in Scientific Fraud
J Gordon Edwards, Ph.D., was Professor Emeritus of Entomology at San Jose State University.
http://bit.ly/j7tRnm
The ban on DDT, founded on erroneous or fraudulent reports and imposed by one powerful bureaucrat, has caused millions of deaths, while sapping the strength and productivity of countless human beings in underdeveloped countries. It is time for an honest appraisal and for immediate deployment of the best currently available means to control insect-borne diseases. This means DDT.
Wow … talk about deja vu.
“The procedure for banning DDT reflected the method described by Stanford biology professor Stephen Schneider, who appeared on the scene during fraudulent anti-pesticide debates, predicting grave environmental harm. In a widely quoted statement to Jonathan Schell in a 1989 article in , he explained: We need to get loads of media coverage, so we have to offer up scary scenarios and make dramatic statements. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. Schneider has objected to the omission of the last line, I hope that means being both.”
TonyB
Thanks for a very informative article. Indeed, it does look like you in Britain are scheduled to become the world’s “guinea pigs” in the fight against human-induced global warming.
You asked for a check on Ed Hoskin’s estimate, namely the expenditure (by UK residents) of
I can’t verify the cost numbers, because this depends largely on what actionable proposals are included. There have been very few of these to date, just a lot of political arm waving.
One specific actionable proposal was made by James E. Hansen et al. for the USA to shut down all coal-fired power plants by 2030. I calculated that this would result in a reduction of global warming by 2100 of 0.08°C at a cost (replacement by nuclear plants) of $1.5 trillion.
Similar “cost/benefit” figures have been generated for a major carbon capture and storage (CCS) scheme across the USA (presented here on an earlier thread). Here the cost was even higher for a smaller reduction in warming.
But to the UK picture.
Let’s take an extreme case: total shutdown of the UK (lights out, no more cooked food or polluting automobiles, no more pesky industry, etc.).
The UK emits around 570 million metric tons of CO2 annually.
If the entire nation were shut down in 2012, this would result in a reduction of global CO2 emissions by year 2100 of 50.2 GtCO2. A bit less than half of the total emitted CO2 “remains” in the atmosphere, so this equals 25.1 GtCO2 added to the atmosphere by UK emissions to year 2100.
With an atmospheric mass of 5,140,000 Gt this equals 4.9 ppm(mass) or 3.2 ppmv. This is the global CO2 reduction by year 2100.
IPCC (Scenario B1) assumes an increase of CO2 by year 2100 to 580 ppmv.
With this increase we should see an increase of temperature of:
C1 = 390 ppmv
C2 = 580 ppmv
C2/C1 = 1.487
ln(C2/C1) = 0.397
ln2 = 0.693
dT(2xCO2) per IPCC = 3.2C
dT (2011-2100) = 3.2 * 0.397 / 0.693 = 1.832C
If the UK is shut down completely in 2012 we should see:
C1 = 390 ppmv
C2 = 580 – 3.2 = 576.8 ppmv
C2/C1 = 1.479
ln(C2/C1) = 0.391
ln2 = 0.693
dT(2xCO2) per IPCC = 3.2C
dT (2011-2100) = 3.2 * 0.391 / 0.693 = 1.807C
So the net reduction in warming by 2100 = 1.832 – 1.807 = 0.025C
That’s the absolute maximum the UK can contribute to the fight against global warming, Tony.
Sorry ‘bout that.
Max
Max
Thanks for your detailed calculations as to the temperature reduction the UK can contribute. I look forward to reading the calculations from others as well.
tonyb
Is the pope German?
It’s my opinion that the spigots supplying money to ANYTHING green or associated with CAGW should be immediately turned off and not a nickel more spent until it starts to warm again. Use ALL of those funds, including anything set aside for the UN for a Manhattan style project for nuclear energy R&D and implementation of plants NOW. When we have enough and then some of energy from this source, and if it starts to warm dramatically, then and only then look at reducing CO2. It’s a win/win. Nukes by their nature reduce the dreaded (sarc) CO2, we put LOTS of folks to work in REAL jobs and who knows, we may build a better mouse trap in the process. My 2 cents.
Within the first 2 pages of E. Hoskins’ paper, he made a number of egregious mistakes:
“…a warmer world is probably a better, more productive world, as in the past..”
Way to oversimplify, Ed, with no supporting citations. As far as we know, warmer conditions have made some areas more productive, and other areas less so, in the past – this was probably the case in teh Medieval warm period.
” Additional atmospheric CO2 significantly improves all plant growth and thus food production.”
WRONG – Photosynthesis saturates while respiration tends to increase more than linearly or even exponentially with temperature. Even without changing temperature, there are wide differences between plant species in their response to elevated CO2
“And extra CO2 also enhances the drought tolerance of all plant life.”
WRONG – Again, differetn species display different responses. Only in the event of both respiration and photosynthesis acclimating – which implies that stomatal conductance woudl be reduced, or stomatal density reduced for no net reduction of photosynthesis.
So, that is three very big mistakes in the first two pages – and that’s just the stuff I noticed. I did not look too closely at his Math, but he does not seem to have heard of feedbacks.
So, who is this Ed Hoskins, and given the mistakes and lack of citations to back up his “facts” why shoudl any of us bother reading beyond page 2?
Hoskins paper is of some political significance in the UK, given the response of Mackay. Note, the tag on this post is “policy”. People are of course free to discuss the scientific merits or lack thereof of Hoskin’s paper.
There are multiple resource limitations for plant growth and carbon dioxide is probably not a major one. There is evidence plant stomata decrease in number and size with increased CO2. This limits water losses as well.
‘More stomata are made on plant surfaces under higher light, lower atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations and moist environments.’ http://www.eoearth.org/article/Stomata?topic=58074
Most terrestrial plants have this adaptation to limit water loss.
In general warmer conditions increase biological activity. It is a basic biological law. Grow faster but not more?
Andy, could you give some examples of food crops that do not respond well to CO2 or extra warmth.
Sensible people are quite worried about the PDO switch that will make it colder and the effect that will have on crops that were grown in warmer times int he last 30 years and may not do as well.
“a FACE study conducted at Maricopa, Arizona, USA – spring wheat was grown for two seasons at atmospheric CO2 concentrations of ambient and ambient + 200 ppm, with half of each plot receiving high amounts of nitrogen and half receiving low amounts. Over the course of the two growing seasons, Brooks et al. (2000) found that the plants grown in the CO2-enriched plots accumulated 8 and 16% more carbon than the plants exposed to ambient air under the low and high soil nitrogen regimes, respectively.
Throughout the same experiment, Hunsaker et al. (2000) determined that the extra 200 ppm of CO2 reduced seasonal evapotranspiration by about 1 and 4% under conditions of low and high soil nitrogen, respectively. As a result, the extra CO2 increased the water use efficiency of the wheat plants by approximately 10 and 20% in the low and high nitrogen treatments, respectively.”
http://www.co2science.org/subject/a/summaries/agwheatsoil.php
Maybe they aren’t big mistakes Andy … maybe you are the mistaken person.
Andy,
Global crop production are way up from 50 or 100 years ago so your arguments are irrelevant since it’s supposed to be warmer and have more co2 now.
Since 1960, anhydrous ammonia, seed technology, herbicides, pesticides, irrigation, etc. versus additional warmth and additional CO2. I think I see a clear winner.
so if extra CO2 and extra warmth are not destroying us, then …
Maybe I misunderstood. It appeared to me there has been an attempt to credit additional warmth and additional CO2 for the significant increase in crop yields since ~1960. I think it was the green revolution: anhydrous ammonia, seed technology, irrigation, herbicides, pesticides, etc.
Also, during the initial phase of the green revolution, I would not be surprised if many significant agricultural areas, like the American midwest, were experiencing temperature drops.
Attribution in this case is obviously very difficult, not to mention not being studied. FAO statistics show many of these technologies not increasing or even decreasing after the seventies. Anyone who claims to know the answer at this time is mistaken.
David Wojick said “Attribution in this case is obviously very difficult, not to mention not being studied. FAO statistics show many of these technologies not increasing or even decreasing after the seventies. Anyone who claims to know the answer at this time is mistaken.” Yet I have published a peer-reviewed paper on climate change and food production (available at my website’s url) using regression analysis to show the roles of temperature, CO2, and fertilisers on the FAO Index of world food production
Yt = −507.99 + 0.365Tt + 5.756Ct − 0.047Ft (2)
Std errors: (42.55) (0.475) (0.159) (0.069)
Clearly atmospheric CO2 plays a much more significant role than temperature and fertiliser usage, as its coefficient is much more than double its standard error, while theirs are less than double. Evidently this result shows how rising CO2 has reduced the need for fertilisers.
Similar regressions show CO2 plays NO significant role in temperature change, as my latest paper shows, available also at http://www.lavoisier.com.au and at the Roger Pielke snr. Blog
Heathrow sunshine data has been discussed here; the data set also shows monthly mean maximum temperature and rainfall as well as sunshine. Regressing changes in Tmax on monthly changes in these variables as well as atmospheric
CO2 shows significant positive roles for sun and rain in explaining temperature chnage since 1958, but negative for atmospheric CO2. That is because the latter is ALWAYS lower in the summer months than in the previous winter, by as much as 6 ppm, an amount more than 3 times larger than the trivial average annual increase of less than 2 ppm.
It is true if beyond belief that not a single one of the contributors to AR4 WG1 2007 has any statistical capability, which is why you will not find a single equation like mine above in any of the 996 pages of WG1, nor regressions results like mine for Heathrow:
Coefficients Standard Error
Intercept 0.051023757 0.103554705
dRain 0.010876453 0.002629726
dSun 0.048554614 0.002129684
dCO2 -0.435829682 0.086662484
(R2=0.45, rising to 0.67 if the constant is set at 0; confidence 99%).
All the coefficients have t-statistics (ie. coefficient/standard error) that are well above the critical level of 2.
Thus CO2 is important for agriculture but irrelevant for temperature.
Andy
This is precisely the reasons for this article-to obtain peer review on a complex subject that affects us all , whatever side of the debate you find yourself on.
Could you please note the mathematical mistakes you believe there to be in Ed’s paper and present us with your estimates. Thanks for your time
tonyb
Andy is objecting to contentious claims not specific calculates. Calling these claims mistakes, much less egregious, is incorrect. They are merely contentious.
A cost benefit analysis is irrelevant to progressives seeking to gain, and exercise, control over an economy. Look at how healthcare legislation was passed in the U.S. without a single congressman or senator having a clue what was in the actual legislation. The cost isn’t the point, nor is the benefit. What matters is having control.
The decarbonization of the British economy is proceeding with the same (in)attention to detail. In other words, the details simply don’t matter, passing the legislation is all that counts. Trying to convince a progressive politician that his central plan doesn’t work is like trying to convince Michael Mann that his hockey stick is statistical junk.
The best hope England has of surviving progressive rule, is progressive rule itself. The bad news is, our British cousins are bearing the cost of having elected so many progressives for so long, while we wait for their disasterous policies to implode their economy. The good news is that the U.S. electorate is seeing what is happening there, and seeing what our own progressives have wrought here, and may avoid more of the same.
If the next election continues the shift to genuine conservatism in the U.S., we will see the results of the two economic polices in stark relief. At which point the British electorate can then jettison their own progressive baggage and begin their own recovery.
To me, the progressives simply want everybody to be “equal”. That is, thru legislation, the courts, by any means necessary, force folks to be “good”, or equal. Unfortunately, at the cost of your agency, or free will. So ultimately, everyone will have the same. No poor. This would be great if it was by choice.
The only place everyone is equal is in the graveyard.
Many people go there early under extreme progressive policies, as we see from history.
Kent –
So ultimately, everyone will have the same. No poor.
That’s the theory, but it’s never worked in any society through at least 5,000 years of human history. But they don’t care about history – it’s much too “inconvenient”.
This would be great if it was by choice.
They don’t care about “choice” except wrt abortion, and even then there are exceptions.
What I meant when I said it would be great if everybody choose to do the right thing, I meant then there would be no poor. If folks chose to be good, then their hearts would dictate that they help the poor. It wouldn’t be because they were forced to. If this were to become the case, then we would all prosper. There would still be those that had more than others, but simply because they worked harder. IMO
“Pity the poor for they will always be among us.”
Lots of people “do the right thing” by way of who spoke the above line.
Kent,
Progressives only claim they want everybody to be equal. Just like they claim that every statist policy they propose is “for the children.” But that is not their genuine goal.
Think of public education. The public school systems of virtually every major city in the U.S. have been run by progressives for decades. In that time, teachers unions have gained tremendous political power, Democrats have laundered millions of public money through union dues to the Democrat’s campaigns, and public school teachers have gotten massive unfunded pensions that are bankrupting states, but guarantee their efforts on election day in getting more progressives elected.
Who benefits? The kids who are kept ignorant, cannot graduate, and cannot pass basic proficiency tests, who are made dependent on government for their very survival, even as they become adults, because no one bothered to teach them to read, write, add and subtract? Or the progressives who collect salaries, and union dues, and campaign contributions and pension benefits? Most people think inner city schools are a total failure, progressives know they have been a resounding success, once you understand their real purpose.
Environmental policy is no different. Stopping “global warming” is just an excuse, for the progressive political advocates. They get their campaign contributions from scaring BP, GE and other companies hoping to survive the progressive decarbonization of the economy. They fund their NGOs, get hired by the ever more bloated government bureaucracies, and get their research funded, all in the name of saving the planet. Al Gore, Rajendra Pachauri, Tom Freidman, and other green lights of the left live lives of splendor, while advocating the impoverishment of the entire globe.
I learned decades ago to ignore what people say, and watch what they do. It is not just about hypocrisy, but about discerning people’s real intentions. Progressives, the real, hard core activist types, use “fairness,” “the children”, “save the whales,” and “stop global warming” to achieve the one end they all share, the accumulation of power. The vast majority of those who vote progressive – Democrat, moderate and independent alike – just buy the slogans, blissfully unaware of what their sainted leaders are really up to. But that will not last forever.
I was married to an East German woman who grew up and lived under communism for over 35 years. When I met her not long after the Berlin Wall fell, she told me, “we knew we were poor, but at least we were all in it together.” I then showed her news stories about the dachas and special stores enjoyed by the leaders of her former country, the cars they drove, the trips to foreign countries where they could purchase foreign goods, etc. First, she wept, literally. But then she got mad….
As long as progressives don’t succeed in gaining control over the internet and in stifling dissent on alternative media, exposing the real costs of their policies, and their true intentions, will keep us from following them off the cliff. The demise of Copenhagen and the defeat of cap and trade and carbon taxes in the U.S. show what can be done if you shine a light under the rocks where they hide.
Public schools are run by school boards, and they tend to be conservative.
I have had 26 child years of experience with inner-city public schools, and I don’t agree with a word of what you say. My children are products of inner-city public schools. Their academic achievements are rock solid.
JCH, you obviously are NOT from California. There may be school boards, but the teachers union run things. My wife just retired as a Superintendents Secretary after 20+ years. I know exactly how schools are run. I’m not asking for anything specific, but what state are you talking about?
More Canberra parents are choosing to send their children to private high schools rather than public. (ABC News)
http://bit.ly/jUC8wb
Most canberra parents work for the government!
Or move to the US.
@Andy,
You may want to look at this World bank report http://climatechange.worldbank.org/climatechange/content/economics-adaptation-climate-change-study-homepage
which uses for each part of the world and given the predicted climate change a comparable current region. The finding is that the costs of adapting to climate change will generally be really quite low. So while not exactly what E Hoskins was saying, it does in a careful way find that things will not be so bad.
I don’t have time to check through now but something smacks of oversimplification in this article to me.
That the UK’s contribution on a global scale is tiny is just obvious. Why is this a revalation? That’s not the point at all, were not doing it because we think we can do it alone. What ever happened to morality and justice as a factor in decision making?
1) The UK’s economy is horrifically skewed towards finance and we need new industries – AKA Green economy. The UK is trying to benefit by being a first mover in this area so that we can commercialise the technology, services and systems. It seems that the UK, Germany, Denmark and Japan are all moving in this direction. The governments see change as innevitable and being the first to change could provide competative advantage. The governments certainly take the IPCC consensus and the results of economic analyses such as Stern review much more on face value here than on the other side of the pond and then base policy upon it.
2) The UK’s energy security is a big deal. With the end of North Sea resources we will be increasingly dependant on the oil/gas markets and on Russia. China has cornered the world coal market and to be over exposed to it in future would be stupid. This is highly undesirable for the UK both economically and politically. The idea of indigenous energy is a very attractive one here in the UK. Also there is a feeling that we have the resources both academically and in terms of resources to take advantage of our domestic potential and build new industries.
3) I would argue that Americans are utterly obsessed with power. It comes from rampant libertarianism. Every government action is always a conceited ploy to steal from the individual either monitarily of in terms of rights. That is not how many Europeans see the role of government (although many do on the right). The role of governement is widely thought to act in the common good and show leadership, rather than just promote the freedom of the individual. Europe as a whole has the sense that what with the US’s failure to provide leadership, it is the responsibility of the EU to show leadership and be the first movers.
Sam
“Europe as a whole has the sense that what with the US’s failure to provide leadership, it is the responsibility of the EU to show leadership and be the first movers”.
Exactly what is it you are going to “fix”? Please, no generalitys, be specific. You can mention how much aid you have taken from us. How many times the US has saved you from slavery. How a nation, up until a few decades ago, was the most prosperous, giving folks on the face of the earth. I think you may be a little jealous of our freedom. Which is to be expected. The US also was blessed with a great wealth of natural resources. This also is coveted. I don’t see you showing leadership. I see you giving away your country to government. They will take care of you as long as the money lasts. Then you will be fully enslaved. Dependent on the government for everything. You will all be “equal”. Abiet poor, you will be equal.
Kent mate,
You have a point about what should or shouldn’t be fixed. Such a value judgement is not common between all people. In this sense, I mean the failure of world governments to act on the science of climate change, act on the uncertainty of climate change rather than perpetually stall international negotiations for the last 20 years. Aside from climate change there are many other things in the world that need ‘fixing’ for we live in a very unjust world that is of both Europe’s and the USA’s making.
Also I think it’s a bit rich bringing up the Second World War in this one. Just because you did a good thing once doesn’t mean you’re good forever. If you help an old women cross the road then subsequently push her over, the earlier good doesn’t cancel out the later bad. Morality isn’t additative. Also, who is giving 0.7% of their GDP in aid at the moment? Um…. Not the USA.
Jealous of your freedom? Jealous of your freedom to stomp all over whoever you want. What is freedom anyway when the narrow pursuit of your freedom restricts the freedom enjoyed by others? That’s freedom for the few privileged individuals and it’s hypercritical of the whole libertarian philosophy. That’s not freedom, that’s totalitarianism.
The USA is blessed with great power and great resources (although you forget that most of your wealth comes from exploiting other countries resources), no one can deny that. But with it comes great moral responsibility, in a globalised world, your actions have huge impacts on the welfare of others. The USA as does Europe has a historical and current responsibility. That is what I mean that is not being met at the moment.
Finally, what you are essentially saying is that you would prefer to live in a society where there a massive difference in the wealth, health and quality of life between a rich subsection of society and a larger very poor, desperate majority – as long as you are part of the upper section. Well, that’s your value choice. I for one would always choose the more equal society.
Sam
Sam……
“Well, that’s your value choice. I for one would always choose the more equal society”.
There it is Sam, you are choosing the “more equal society” by forcing folks do things. Thru taxes, propaganda, ect. You are trying to force equality. Won’t happen. Not without guns. You see, as quoted above, “there will always be poor amongst us” and why do you think that is?
Back to the first question. What exactly are you going to fix :) It shouldn’t be that tough to answer. Why should anybody act when not only is there no problem, you are not try to fix the supposed problem you say we have. You are trying to get more money from folks, period. Money brings power.
So it appears your arguement says that we cannot have a more equal society rather than we should not? In which case there are numerous counterfactual examples to this arguement (e.g. Scandic countries)
You also make some big moral assumptions a simple example: Is it right for people to be starving, living in terrible housing and dying of easily treatable diseases in your own country and for the government and tax payers to not help? This leads to a more utilitarian arguement that, at what point is it better (economically for the state) for the state to enable people to live more prosperous, productive lives rather than leave them to rely on the state for subsistence?
From what I gather your thinking goes like this:
p1) That to have a more equal society, redistribution must occur
p2) That for redistribution to occur, this must enforced
p3) Enforcement will not work short of the threat or use of violence
p4) This type of enforcement would never happen in a democracy
C) Therefore we cannot have a more equal society and shouldn’t try for it
Fairer distribution doesn’t have to be a zero sum game. Equality of opportunity in a growing world (big assumption of future growth here) means that people can create their own proserity given opportunity and the means. A more productive state is in everyone’s collective interest as there will be more revenue available for public goods and less needed (and in this I mean that many people do NEED it) for welfare.
Enforcement clearly does already work, taxes do work. You just don’t like them and are of the opinion that no one will vote for them. Also people don’t need money given to them, they need education and small business loans to be available to them. Then they can make their own money. It isn’t Robin hood.
I think that enought of your premises are wrong that the conclusion is defunct in this case. You just see a fairer society as a zero sum game. I don’t.
Sam……
“From what I gather your thinking goes like this:
p1) That to have a more equal society, redistribution must occur”
You couldn’t of misunderstood more :) I don’t believe in redistribution. If some one needs help and can’t help themselves, then the first place they go is their family. If they absolutly can’t get help there then go to your church or place of worship. If you can’t get help there then and only then go to the government.
Have you never lived where the government doesen’t take care of you? If that’s the case I feel you may have really missed something in your life. :(
In terms of the fix, I did say what the aim of the fix is. Clearly to limit the extent of future climate change through emissions reductions.
Just because the UK acting alone will not solve the problem, that is not an arguement for inaction. Just because many countries took part in the slave trade, it did not make it a morally proper thing to be doing? That is a weak rationalisation.
The premise of the action is that:
1) Gases such as CO2 etc trap short wave radiation and cause a net increase in energy within the earth system.
2) That the observed increase in CO2 is anthropogenic
3) That the observed warming can be attributed to 2
4) That increased emissions will lead to increased net energy in the earth system
5) That the future impacts of such emissions is not desirable economically and -> crucially, morally. Economic cost benefit analysis does not tell you if something is right or wrong. Just what it may or may not cost.
6) That we are historically, and currently responsible.
7) That we have the ability to address this problem at home and through political influence, collectively.
C) Therefore we should attempt to do something about it
A further strong driver I think is that such a change in the economy is inevitable at some point soon through simple resource constraints. Inaction is just delaying the decision, and being a first mover in terms of technology and govenance can be hugely advantageous. look at what the railway did for the UK, look at how property rights led to America’s strong political economy. Look at places that have the web, verses those that don’t.
Now I’m sure you take umbridge at many of these. But the point is not necessarily to ‘fix’, because we cannot do it alone. But what is the right thing to do, and will our actions have a wider influence. I think the answer is yes to both.
* correction, long wave radiation
* correction, thermal (IR) radiation
You keep om mentioning governance. What do you propose that is different from the existing arrangements ..and why?
To fix it, it needs to be proven broken. The earth has been cooling with a 25% increase in CO2. Some more bad news, Russia, Japan, Canada and the US won’t be redoing Koyoto :) You in the UK, New Zealand and the Aussies will be stuck holding the bag so to speak. My condolences.
Spain is a good example of a green economy. Bankrupt.
• The study calculates that since 2000 Spain spent €571,138 [$791,597] to create each ‘green job’, including subsidies of more than €1-million [$1.38-million] per wind industry job.
• The study calculates that the programs creating those jobs also resulted in the destruction of nearly 110,500 jobs elsewhere in the economy, or 2.2 jobs destroyed for every ‘green job’ created.
• Principally, the high cost of electricity affects costs of production and
employment levels in metallurgy, nonmetallic mining and food processing,
beverage and tobacco industries.
• Each ‘green’ megawatt installed destroys 5.28 jobs on average elsewhere in the economy: 8.99 by photovoltaics, 4.27 by wind energy, 5.05 by mini-hydro.
• These costs do not appear to be unique to Spain’s approach but instead are largely inherent in schemes to promote renewable energy sources.
http://www.fcpp.org/files/1/PS9106_GreenJobs_AP12F1.pdf
@sam
Please explain in detail how the measures proposed will lead us to be leaders in the green economy.
We might end up having a lot of windmills, but I;m struggling to follow how that achieves the aim. You cannot employ a million people just on windmills.
What else is there? Pouring concrete for everybody else’s windmills? Hardly the highest of high tech. And you have to transport the personnel long distances.
Solar panels? H’mm…Latitude 55N on a cloudy island isn’t the obvious geography to become world leader.
Waves/tides? We certainly have a long coastline and good tidal ranges. But in 1000 years of history we’ve only exploited these a little (tidal water mills). France (with similar waters in Brittany) built the Rance barrage about fifty years ago and didn’t continue.
Has the basic technology changed since then? Water goes up, gets caught, is released, water gushes out. Sames as the tide mill from the 1400s.
Electricity storage: We built the hydro ‘paternoster’ at Dinorwic abut thirty years ago and none since.
So wind, wave, solar, tidal, storage are none of them going to provide a ‘green economy’ let alone a technological or national lead for us in UK.
What else is left? You are confident that it can be done and is worthwhile.
Please let us know the masterplan. And without requiring us to use rose-tinted spectacles please.
On further reflection, we employ a politician called Chris Huhne as Minister for Energy and Climate Change.
Leaving aside his little local difficulties with ex-wives and the cops for the moment, shouldn’t he be setting out his vision of the masterplan for us all to see? If he has, I’ve missed it. Especially the bit about ‘leadership in the green economy’
Have you actually been on the DECC website at all?
Right, well as I am not a solar engineer then I cannot, clearly. That is the thing, you’re attacking the wrong guy her.
A green economy is not all about consuming renewables, it’s about developing industries and technical proficiency. The creation of a domestic market for wind power in Denmark is what enabled Vestas to develop and become a big company.
Is that the domestic market for wind power that was such a success that they eventually gave up completely on building onshore windmills?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/denmark/7996606/An-ill-wind-blows-for-Denmarks-green-energy-revolution.html
And if Vestas has already got the windmill market sewn up, what is left for us.
Yes – I have looked at the DECC website. Here’s the link
http://www.decc.gov.uk/
Some nice pikkies of Chris Huhne on front of a pylon. And a nice pikkie of just Chris Huhne. Followed by a nice pikkie of Chris Huhne and David Cameron.
But no discussion that I can find of how your long list of aspirational warm fuzzies that ‘its all about’ is going to be turned into any sort of practical reality.
Liek most football fans, I apsire to my club making some far-sighted signings in teh summer, attrcating bigger crowds, winning their league by a mile and having a great cup run as well. That’s my list of aspirations.
But to actually do it requries more than hopeful thoughts. There is hard work needed to turn aspirations into reality. Where is it?
We don’t need central planning, Latimer. Charge a carbon tax that reflects the negative externalities of emissions accurately, and the free market will do the hard work for you.
exactly
What ‘negative externalities’ do you have in mind?
How do you build a nuclear power plant if everything that goes into it costs 50% more because of a carbon tax?
Concrete is a huge producer of CO2. Fossil fuels are needed to make all the components and transport all of the components.
Admittedly the vast unemployment caused by a sadistic carbon tax may make labor cheaper.
Robert –
Charge a carbon tax that reflects the negative externalities of emissions accurately, and the free market will do the hard work for you.
Don’t charge a carbon tax and the free market will do it far more efficiently. And faster. That’s what the “free market” does. What you’re talking about isn’t a “free market” – it’s a regulated market.
Yes the very same. Funny how my point is that it enabled Vestas to grow from a government funded research group into a huge multinational company. That it cannot put much more on land is no surprise – see the BBC’s windfarm wars series. Also Denmark is a tiny country. Thirdly this is the Torygraph – not known for their impartial reporting. The article snipes that wind energy must be exported to scandinavia and Germany – that’s the point of a grid! To spread power where it is needed or can be stored. The point is that government policy RE-renewables research, energy policy and business built a stong industry, and whilst the domestic onshore market maybe saturated that doesn’t negate my point.
So essentially what you are admitting to is having been on the front page of their website, looked at the pictures on the homepage and not had the presence of mind to actually explore the website or read any document. Well done you….
What I ‘admit to’ is very slightly taking the p**s out of the adulation of Mr Huhne on the DECC website. Three lovely pictures on the front, all including the grinning minister are more reminiscent of Romania prior to the fall of Ceaucescu than a serious government ministry doing serious work.
But having also searched through it, (using the helpful ‘search’ facility ) for keywords like ‘strategy’, I found no help in understanding the plan that was going to help us do the grandiose things that you claim are just around the corner.
If it is truly there – as you imply – please guide me to it ..by webiste address
As to Vestas as an example, it has grown to a medium size business only. In last year’s accounts it had a turnover of abt 7 billion euros (£6 billion) and a profit of 150 million euros (£130 million). Good enough, but not something that would make much of a dent in the UK economy either way. These figures are about what IBM, for example, generates in three weeks. And as Vestas is considered to be the world leaders in wind technology, and windmills are just commodity acquisitions needing few customisations or specialistlservices, I really do not see how emulating this example has much future.
You might also be interested that one commentary ..by the Danish think tank CEOP which concluded that ‘investment’ in wind power has actually casued a net reduction in the GDP of Denmark. In other words, they would have been better off not doing anything at all.
You are clearly not a regular reader of the Telegraph, whose line is generally in favour of the warmist cause and whose two regular contirbutors as ‘envorinmental correspondents’ Geoffrey Lean and Lousie Gray are both very firmly committed to the alarmist/catastrophist cause.
Overall, Sam, your argument sounds great at the level of warm fuzzy soundbites, but is fatally lacking in any actual substance.
Unless you can provide soem, I have to conclude that there is little or nothing behind the brave words.
Just found a better way to put the size of Vetsas into perspective.
If all of Vestas’ profits last year were spent solely on the UK’s NHS they would keep it going for about 10.5 hours. We would need about 850 Vestas to pay just for the NHS.
Though a worthy company, UK’s economic salvation cannot lie in building windmills.. a technology largely unchanged since the 14th Century. It is wishful thinking in the extreme to think it does.
Hey Latimer,
I personally think the primary driver for UK energy policy in this respect is energy security before the idea that green energy will provide economic growth.
I think this because the UK government, industry and academia are all becoming very worried about resource depletion and the UK’s exposure to future price volatility in energy markets. Particularly oil but also coal too. http://www.energybulletin.net/stories/2011-05-26/government-work-business-plans-tackle-peak-oil-threat. It’s also worth noting that many big banks as well as the IEA now admit that peak conventional crude oil in now, and current spot prices for oil are above $100 like before the crash. Declining EROEI of oil will mean that prices won’t drop without further recession.
The UK government therefore recognises that a shift away from such energy sources is a desirable long term objective in and of itself, especially as North Sea oil is rapidly declining. On the subject of North Sea Oil, the UK government actually see’s great opportunity in the vacant reservoirs for storing CO2 from CCS which would preserve some of the 30,000 jobs currently supported by North Sea Oil and which will go down the pan soon as resources deplete . http://www.geos.ed.ac.uk/sccs/regional-study/. Given that we have to change, we must exploit what opportunity we can from making this change.
A green economy isn’t just about windmills it’s about a new economic model. So, that’s wind power, combined heat and power, solar, geothermal, hydro, wave power, nuclear (if your into it), energy efficiency technology, CCS technology, smart grids, smart electronic devices, sustainable architecture, renewable waste streams (see http://www.advancedplasmapower.com/index.php?action=PublicHomeDisplay), smart transport links and services (rail, boats, cars, busses etc), new governance structures, advances in services management and technology (i.e. climate resilient water resources management – in which we are already world leaders). And so on at may levels of the economy.
If the economy is incentivised in this way, domestic markets are built up, and if the resources made available for researchers, businesses and entrepreneurs then there is ample opportunity for innovation and the commercialisation of products and services that will be desirable on a world market. Knowledge is also a precious export commodity. This change wouldn’t necessarily compromise other aspects of our economy.
Also, but I don’t know if you noticed this but solar will soon be cost competitive with other forms of energy http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-05-26/solar-may-be-cheaper-than-fossil-power-in-five-years-ge-says.html.
The whole point of committing to a strong policy is that it sends a signal to the economy of long term trends. There are always winner and loosers in policy change, that’s what lobbying is all about but once policy is in place business is innovative. Al the UK government is doing is fixing the direction in which it wants such innovation to proceed. It should also be noteworthy that it’s not just the UK doing this. It is also Germany, Denmark, Japan, and other countries such as Norway have ambitious targets to. If enough countries commit to change then there already exists a new market for low carbon technology, services and innovation to fill.
Um, 18c /kWH in AZ using 12 pct efficiency solar cells probably equates to 3 times that at 48 degrees North. Tell me about cap cost, battery replacement, cell degradaton and replacement and other factors in the cost equation.
Hi Sam
Thanks for your reply.
Interesting to see your analysis of where we are today. But your detailed plan is no more than a set of fuzzy aspirations which could have been written by any green activist.
I;m always deeply suspicious of any statement that starts ‘its all about….’ followed by a list of things. Such a statement is much favoured by lobbyists, but shows that no detailed thinking has been done.
And what, exactly, do you mean by ‘new governance structures’? The recent referendum in the UK on the voting system showed that we have no appetite at all to change our democratic governance. And this is likley to stay the same for at least a generation
So thanks for your reply. But as a taxpaying UK citizen I was hoping for something quite a lot more concrete and less woolly. And without the wishful thinking.
If this is the best we can do, we are all doomed!
Hey Latimer,
I thanks for the reply.
Yes, that answer was a little woolly I admit, but mostly because I cannot be bothered to spend hours trying to make the case backing up every reference and point with a source, then trying to incorporate it into some holistic framework of how the future will look. The whole point about the future is it is uncertain and you have to make choices. What do you expect; a complex argument requires complex answers not suitable to a blog post comment. I simply don’t have the time to spend on doing that – few people do. I also don’t think doing so would be any more effective in changing your mind than what I have already said. I don’t think I could do a more thorough analysis than many of the reports that exist mapping out a 2050 road map. Also if you went on the DECC website, all the information about their plans are there to read.
http://www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/what_we_do/lc_uk/2050/2050.aspx
http://www.zerocarbonbritain.com/
I could make the counter claim that your sniping criticisms of future possibilities are parochial and simplistic such that they could have been made by anyone sceptical of change. Your argument works both ways, for me and for you.
Also I note that your writing is deconstructive rather than constructive. Why is the default position that I am to prove myself unto you? Fair enough, I made some generalist claims which do need support to be considered as an evidence base for action, but where are yours? Those claims as they stand are my opinion not my thesis. Where are yours for preserving the status quo? Perhaps facts aren’t the place to start, maybe values are.
I may aspire to different things, believe different things, and probably have differing values than you do. I don’t mean to say mine are better or worse, just different. We will have different attitudes to expert opinion (who is an expert, what counts as evidence, attitudes towards uncertainty and ambiguity, etc), and trust different people’s expert opinion based upon our values. I don’t really believe that there is anything I could write on here to change your mind – us both being internet avatars after all. Face to face conversation might be different though as this facilitates a better exchange of values and opinions.
I am also a tax paying UK citizen it should be noted, and the conclusion if this is the best we can do then we are all doomed is preposterous? In fact it just shows that your inclination is nihilism as opposed to optimism about the future. If we’re not optimistic then nihilism is a self fulfilling prophesy. We are lay people projecting our thoughts onto a virtual discussion space, we are not in a crisis room pushing the buttons. Neither do we have the resources of those that do. That is why we have governments and scientists and economists etc. They as part of a system are there to do a better job than we could do on our own. It’s a ridiculous to expect to see a comprehensive solution in a blog comments section.
Thanks for your lengthy reply.
I wasn’t expecting you alone to lay out the whole strategy off the top of your head in this blog. But I was rather hoping to see that somebody somewhere had actually done the work required to show that it was feasible and doable. Possibly even to have compared and contrasted it with other possibilities and come up with the conclusion that it was the best choice among a spectrum of choices.
But it seems I am to be disappointed. We are asked to accept these ideas on faith alone, and on the very feeble example of Denmark and Vestas.
You falsely claim that my inclination is to nihilsm rather than optimism. Au contraire mon brave. I have spent long enough dealing with half-baked ideas and sorting out their difficult consequences to have a healthy degree of cycnism about any proposal that cannot even stand up to first level simple questions like ‘show me the figures’.
Corporal Jones in Dad’s Army (UK TV show) used to rush around like a whirling dervish shouting ‘Don’t Panic’. You may consider that as optimism..I don’t. Rushing around Doing Something is not the right way to react to any challenge..real or imaginary. The hard bit is doing the Right Thing.
You have shown no evidence at all that what is being done is the Right Thing.
Sorry that was from me. I used ‘Hampton Hill’ on another thread so that nobody could use any prior knowledge of my views in answering. a question.
LA
In reply to Andy Park | May 26, 2011 at 8:14 pm | who claims Hoskins within the first 2 pages of his paper made a number of egregious mistakes:
eg (1): Hoskins: “…a warmer world is probably a better, more productive world, as in the past..” Andy, check the data at FAOstat: crop yields are higher in warmer countries than in cold, cane sugar and rice cannot even be grown in Scotland, and despite alleged global warming crop yields have increased hugely everywhere since the FAO data sets begin in 1960.
(2) Hoskins: “Additional atmospheric CO2 significantly improves all plant growth and thus food production.” Andy: “WRONG – Photosynthesis saturates while respiration tends to increase more than linearly or even exponentially with temperature”. Respiration cannot exceed what was absorbed from photosynthesis. Andy: “Even without changing temperature, there are wide differences between plant species in their response to elevated CO2”, yes, mainly as between C3 (eg rice) (90% of all crop species) and C4 (maize) (less than 10%), and the gains for C3 are huge, go check out Dutch greenhouses with CO2 at >1000 ppm, and even maize shows some benefit (check out the 200+ FACE studies of wheat, rice, and maize grown with free air carbon enrichment).
(3) Hoskins: “And extra CO2 also enhances the drought tolerance of all plant life.” Andy: “WRONG – Again, different species display different responses”. Me: RIGHT, see Farquhar et al (1980 and passim).
So, who is this Andy Park, given the mistakes and lack of citations to back up his “corrections,” why should any of us bother with anything he says?
TRC C,
Andy is just another true believer hoping he can chant away those wicked inconvenient facts.
“Andy is just another true believer hoping he can chant away those wicked inconvenient facts.”
Really? I thought he was arguing against the pseudoskeptic side. But you’d know one of your own, I suppose.
“In future, precisely how and where do we get the cheap and plentiful energy that has been the cornerstone of our growing prosperity since the industrial revolution?”
We continue to make the energy as we always have, with carbon based fuels. There will be no abrupt, quantum shift in the way we produce energy anytime soon. Renewables are nice to talk about, but not too realistic in the coming decades. Here in Connecticut, there is a tremendous uproar in the little scenic town of Prospect about the potential construction of two windmills.
http://www.ctpost.com/default/article/Wind-turbine-decision-affects-entire-state-1345646.php
This is exactly the type of controversy we will witness time and again for local renewables of the windmill type. Cape cod and Nantucket are fighting their own battles as illustrated here,
http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2006/04/26/wind_plan_needs_airing
Ironically, GE headquarters is located here in Fairfield CT and they are of course pushing it to the max as illustrated here,
http://www.ctpost.com/default/article/GE-joins-Suzlon-Acciona-in-bet-on-slow-wind-1396242.php
Yet they won’t be able to construct a single one locally due to the NIMBY effect…. this will be a huge problem for many communities. Unless democracy is suspended, we can look forward to decades of legal battles on where wind farms will be built here in New England.
Fuel cell power is another non-starter for local communities, again here in CT the NIMBY rule prevails
http://www.ctpost.com/default/article/Officials-Keep-an-eye-on-future-energy-plant-481412.php
Nuclear energy certainly has the potential to make a dent in our energy needs, but… everyone is too afraid now… so we have to put that one back into the box for a decade or so until we aren’t so scared anymore.
Solar will suffer from NIMBYism in the appropriate locations where it is practical as well. Ironically environmentalists are the leaders in defeating their own local renewable energy projects as described here,
http://dailycaller.com/2011/03/28/are-environmentalists-an-obstacle-to-clean-energy-production/
So it increasingly it seems more and more likely we will continue to use carbon based fuels until all these hurdles can be overcome. These battles need to be fought and renewables should become a part of our energy landscape, I just don’t think it’s going to happen too quickly and we will continue to need more and more cheap energy to drive our economy. I seriously doubt our country will commit economic suicide as the UK appears to be doing by legislating themselves into a corner.
“Should we reintroduce fossil fuels-coal/shale gas etc- back into the energy mix, perhaps as an interim measure for the next thirty years whilst renewables are developed into a viable energy solution?”
Yes… see above.
“I would argue that Americans are utterly obsessed with power. It comes from rampant libertarianism.”
This is a distorted perspective that comes from reading comment threads and blogs. Libertarians are a tiny, discredited group whose representatives poll about 0.4% of the vote in national elections.
For whatever reason, libertarians love comment threads, and are heavily overrepresented there. IRL, they’re a bit of a joke.
Robert
Being Swiss I can vouch for the fact that many people here have a libertarian mindset, even if they have not officially been classed as “libertarians”. I believe the same is true for the USA, where personal liberty is written with a capital “L”.
But to the statement that “Americans are obsessed with power” (more so than other nationalities), I would think that they are probably more obsessed with “image” (especially “self-image” ) rather than “power”.
But, of course, that is just my impression. Maybe an American can comment.
Max
Image. We have our share of power seekers, but definitely image.
I’d never heard that before. It’s an odd observation, but I think it ties in with the fact that Europeans are more defined by inherited social class than Americans are, and because of that Americans have to place more importance on image, because that’s the only way you establish yourself in the social order.
Of course, Swiss aren’t typical Europeans, either, and can often say extremely insightful things about other Europeans. Karl Jung’s quote about the Nazis being drunk on wild god, for example.
The American federal system was modeled after a number of things, including the Swiss Confederation. I find that the Swiss often understand Americans better than most Europeans do, because of that.
A bit more widespread than just “American”.
domain1041943.sites.fasthosts.com/holyoake/c_co-operation%20(11).htm
“Liberty is not a means to a political end. It is itself the highest political end.” – Lord Acton
As for Carbon Taxes:
Webster, in arguing the case, said: “An unlimited power to tax involves, necessarily, a power to destroy,” 17 U.S. 327 (1819).
“Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” – Lord Acton (1887)
In thinking of the total cost of “decarbonization” to the British economy, I think it would be wrong to forget about the cancellation of the third runway at Heathrow Airport.
Decarbonization starkly shows the anti-rational outcomes of AGW policy.
Dear Curtin,
It is perfectly possible for respiration to meet or exceed photosynthesis. if it happens for a short period of a day, not a great problem, except in limited water supply. if a plant is carbon netral – that is P = R, no growth occurs,a nd for many trees this means they eventually die. If R > P over longer periods, the plant will die.
Curtin may well be right about maize responses and the C3 / C4 dichotomy. And he is certainly right about sugar cane not growing in Scotland – geez, how could I have missed that one. Such a simplistic argument ignores the fact that plants have evolved into the environments in which they live – I dare say Scottish broom would perform rather poorly in Atlantic Brazil – but that does not prove anything.
Anyway, the point I was trying to make was that plants in general, and trees in particular, differ widely in their responses to elvated CO2 and temperature under both lab and field conditions. Here are some citations that illustrate both this point and just how complex the responses are – they occur at the level of whole plant physiology and the interactions of the plant with nutrients, water and temperature. Some responses will be beneficial, some deleterious, but they will not be all in the same direction.
CITATIONS
Atkin, O. K., D. Bruhn, V. M. Hurry, and M. G. Tjoelker. 2005. The hot and the cold: unravelling the variable response of plant respiration to temperature. Functional Plant Biology 32: 87-105.
Franklin, O. 2007. Optimal nitrogen allocation controls tree responses to elevated CO2. New Phytologist 174: 811-822.
Loehle, C. 1995. Anomalous Responses of Plants to CO2 Enrichment. Oikos 73: 181-187. >
Mohan, J. E., J. S. Clark, and W. H. Schlesinger. 2007. Long-term CO2 enrichment of a forest ecosystem: implications for forest regeneration and succession. Ecological Applications 17: 1198-1212.
None of those references show a deleterious response.
Reference #3
“A number of unexplained responses of plants to CO2 enrichment have been observed. These anomalies can be explained on the basis of growth analysis of whole plants. Some plants may fail to respond to enrichment because they are long-lived and have conservative growth responses or come from impoverished habitats. Apparent (but not real) acclimation to CO2 enrichment might be observed if only part of the growth curve over the life of a perennial is studied.”
Reference #4. They planted trees under low light conditions.
“shade-intolerant trees did not survive better with CO₂ enrichment”
Wow. Not much of a reference. Trees that like sun do not respond well to shade even if you give them Co2.
Ok … Co2 isn’t magic and Andy should have got an RA to check the references.
Andy
As my reply to you higher up the thread appweared out of sequece can I repeat that the purpose of this article is to seek peer review and therefore your calculations of temperature reductions that refute Ed’s will be useful to us in moving this paper to a second edition.
Thanks
Tonyb
Environmentalism is a right-brain activity – no point in confusing them with facts and figures.
Poley bears are their mascot: they see a fluffy cuddly teddy-bear from their own childhood where a more rational analysis would see a dangerous killer best avoided and controlled.
And when they dropped poleyteddy in the bath, he couldn’t swim! Mummy had to come to get him out.
Hence Al Gore’s movie and the faked iceberg picture and every cuddlywuddly appeal to ‘save the planet’. Usually by giving somebody richer than you lots of money to spend……
It is true that the global warming for the last century was 0.6 deg C.
http://bit.ly/iFHM0c
However, there is no evidence it will be more than 0.6 deg C in this century.
Actually, if the trend for the first decade of this century continues, there will be little warming at the end of this century
http://bit.ly/dEFb9d
Where is the evidence for 2-3 degrees centigrade warming for this century?
Any government asking their citizens to live “less well off” than their parents did, to mitigate any supposed rise in temperature, should be summarily dismissed. If our best and brightest cannot cope with a mere rise of 3 degrees, without lowering living standards, they are neither our best nor our brightest. They doom the poorest of the world’s poor to a life of poverty in a mildly warmer world.
There is no easy solution to this problem; the challenge is how best to develop options that are feasible, efficient, viable and scalable. It is correct to be concerned about the possibility of bad policy choices. But I have yet to see any option that is worse than ignoring the risk of global warming and doing nothing.
Note from JC: this post was NOT made by me. The words in this post were pulled from a 2007 op-ed I wrote for the WaPost
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/10/AR2007101002157.html?hpid=opinionsbox1.
This was at the peak of my “warmist” phase, this is probably the strongest statement re policy that I made.
Judith Curry
The most recent warming is identical to the one before wide use of fossil fuels.
http://bit.ly/eUXTX2
The current decadal global warming trend is flat.
http://bit.ly/dEFb9d
Where is the evidence for the risk?
What’s wrong with wait and see and then tackle problems as when they crop up?
And if the problems never happen we spend those future efforts on something worthwhile.
The cynic would observe that such a policy would shut off a lot of lucrative career opportunities for politicians, businessmen, climatologists, lobbyists and others.
And they (even our hostess here) already have vast vested interest in their being a Big Problem that needs Big Solutions with Big Money spent upon it.
Waiting and seeing does not need lots of money spent. And what else would a redundant climatologist be good for?
You mean that panicking isn’t smart policy? No! Must panic! Must panic!
Judith
You have stated:
“Ignoring the risk” may be foolhardy, but I think the first step should be “identifying and quantifying the risk” (see Jack Hughes comment). BTW this is not “doing nothing”, as I am sure you agree, it is simply “doing the smart thing”.
We have not yet reached the point for developing or implementing action plans, as I believe you have already stated in the past.
We may, after more study, find out (as Girma suggests) that there “is no risk from global warming” or that “the risk is so small that it is insignificant”, in which case Jack Hughes is right: let’s save our money for more worthwhile endeavors rather than charging off to fight what turns out to be a paper tiger.
We have not reached the point where we are intelligent or knowledgeable enough to decide what options we should develop “that are feasible, efficient, viable and scalable”. That may become “step 6” of the decision process, but we have just completed “step 1”.
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5267/5695851735_713e9422ee_b.jpg
Max
PS I believe Tony Brown’s article points out with a specific example the folly of implementing carbon reduction plans before we even know a) if they will work or b) if they are even required or beneficial if they did work.
Max, I wholeheartedly agree with “identifying and quantifying the risk”, and developing a range of policy options to assess (including their unintended consequences)
But that’s always the problem. The downside consequences aren’t intended..and often aren’t/can’t be foreseen.
Another reason to be cautious in making bold dramatic gestures…..
I disagree strongly with the idea that people are ” ignoring the risk of global warming and doing nothing.” Millions of Americans have spent untold millions of hours thinking about and debating this issue. That we are over 70,000 comments here is a good example. Thinking is not ignoring. However, many have come to the conclusion that the risk is simply not actionable at this time. Mere possibility is not the same as actionable risk. Thus “doing nothing” as you call it is actually a deliberative choice, a reasoned conclusion. Making a choice is doing something.
What you call action is simply the activists view and the activists happen to be losing the debate. This is after all a political movement being questioned. The IPCC and Al Gore got the Nobel prize for activism, not for science. No action is in fact the best option, in my considered view.
Dr. Curry: Thanks for the clarification regarding the out-of-date quote from the peak of your “warmist” phase, to which I was replying. Being able to reconsider one’s opinion is a remarkable trait, too little found. I do think the all important distinction between risk per se and actionable risk is worth consideration.
And of course we are taking a great many small actions, but we are not deliberately “decarbonizing” our economy. For example, because of the latest wave of US EPA regulations having nothing to do with climate change it is estimated that 50,000 MW of old coal fired power plants will be shut down. Moreover, in the last wave of new plant construction almost all of it was gas fired, not coal fired, about 200,000 MW. So we are clearly switching from coal to gas, just not overnight and not because of climate change. Coal is being regulated to death just as nuclear was.
There I was applauding your clear thinking on this subject: http://ourchangingclimate.wordpress.com/2011/05/27/judith-curry-quwe-should-not-ignore-the-risks-of-global-warming/
So are you or are you not distancing yourself from this statement? I go from at time vehemently disagreeing with you to strongly agreeing with you. But it seems I mainly agree with the 2007 Curry and not so much with the 2011 version.
I thought you were critical of labelling people, and yet you label your 2007 self as “warmist”?
Bart, yes i spotted this on your blog. Here is what i wrote in a message somewhere on this thread:
Jim, that statement was written in 2007. Would I have written those exact words today? No. At the same time, I do not retract or regret any of these words. in terms of “action”, there are a number of now/low regret actions that make a lot of sense and would reduce vulnerability to extreme events that we are already seeing. Stay tuned for my next post on “uncertainty, risk, and (in)action.”
In terms of labelling, self labeling is allowed, and in 2007 I was hewing to the “party line”
Judith,
Thanks for clarifying.
Judith Curry
Thanks for clearing up that the post with the statement on policy did not come from you.
As a result, my response is not directed at you either.
“nuff said.
Max
The tribal notion of “the common good” has served as the moral justification of most social systems—and of all tyrannies—in history. The degree of a society’s enslavement or freedom corresponded to the degree to which that tribal slogan was invoked or ignored.
“The common good” (or “the public interest”) is an undefined and undefinable concept: there is no such entity as “the tribe” or “the public”; the tribe (or the public or society) is only a number of individual men. Nothing can be good for the tribe as such; “good” and “value” pertain only to a living organism—to an individual living organism—not to a disembodied aggregate of relationships.
“The common good” is a meaningless concept, unless taken literally, in which case its only possible meaning is: the sum of the good of all the individual men involved. But in that case, the concept is meaningless as a moral criterion: it leaves open the question of what is the good of individual men and how does one determine it?
It is not, however, in its literal meaning that that concept is generally used. It is accepted precisely for its elastic, undefinable, mystical character which serves, not as a moral guide, but as an escape from morality. Since the good is not applicable to the disembodied, it becomes a moral blank check for those who attempt to embody it.
When “the common good” of a society is regarded as something apart from and superior to the individual good of its members, it means that the good of some men takes precedence over the good of others, with those others consigned to the status of sacrificial animals. It is tacitly assumed, in such cases, that “the common good” means “the good of the majority” as against the minority or the individual. Observe the significant fact that that assumption is tacit: even the most collectivized mentalities seem to sense the impossibility of justifying it morally. But “the good of the majority,” too, is only a pretense and a delusion: since, in fact, the violation of an individual’s rights means the abrogation of all rights, it delivers the helpless majority into the power of any gang that proclaims itself to be “the voice of society” and proceeds to rule by means of physical force, until deposed by another gang employing the same means.
If one begins by defining the good of individual men, one will accept as proper only a society in which that good is achieved and achievable. But if one begins by accepting “the common good” as an axiom and regarding individual good as its possible but not necessary consequence (not necessary in any particular case), one ends up with such a gruesome absurdity as Soviet Russia, a country professedly dedicated to “the common good,” where, with the exception of a minuscule clique of rulers, the entire population has existed in subhuman misery for over two generations.
http://bit.ly/jPO4iZ
Who defines “common good” makes all the difference (see above http://judithcurry.com/2011/05/26/the-futility-of-carbon-reduction/?replytocom=72360#respond )
“Some of you may die, but it’s a sacrifice I am willing to make.” – Farquaad (Shrek) [url]http://www.imsdb.com/scripts/Shrek.html[/url]
Tony’s arguements and Ed’s figures are very persuasive, and the “peak oil/running out of stuff” scare doesn’t really wash in the short to medium term when market forces drive discovery and production to meet demand.
Looking at the appeal of renewables in the short term for the UK apart from carbon reduction, I came across the balance of payments issue (import vs export).
“One thing is simple and this is something many people don’t think about – we used to export energy – now we import it. That costs – a lot now, and even more as prices rise…
That net import in 2008 cost us £14 billion and is only set to increase. We are in ‘fuel deficit’ to add to the budget deficit. This is the difference between owning and controlling an energy source, and buying it and seeing the money leave the country. This, my friends, is the argument for developing renewables as part of our energy supply.” from http://diggingintheclay.wordpress.com/2011/05/16/britains-green-zeal/
This seems to be why the UK is prepared to invest £16 billion per year into development of renewables. Why not nuclear? I don’t know, but we would have to import nuclear fuel, technology and know how for construction; this may have to happen anyway. As I understand it the argument goes, that even if you are paying over the odds for (renewable) energy, the money is (mostly) staying at home and is therefore a form of stimulus.
My knowledge of economics is zilch. Can anyone comment on the validity of this arguement?
Hi Verity – the idea of ‘keeping the money in the country’ sounds very appealing at first.
You could apply the same argument to anything. Ban car imports and keep the money in the country. Ban computer imports and we could all use some home-spun gadgets. This approach has been tried in the old East Germany and North Korea.
The key point is that we are wealthier when we specialise and trade. Do what we do well and buy what we don’t do well.
I’m going to keep a pig at the bottom of my garden.
That’ll save my money being exported from my house to Tesco.
Not much good for the milk on the cornflakes though….maybe a cow as well. And a cornfield……and some sugar cane for the topping.
On the other hand, you can price your industries out of the home market by making energy so expensive that you end up buying goods and services from China and India that were made in factories powered by coal.
So you end up feeling good about your “sacrifice”, but more Co2 and carbon soot is produced than if you have burned shale gas and built nuclear power plants locally. And all the jobs are gone and the less people are employed.
Jack,
Good point. Although it could be argued that energy is all pervasive and is required for whatever specialism a country has. UK has plenty of expertise in fossil energy production, it just no longer has the reserves of North Sea oil and gas; coal mining is mothballed and confirmed shale gas is low at present.
What if countries don’t want to trade (energy)?
You make an excellent point about East Germany and North Korea, and in many ways there are strong parallels in the way the UK has been going – much of the ‘control’ of society that has developed in the last 10 years.
In addition, imbalances in trade when a country has a flexible exchange rate lead to changes in the rate, altering the competitiveness of trading inustries. So long as countries specialise in areas of “comparative advantage” (providing those goods and services whicjh they generate most efficiently), incomes will be maximized, once you restrict trade to protect inefficient industries/services, your rate of economic growth declines.
Verity Jones
France has recently stated quite clearly that it intends to remain the global leader in nuclear power technology and production, despite the post-Fukushima anxieties of its neighbors. Yet France has no source of uranium.
Most of the cost related to nuclear power generation is capital-related, rather than fuel-related, as it is with less capital-intensive fossil fuel plants.
The UK could embark on exactly the same path as France, rather than chasing ineffective and costly windmills. The obstacles are political, not economic.
Max
manacker,
at present UK would need to import a lot of French know-how too! Anyway importing fuel and technology is not really part of the argument, after all the leading renewable technologies tend to be manufactured outside the UK and are imported for implementation anyway.
A french company owns the UK’s existing nuclear power stations.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7532542.stm
The best way to reduce carbon is to burn it and make CO2. It’s exothermic, so we also get usable energy.
Edim, I love that post!
As a British taxpayer I have a few quarms about some of the above comments.
There are studies evidenced that provide benefits from a world with increased levels of CO2 and temperature but I don’t yet see them being discussed in relation to policy. Maybe a flaw in the reporting of the IPCC which maybe fixed by the likes of Ed Hoskins but surely if the UK government is contributing financially to to the production of reports indicating the current level of scientific knowledge then any benefits should also be included.
There are various referrences to the government asking the British taxpayer to contribute to renewable technology in order to lead the world in cutting carbon fuel usage. I’m sorry but this indicates that we have a choice in the matter, we do not. The only option that we have to show that we do not agree with a particular policy is to vote for a different political party. If all three of the major political parties have the same agenda then the option is falls out of the democratic process.
If it is the will of the majority within this country to follow the renewable path then so be it, but in order to formulate that will there has to be a means of expressing opposition.
The descision by our government(s) to pursue this pollicy which has the risk of inhibiting the Uk economy in relation to the worlds economy is a descision of such magnitude that IMHO should require a refferendum of the people where equal time, and funds, should be allocated to the for and against lobies in National debates ending in a vote to retain or revoke the Climate Change Act 2008.
Lord Beaverbrook
I agree with your comment that the apparent benefits of warming should be included in any Govt report, which can then be debated together with the much better known concerns.
The greater number of deaths in winter (in the UK) compared to the summer, better crops due to a longer season and increased ‘plant’ food are two obvious areas of debate, as are the economic benefits by having lower priced energy than will be the case with renewables.
Other countries might counter these of course, but the information needs to be out there and debated, as presently we are being forcibly enrolled in a giant social enterprise into which we currently have no input because, as you say, all three major political parties in the UK are all on board with the IPCC policy.
Who knows, when it is all totted up we may indeed be doing ‘the right thing’ in the interests of everyone, but when one side of the debate is being ignored the overall picture is clouded.
Tonyb
If the entire world could suddenly be Hawaii, would it extend lifespans?
Judith:
Who is “Judith Curry”, as opposed to “CurryJA”?
The same. See ABOUT
mae culpa– I misunderstood the question.
No idea. I’ve flagged that comment with a note.
Anyone else ever studied the industrial revolution?
Textile mills really started to take off with water power. Not wind power. There were never any wind-powered factories.
Then steam came along and guess what ? They dropped the water mills.
In spite of having to pay for coal, pay for the steam engines, pay skilled men to operate them. Steam all the way.
Yes, but now we use wind turbines. Which are very different from windmills. In all sorts of ways. Like being turbines. And being high up.
Only they’re not turbines. They’re still just the same old windmills that they always used to be and given a newer name to fool the public.
I can only believe that the renewables industry is populated exclusively by charlatans and spivs. They lie about the name of their product, they lie about the power generation capability. They get huge bribes from taxpayers (by government fiat) to build their monuments to Mother Gaia. And when we really really need the power (unusually cold winter time) the f….g wind doesn’t blow at all. Nett power is consumed to drive the windmills so they don’t seize up.
And still some greenist numptys believe in ‘wind power’.
Stirling, what is a “numpty” :) Do you mind if I use the term? :)
It is amazing to me that people would be taken in by a report claiming to discover that acting alone against climate change would be costly and not work if nobody else acted, as if that weren’t the definition of the “tragedy of the commons.”
It is surprising to me that people who vent their hatred of “modelling” would grasp at any old economic model and repeat its conclusions as gospel truth as long as they are understood to support inaction.
It is amusing to me that some people think human creativity and adaptability will solve any and all problems associated with the Anthropocene, but that a simple carbon tax will bring civilization crashing down.
1. Amazement
Not sure what you are arguing here. Is it that you are amazed anybody didn’t know this already? Or that the whole idea is wrong? It is not clear which you are amazed about.
2. Surprise
You seem to be arguing about different types of ‘models’. And I’m not even sure which economic model you are referring to.
Aand btw I don;t think anybody here has a hatred of ‘modelling’ per se. Just that many do not accept that models are a good susbtitute for actual observations. Nor that if the model and reality diverge it is reality that must be changed. Feynman put it better:
“It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong”
3. Amusement
Nobody has said that a carbon tax will bring civilisation crashing down. But shooting oneself in the foot is rarely fatal either. Just a pretty dumb thing to do, especially if it has no beneficial consequences. Quite a lot of pain and no gain.
Stupid.
* Well, that’s “the tragedy of the commons”. You can always argue that it is fine for you to be antisocial because you are just one person. But there are other views of ethics, leadership, pollution. London doesn’t have smog any more, and that’s thanks to all 7 million people all following the lead of whoever went first.
I liked much this answer of Mackay.
It is particularly telling because it is written by somebody who is supposed to be a (chief) scientist.
Somebody whose added value to be at the position where he is consists in his (supposed) scientific knowledge.
Interestingly there is not a hint of a scientific argument – it is an answer that anybody who is scientifically totally illiterate could have made.
It is politics pure.
I find it interesting because it explicitely shows what the REAL debate is all about.
It is not about science, climate sensitivity or non linear dynamics.
It is just about a messianic calling of some who have “other” views of ethics, leadership and pollution (let’s only stress one more time that CO2 is not a pollutant! ).
Then there are those OTHERS for whom it is fine to be antisocial because they are … just one person.
Of course this argument is ridiculous and dramatically wrong.
It is wrong because those others are not more “just one person” than Mr Mackay is.
But it has been the principle of politics since man appeared on this planet that those one-persons who happened not to agree with the visions of ethics , leadership and pollution of other one-persons , tended to group together.
In the old times this grouping together generally involved using blunt weapons to show to others the wrongness of their ways.
The right vision of ethics , leadership and pollution was then invariably with those with stronger muscles and more cunning plans.
The modern era didn’t change anything on this principle.
We only call the groups political parties instead of tribes and tend to use votes more than maces.
So what I would like to say to Mr Mackay is:
“It is fine for you to have visions of leadership and ethics which has for target to lead our country to hell. But you just belong to a group of one-persons who happen to share your insane ambitions.
Suffer then dear Sir that myself and all who abhor your visions give ourselves for target to send you back to the hole which you should have never crept out of.
We will express our displeasure with you through our next votes and please be aware that this means that we absolutely wish your visions of leadership, ethics and pollution politically dead. For ever.
It is fine if you whine about the injustice, how great a Genius and Benevolent Leader you are and all that but it is also about time that you realize that it is YOU, the one-person Mackay who is there to serve US and not the other way round.”
Apologies, this got caught in spam
And, as I mentioned elswhere, London’s smog was knocked out by the draconian Clean Air Act 1964, not by public-spirited indivudals following another’s lead. It is astonishing, given his position, that Mackay thinks otherwise.
Faustino, the UK Clean Air Act was passed in 1956. The US Clean Air Act was passed in 1963.
You’re right, how come Mackay does not know this? It doesn’t require much research to find out that London had several prior ‘clean air acts’ too, in 1853, 1856 and 1891.
My recollection is that a 1964 Act brought change, I remember a smog in 62-63 in which visibility was a few feet. I went out one day to find a (very slow-moving bus) which had crossed to the wrong side of the road, mounted the payment, and was about to drive into my basement area. And finding myself back at Finsbury Park tube station after an hour spent trying to get home. It got better thereafter.
To TonyB’s article and my estimate of global impact of shutting down the UK completely, there have been a few comments such as “well, of course the UK is only a small part of the total, but if everyone joined together globally…”
Let’s look at an extreme case.
Let’s say we shut down the global carbon-based economy completely by 2030. What will that bring us “climatewise”?
Carrying the same calculation I made for the UK out to cover all nations:
30 GtCO2/year emitted * 70 years (2100-2030) = 2,100 GtCO2
50% “remains” in atmosphere = 1,050 GtCO2
Mass of atmosphere = 5,140,000 Gt
So this equals 204 ppm(mass) or 134 ppmv
IPCC (scenario B1) without a global carbon shutdown tells us we should reach 580 ppmv CO2 by 2100
With the shutdown, this will only be 590 – 134 = 446 ppmv (just below Hansen’s magic “dangerous” “tipping point” level of 450 ppmv – whew!)
Using the IPCC model-based estimate for climate sensitivity and the same logarithmic calculation as for the UK alone, we will have averted 1.2°C of warming by 2100 by shutting down the world carbon-based economy.
This tells me quite plainly that
We are unable to change our climate, no matter how much money we throw at it.
I would appreciate if anyone who disagrees would show specifically a) why this calculation and conclusion are basically wrong and b) how we can change our planet’s climate by how much by cutting carbon emissions.
Max
2011 – “Psyence! Psyence! Psyence!”, they said in great fear.
The times they are a’changing! Again… Looks like the World (and Civilization) has stopped and we’re regressing back through time. Gee! How did that happen I wonder? Soon, no doubt, we’ll be sacrificing virgins to the great angry gods in hope of forgiveness of our collective transgressions.
We already build useless monuments to Mother Gaia in the hope of expiating our sins. And tax the population heavily to pay for them..
In UK we call them windmills.
In Australia, a Gaia believer, Tim Flannery, who is not a climate scientist, heads the Government’s climate change body.
Max, useful math!
Is there a “typo” in your sentence: “With the shutdown, this will only be 590 – 134 = 446 ppmv (just below Hansen’s magic “dangerous” “tipping point” level of 450 ppmv – whew!)”
Should that be 580 – 134?
Political Junkie
Thanks for catching typo. It should read “580 – 134 = 446 ppmv”.
Otherwise arithmetic is OK.
Max
The may be truth in the argumentation, but it’s worthless, if it is based on
This is such contradiction with common knowledge that nothing dependent on that will be taken seriously by most.
There is no real doubt that the influence of CO2 is larger.
The last sentence is erroneous. My purpose was to say that there is no doubt concerning the fact that the real influence of CO2 is larger. That has been discussed sufficiently also on this site.
Pekka Pirila
With our papers we are trying to establish the real world impact we can have on temperature reductions through an aggressive policy of carbon reduction.
It would be most helpful if you could provide your own caluclations as to what the answers would be to the questions I posed.
tonyb
Tony,
Carbon has a very minor role on this planet.
Heat is a different story but there are a vast amount of complex interaction that have to be understood first.
Giving specific numbers requires more than observing than some other numbers are totally wrong.
I’m sympathetic on the observation that benefits and costs are not taken properly into account in policies of most or all European countries, but I do believe that this can be demonstrated without the use of erroneous inputs.
There is of course the problem that many people take the results of Stern Review seriously, or accept at the maximum some minor corrections to them. This is a demonstration on the difficulty of pinpointing what is the real best estimate and what are the limits of plausibility. I can say safely that both the numbers on the influence of CO2 that I criticized and the Stern Review are in my opinion far off-the-mark, but that leaves still too much open. Some inputs are so difficult to quantify that I’m not willing to tell any specific numbers.
Pekka
The real influence of CO2 may well be much SMALLER than conventional projections. See Roy Spencer 2011 etc.
Indirect Solar Forcing of Climate by Galactic Cosmic Rays: An Observational Estimate
In evaluating the global optical depth from 1948-2008, Ferenc Miskolczi finds NO correlation to CO2, but only to H2O. See
Poster presentation at the European Geosciences Union General Assembly, Vienna, 7 April 2011
It’s useless to argue more on that as there are hundreds or more messages on that already on this site alone. Miskolczi has previously published so much explicitly erroneous that I’m not going to spend any time on his papers any more. There are always also others that perpetuate things that are generally accepted to be wrong.
We have just had a thread on “What we agree upon?” and seen that even a large part of skeptics agree on many issues and the approximate of the direct radiative forcing of CO2 belongs to those issues (while the feedbacks certainly do not).
Even with some doubts on the generally accepted values, an analysis of economics of carbon reduction should use those values as starting point, because not doing that results in an immediate dismissal of the whole analysis by most. They’ll not check it’s possible merits, if they find that they disagree at the starting assumptions. A throughout strongly skeptical analysis may get applauds from equally minded, but it has no change of influencing anybody.
Pekka Pirilä
You wrote:
It was NOT based on the premise you cite, ergo it is NOT “worthless” (as you state), unless you can find an error in the arithmetic. In fact, it was based on the IPCC model-based 2xCO2 climate sensitivity (with all feedbacks) of 3.2C on average per AR4 WG1 report.
This is very likely to be an exaggerated figure, as pointed out earlier on this site, which would mean that shutting down the world’s global carbon-based economy in 2030 would have a temperature effect by 2100 of significantly less than the 1.2C I calculated.
My conclusion from this is quote simply:
We are unable to change our climate, no matter how much money we throw at it.
But, hey, if you can find an error in my calculation (and, hence, this conclusion) please let me know.
Max
Tony,
There is a great deal of science in motion with the planet that has never been looked into as the theories of physics came up with many LAWS that science has suppressed itself into these corners.
Many of science does not include the difference in the circumference of the equator to the poles, circular motion and the deflection of solar energy off a moving object, the energy difference of compression which has a huge impact to the atmosphere and under the planet’s surface(centrifugal force),
the possibility of two magnetic fields, the force of the sun’s magnetic field in the sequence to the planets circular motion(bugs on the windshield effect), etc. etc. etc.
Insane gulibles. Time for the Brits to take refuge in China and India for a comfortable life.
Our hostess writes “There is no easy solution to this problem; the challenge is how best to develop options that are feasible, efficient, viable and scalable. It is correct to be concerned about the possibility of bad policy choices. But I have yet to see any option that is worse than ignoring the risk of global warming and doing nothing.”
I have thought long and hard as to how to express what I think of this statement. I dont want to be rude, as I have the utmost respect for our hostess, and all the wonderful things that this blog represents. But it seems to me that what Judith is saying is
My mind is made up. Dont confuse me with the facts.
Jim, that statement was written in 2007. Would I have written those exact words today? No. At the same time, I do not retract or regret any of these words. in terms of “action”, there are a number of now/low regret actions that make a lot of sense and would reduce vulnerability to extreme events that we are already seeing. Stay tuned for my next post on “uncertainty, risk, and (in)action.”
Judith writes “Stay tuned for my next post on “uncertainty, risk, and (in)action.””
Fair enough.
“reduce vulnerablility to extreme events that we are already seeing.”
Does that mean you believe this year’s surge in tornadoes is due to global warming? I inferred from your More Tornado Madness post you did not believe that.
No, this does not follow from my reduce vulnerability statement. Does New Orleans need better levies? Does Atlanta need better storm sewers? Does property on the Texas coast need better building codes? Etc.
Judith,
Would you agree that wait and see has worked well for the 4 years since your statement ?
[In fact wait and see has worked well for mankind for several thousand years]
To Jim Cripwell:
The comment to which you refer was posted under the name “Judith Curry”. The host of this site ordinarily posts as “CurryJA”. One wonders who really posted under the name “Judith Curry”?
“My mind is made up.”
Sadly, I suspect Dr. Curry isn’t free to express a change of mind, were it to occur. She has a job to do and there are a lot of people out there left to propagandize.
This is probably a good moment to remember to be thankful for our freedom to think and act independently, and remember it’s a freedom worth the effort to maintain.
Andrew
Not futile, catastrophic. Not just convenience and economic costs, but also the establishment of diktat, the sacrifice of liberty. As a reminder, the following is the Regulatory Czar’s take on schemes like this. Sunstein’s main points:
“Yet the precautionary principle, for all its rhetorical appeal, is deeply incoherent. It is of course true that we should take precautions against some speculative dangers. But there are always risks on both sides of a decision; inaction can bring danger, but so can action. Precautions, in other words, themselves create risks – and hence the principle bans what it simultaneously requires.”
…
“In the context of climate change, precautions are certainly a good idea. But what kinds of precautions? A high tax on carbon emissions would impose real risks – including increased hardship for people who can least afford it and very possibly increases in unemployment and hence poverty. A sensible climate change policy balances the costs and benefits of emissions reductions. If the policy includes costly (and hence risk-creating) precautions, it is because those precautions are justified by their benefits.
“The nations of the world should take precautions, certainly. But they should not adopt the precautionary principle.”
Sunstein, Cass R. 2008. Throwing precaution to the wind: Why the “safe” choice can be dangerous. Opinion. boston.com – The Boston Globe. July 13. http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2008/07/13/throwing_precaution_to_the_wind
The above is drawn from several of his academic papers, among which are:
Sunstein, Cass R. 2003. Beyond The Precautionary Principle. Working Paper #38. Public Law and Legal Theory. University of Chicago, January. http://www.law.uchicago.edu/files/files/38.crs_.precautionary.pl-lt.pdf
———. 2005. Laws of Fear: Beyond the Precautionary Principle. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Sunstein, Cass R., and Eric A. Posner. 2008. “Global Warming and Social Justice.” Regulation. http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv31n1/v31n1-3.pdf
Sunstein, Cass R., and David Weisbach. 2008. Climate Change and Discounting the Future: A Guide for the Perplexed. Working Paper. Reg-Markets Center, AEI Center for Regulatory and Market Studies, August. http://aei-brookings.org/admin/authorpdfs/redirect-safely.php?fname=../pdffiles/phpEK.pdf
Instead of the weight of scientific opinion, you really scrape the bottom of the science denial barrel in this article.
As a side bar, Andrew Dolt doesn’t help your case of you wish to be taken seriously as a critic or offer analysis relevant to both immediate and longterm policy goals or legislation relating to either adaptation/ effects of climate change or mitigation. Jill Duggan’s apparent inability to properly deal with combative interviews and discuss the facts and nuances of the first phase of the EU carbon trading scheme with Andrew Dolt is not an argument against anything relating to climate science or opportunities for emissions reductions for industry and business.
To be clear, Europe – not Jill Duggan – has stuck with cap and trade because it is cost effective.
Denier meme #129475600000: it’s all a European socialist tax scheme.
Your questions are not new to anyone who has been paying attention, and you seem unable to find the ongoing science research and discussions of policy and economic issues related to climate change that engage your questions. I encourage you to try again.
Martha
Perhaps you would like to provide a link to an objective and accurate estimate of how much temperature reduction can be expected for a specific amount of carbon reduction?
We can then relate that to what is actually achievable in the real world, what that will cost, the end results and what can actually be achieved with our current level of technology.
The challenges of changing to the degree of renewables required ( to focus on one part of the equation) in order to phase out a significant proportion of our carbon at an achievable cost and to any practical purpose, seems beyond us at present.
If you would like to present a coherent rebuttal of that, and perhaps directly answer some of the questions posed, that is the purpose of asking for comments. Thank you.
tonyb
TonyB
I can tell from your posts here that you are a very polite and thorough individual who does his homework diligently and chooses his words well.
With most posters here this approach will ensure a rational and unemotional dialog.
Since you are relatively new to this site, you are most likely unaware that Martha does not engage well in rational, non-emotional debates, so your polite response to her attack on your article will most likely not get you a rational, non-emotional response from her.
But, then again, maybe she will surprise us all.
Max
‘Instead of the weight of scientific opinion, you really scrape the bottom of the science denial barrel in this article’
Thanks for that considered and well-argued point.
But are there any particular points from the article (apart from Ms Duggan’s failure to have done some basic estimates), that you’d like to discuss? It was written to solicit further input. Have you any?
As a frequent lurker on this site, and some others, I have been puzzled by the lack of quantitative data of the potental impact on temperature of greenhouse gas emission reduction efforts. Numerical values of tonnes of CO2 equivalent or enough to power X homes are commonly used to “justifiy” government action, with no mention of the potential impact on averting a rise in global temperatures in quantitative terms.
This is the reason Max’ calculations above caught my interest.
Pekka Pirila’s comments puzzle me. If I read him correctly, he disagrees with the the math but appears to feel that it’s either not possible or worth our while to seek a numerical answer. (For the purposes of this discussion, I’m willing to accept an answer that contains the caveat: “If IPCC projections are valid ………..” ) Pekka, am I reading you correctly?
Is it not reasonable for ratepayers to demand an answer to the question:
“We are being forced to change our behaviour significantly through regulations and taxation to avert global warming. What quantitative impact on global temperatures will the goverments’ policies have?”
From here, it seems that the avoidance of the topic suggests one of two possible distasteful alternatives: Either – We don’t have a clue, but its good politics and a great opportunity to do social engineering. OR – The number is so vanishingly small that we dare not reveal it to the blissfully ignorant public who would revolt if they knew the actual “value for money” of our policies.
Or perhaps that if faced with the choices of
a) the world being on average 2C warmer and not paying a lot of taxes or
b) it staying the same and paying lots of extra taxes,
many people would see the warmer and lower tax option a) as a win-win deal. In UK excessive heat is rarely a problem..excessive cold is far worse.
And – from my personal perspective, I just don’t believe that the temperature between say 1600 and 1900 was absolutely idea and that any small deviation (eg moving from 285K to 287K) is going to produce global catastrophe.
There have been lots and lots of blood-curdling predictions, but none have come to pass. The longer time passes as nothing extraordinary occurs, the less weight such remarks have and the more foolish the predictors come to look.
Challenge to believers
Please cite your top 10 actual real observed bad consequences of global warming that are new since, say, 1960. Not predictions…observations.
Should be easy. Be prepared to justfiy why they are bad, not just different from what you have been used to.
Latimer,
There have been no “blood curdling” predictions based on a temperature rise of 0.8C, which is what we have seen so far, so the premise of your argument is incorrect.
One we get towards 2C and above things start to get more scary. I would recommend that you read Mark Lynas’s “Six Degrees” – it gives a reasonable outline of the expected impacts of increasing temperature rises, with references to te relevant literature if you want to check them out. No doubt you will consider it unduly “alarmist” but at least you will know what the pro-AGW side are actually arguing.
OK
+0.8C and there have been no nasties at all.
But the next +1.2.C is going to be really really scary?
Will I live long enough (55 now) to see any actual evidence of the supposed bad effects of global warming? Or are they like the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow
PS – you forgot sealevel rise. Up at least an inch or two. Not many drownded yet though…..
Lets do a little thought experiment here. (Good enough for Einstein, good enough for us).
Let’s assume that it was only in the last ten or twenty years that we had thought to measure global temperatures.
And so we hadn’t really noticed the +0.8C warming that we are told has occurred in the last century. After all, so far there are no nasty observable effects. And if people weren’t looking at every last thing for signs of climate change, they wouldn’t be obvious.
And lets also assume that somebody only now started making their predictions about the terrible effects of ‘global warming’.
Would they take as their baseline the existing un-nastied climate at whatever it is today and start making predictions about the terrible effects of warming after another +2.0C? Like they did in the 1990s?
Or would they be saying that the nasties would all kick in in just another +1.2C? So that the difference between happiness and disaster is between 285.2K and 286.4K (or whatever the numbers might be)? Rather than between 284.4K and 286.4K?
Just wondered. Perhaps those telling us of all the bad things that are just around the corner would go back to your methods and see if you can give an answer. Thanks.
I eagerly await Pekka,s reply. Perhaps with the math to support his position.
H
Hank,
The problem is, that no reliable answer can be given.
It’s not possible to calculate the benefits of any specific action made to mitigate climate change. For most actions it’s also impossible to give reasonable estimates for the costs. From our lacking capability of providing reasonably accurate numbers, we cannot conclude, what the ratio of benefits and costs would be.
There have been attempts to show that we know enough to decide even without good cost estimates. One attempt was by Stern Review, but its chosen methods are such that the numbers are meaningless. The analysis weights far future so strongly that the result is dominated by that part, we know least about and are least able to interpret, and not mildly dominated, but totally dominated. I have discussed this more on my own blog.
The opening message is an example of the other extreme. In this case the external input about the influence of CO2 is selected so low that there is no interest in looking at the results.
A non-biased calculation requires quantitative estimates for many factors that cannot really be estimated. Furthermore the results are highly dependent on choices of ethical nature. All this is just too difficult for anybody to present well justified numbers, and any numbers given would almost certainly be misinterpreted by others.
My view is that the risks are serious enough to be taken seriously. No-regret and low cost mitigating measures should be adopted promptly. Major efforts should be directed to improve our knowledge and develop technologies that have plausible potential for offering cost-effective solutions in future. How much further we should go rapidly, is something that should in my mind be discussed much more openly and widely than it’s presently. Right now those favoring rapid action don’t want to admit, how serious gaps remain in their arguments, but the opposing side is no more interested in open discussion. They prefer objecting to everything being skeptic also on pretty well known facts.
Perhaps I succeeded at least in justifying, why I don’t give my own numbers. Some more of these themes can be found from my blog.
For most actions it’s also impossible to give reasonable estimates for the costs.
Not so for those that push up fuel prices. That article, from 2008, contained the following:
The biggest concern is the potential impact on consumer spending, which accounts for about 70 percent of U.S. economic activity…Economists estimate that every additional penny at the pump takes roughly $1 billion out of overall spending.
Pekka –
It’s not possible to calculate the benefits of any specific action made to mitigate climate change. For most actions it’s also impossible to give reasonable estimates for the costs. From our lacking capability of providing reasonably accurate numbers, we cannot conclude, what the ratio of benefits and costs would be.
Then conversely, it’s not possible to calculate the damages of any specific action NOT made to mitigate climate change. If you can’t define one, then you can’t define the other.
Therefore mitigation is nothing more than an act of faith. But in this case, there’s no basis for faith other than “Believe the science”. But the science isn’t believable except by faith. Somehow, to me, that resembles a circle.
I see also a circle, but doesn’t prove to me that I can forget the whole issue.
The precautionary principle is fundamentally correct, but even so it requires some data. The second but is that it gives with a good reason a different weight for uncertainties about very serious outcomes. Therefore seeing a circle, doesn’t imply knowing, what to do. (It doesn’t imply that nothing should be done.)
Pekka –
I’m not proposing that “nothing” should be done. But without, at the very least, a cost/benefit ratio to work with there is no basis for doing any mitigation. So the FIRST thing to do is to determine the benefits of what’s being proposed and THEN determine the cost. ONLY then is there any basis for decision making. Until then, it’s only handwaving and —- unsupported and insupportable FAITH.
I won’t comment here on the precautionary principle except to note that you need to read Aaron Wildavsky’s take on it in his book “But Is It True?”
My bad –
Until then, it’s only handwaving and —- unsupported and insupportable FAITH.
Or a political power grab.
Jim,
It’s a dilemma, when there is a feeling that something should be done, but little knowledge on what it should be.
I agree that without reasonably reliable cost/benefit analysis, the decisions are political without firm support from science. The political decision makers must decide, how they use the incomplete and in many ways qualitative knowledge that science can provide. The political decisions are not bound by any rules on the required reliability of data, but free to make the choice on that. The lack of reliable cost/benefit analysis is a common situation for much of political decision making, there is nothing exceptional in that respect in climate policy. The climate issues are perhaps more difficult to judge intuitively based on earlier experience than many others, but not unique in that respect either.
There might be some intermediaries between scientists and politicians, i.e. people with good scientific literacy, but also an understanding of the political process and the trust of a significant group of politicians. The same people would certainly not have the trust of all politicians, but the same idea might be used separately by most political factions. I know that this is not a perfect solution, but it might be a step to the right direction.
Pekka,
Have I correctly summarised your viewpoint as being based solely on a feeling that something must be done ?
Is there any other basis for your viewpoint ?
The easy answer is 1/2 of the developed world believes in CAGW and 1/2 are sleptical. Therefore, those who are warmist should show us the way and reduce their CO2 output to 0 except of course for their breath. If 1/2 of the develped worlds CO2 output was eliminated that would definately show us what the benefit was. The world would then understand if it was worth it or not. The believers could live life happy knowing they did what was right for Gaia and their fellow man.
That way the UK would not have to sacrifice and go first to show the rest of the world, but only those who believe and they should be the most willing to sacrifice. Also we will have a much larger impact than just the UK’s effort.
Is there any downside to this proposal?
Similarly, those who believe that over-population is a great problem might alleviate it by removing themselves from the population rather than seeking to remove others, whether born or as yet unborn.
Sometimes I get dizzy reading some of the comments here.
“It’s not possible to calculate the benefits of any specific action made to mitigate climate change. For most actions it’s also impossible to give reasonable estimates for the costs. From our lacking capability of providing reasonably accurate numbers, we cannot conclude, what the ratio of benefits and costs would be.”
But
“Right now those favoring rapid action don’t want to admit, how serious gaps remain in their arguments, but the opposing side is no more interested in open discussion. They prefer objecting to everything being skeptic also on pretty well known facts.”
First, who are these skeptics and what are the well known facts of which they are skeptical? And where are skeptics fighting against open discussion?
But more importantly, the only “fact” that matters in implementing policy rationally is the outcome of a genuine cost benefit analysis (except for progressives, as I have argued elsewhere on this thread). Pekka asserts that the AGW/CAGW movement can’t produce facts/numbers to support any cost benefit analysis, and then accuses skeptics of wanting to avoid open discussion, because they are “skeptic also on pretty known facts.”
Huh?
This is just another iteration of Chief Hydrologist/Steven Mosher style posing as one of the few people on the planet who aren’t stoopid. I will say that at least Pekka doesn’t take explicit pride in expressing contempt of everyone else in the debate as some others do. He is much more polite about it.
But what is this obsession with being in some weirdly defined middle? There is no middle in the real climate debate that matters. There is decarbonization, and no decarbonization. Until that argument is settled, all the rest is navel gazing.
‘Climate change can therefore be initiated by changes in the energy received from the Sun, changes in the amounts or characteristics of greenhouse gases, particles and clouds, or changes in the reflectivity of the Earth’s surface. The imbalance between the
absorbed and emitted radiation that results from these changes will be referred to here as “climate forcing” (sometimes known as “radiative forcing”) and given in units of Wm-2. A positive climate forcing will tend to cause a warming, and a negative forcing a
cooling. Climate changes act to restore the balance between the energy absorbed from the Sun and the infrared energy emitted into space.
In principle, changes in climate on a wide range of timescales can also arise from variations within the climate system due to, for example, interactions between the oceans and the atmosphere; in this document, this is referred to as “internal climate variability”. Such internal variability can occur because the climate is an example of a chaotic system: one that can exhibit complex unpredictable internal variations even in the absence of the climate forcings discussed in the previous paragraph.’ http://royalsociety.org/climate-change-summary-of-science/
There are considerable uncertainties even in nature and quantification of the so called ordered forcing, in predicting economic, social or technological trajectories and in costing future impacts. The use by Stern, for instance, of a zero discount rate is clearly not SOP for determining the current value of future costs.
The second problem is clearly much more difficult by orders of magnitude. It is this problem that most of the world has failed to understand even in that it exists. I know how this arises but it makes communication most difficult. Words such as chaos, nonlinearity, chaotic bifurcation, dynamical complexity, dragon-kings are just words signifying nothing in any depth.
Indeed, I think even half or more of the esteemed Royal Society committee is wrong. Ordered forcing should be seen as control variables in an essentially chaotic system. Small changes in initial conditions drive abrupt and nonlinear change evident in many of the global ocean and atmospheric indices – and indeed in the surface temperature trajectory.
The calculations by Max and others involving simple equations and simplifying assumptions I find most unconvincing. But in a chaotic system – there are appreciable but unknown risks. As carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is at levels not seen for 10 to 15 million years and going higher – I would say that there are little understood ecological risks here as well.
The proposition that there is no proven risk of increasing greenhouse gases in the atmosphere carries with it no risk to Earth systems is an argument from extreme ignorance. Decarbonisation of the economy as quickly as possible seems the prudent course and there are many paths to achieve this without reducing human welfare or economic growth. The Hartwell 2010 paper for instance proposes multiple paths and multiple objectives – an approach I heartily endorse.
Pekka Pirilä
Whoa!
First you erroneously opine that my calculation of the impact of halting all human CO2 emissions by 2030 on the temperature in 2100 is based on a false premise.
I have since shown that your assumption here was wrong, and that the premise was IPCC’s own climate sensitivity assumption of 3.2C (and scenario B1 for CO2 increase without this global carbon shutdown).
You now say that “it’s not possible to calculate the benefits of any specific action made to mitigate climate change.
You are on thin ice here, Pekka.
IPCC makes all sorts of calculations on the deleterious effects of NOT halting CO2 emissions, based on the same climate sensitivity estimate and a bunch of model “scenarios” on CO2 increase.
I am simply showing, using the same calculation method and assumptions, that halting the CO2 emissions completely in 2030 will have a negligible influence on global temperature by 2100.
You can’t have it both ways, Pekka.
Either find an error in my calculation or admit that you cannot and it, therefore, stands.
Max
Political Junkie
Thanks for your thoughtful comments. We have Max’s interesting calculations and those from my colleague Ed Hoskins referenced at the start of the arricle and repeated here.
http://curryja.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/hoskins.pdf
I make no comment as to which-if any-are likely to be correct so would encourage others to submit their own calculations or provide links to studies.
At present it would appear that whatever end of the spectrum is chosen, that Ed and Max represent, the end result remains the same. IF the globes entire carbon economy were to be shut down the impact on temperatures would appear to be very small. As that isn’t going to happen and the most likely scenario is that 20% of western countries will shut down 20% of their carbon emissions the end result seems all the more pointless.
The UK seems willing to make more sacrifices than most other countries so the results of the actions the UK Govt takes to avoid what they see as a global concern will fall disproportionately on its citizens.
tonyb
Politics is alive and well.
IMHO A 20% reduction target will result in much excess cost if the eventual target is going to be higher then 20%.
I.E. Any moron can get a 20% reduction with a combination of natural gas and windmills. Getting beyond 20% may involve tossing out the windmills and natural gas plants in which case one has wasted their money on windmills and natural gas plants.
Tonyb – This post and commentary strike me as less than a reliable means of acquiring accurate information about the benefits and costs of CO2 mitigation in the UK. Some of the figures quoted in the original post are off by orders of magnitude, and even better estimates in some of the commentary are probably erroneous. The larger problem, though, is that a climate blog populated by individuals who differ enormously in level of knowledge and abilities to remain objective is almost certain to yield a wealth of misinformation along with accurate information – typically more of the former than the latter – and for that reason is rather useless as a main resource for drawing conclusions. With the exception of Dr. Curry, and possilby Paul Haynes, none of the individuals who has responded so far appears to do climate science for a living, and few are knowledgeable enough to state more than very tentative judgments.
I have my own views as to what an accurate calculation would be for a UK contribution to temperature mitigation. I won’t share them in this thread, because that would vitiate the point I want to make that no-one’s calculations here deserve to be taken too seriously – certainly not seriously enough to serve as the basis for policy decisions. For accurate calculations, I believe you must at least consult several scientists with expertise in the geophysics of greenhouse gas emissions, as well as others familiar with carbon mitigation strategies. Professor MacKay, from his biography, may not be among them, but I believe that if he were asked specifically to scrutinize some of the earlier quoted calculations, he would identify the errors.
The one point that I see as unassailable is that a UK contribution, by itself, cannot make much difference to global climate change mitigation, and must be considered in the context of a global strategy shared among all energy-consuming nations. This raises thorny political, social, economic and ideological issues revolving around the concept of the “tragedy of the commons”, and while this thread can be an interesting forum for discussing that concept, it is unlikely to resolve those issues to the satisfaction of disparate parties.
Fred, I don’t think we are here to resolve issues so much as elucidate them. It is a debate, not a decision process. There cannot be any accurate calculations regarding what the temperature impact of UK decarbonization might be, simply because we do not know what role CO2 plays, if any, in global change. So there is no need for climate scientists in this discussion, except to tell us how small it is according to AGW orthodoxy. Here I imagine a simple ratio of UK to projected global emissions will suffice. The number is small, as you note.
One thing that is certain, however, is that neither the US nor China is about to take any big steps toward decarb. China just posted a new 5 year plan with over 200,000 MW of new coal fired generating capacity. The US House is controlled by skeptics. So when you say this decision “must be considered in the context of a global strategy shared among all energy-consuming nations” you must also note that there is no such strategy.
Fred Moolten said
“This post and commentary strike me as less than a reliable means of acquiring accurate information about the benefits and costs of CO2 mitigation in the UK. Some of the figures quoted in the original post are off by orders of magnitude, and even better estimates in some of the commentary are probably erroneous.”
Please clarify which figures quoted in the original post are incorrect so we can change them in a future edition. Thanks
tonyb
Tony – I’ll be glad to. Please send me an email (you can find the address via my bio in the denizens page), and I will respond. However, for reasons I’ve stated, I don’t think my contribution will obviate your need to consult scientists who do this for a living.
Fred,
Are you saying that the professional scientists have done similar calcs but with better numbers / formulae ?
Have they published these ? Maybe on, er, w-w-w-websites ?
Fred Moolten | May 27, 2011 at 12:11 pm | Reply
I believe you must at least consult several scientists with expertise in the geophysics of greenhouse gas emissions, as well as others familiar with carbon mitigation strategies.
Those people have vested interests in the outcome.
Perhaps they should all present their data and let some decent Mathematicians and Economists work with the details to provide some accurate cost assessments based on their “Predictions”.
Let’s face it they won’t be based on Emperical data that is for sure.
Do you consult a dentist to check the condition of your teeth on a regular basis? Do you trust him to overcome his vested interest and to not tell you that you need more fillings everytime you visit him?
How often do you ask your doctor, mechanic, plumber, solicitor, etc for a second opinion? What makes scientists who are dependant on research funding more likely to be dishonest than anyone else?
Louise writes “Do you consult a dentist to check the condition of your teeth on a regular basis?”
There are some professions that are bound, by law, to provide the service they promise to. If they dont, they can be sued. This includes doctors, dentists, lawyers and professional engineers. Scientists are not so bound. So your observations are not really pertinent.
So you think that the only reason your dentist (mechanic, doctor, solicitor, etc) don’t fleece you is the threat of legal action?
I pity you for your lack of trust in your fellow man.
Not everyone behaves in a morally correct way because of the threat of legal action if they don’t. Many (including me) have morals that guide us. What makes you think scientists are a breed apart?
I just got back from the dentist today, and I know that he lied to me about antibiotics, because he changed his story after deciding to change the treatment plan. When he didn’t want to treat me with antibiotics, he told me that they wouldn’t do any good, and then when he changed his mind, he told me how much they’d help.
Yes, as a matter of fact, dentists do lie, and so do other professionals. In my experience, of all the professionals, lawyers are the least likely to lie, because people don’t trust them. The more you trust a group, the more they will lie.
http://www.cracked.com/article_19174_5-unexpected-downsides-high-intelligence.html
Louise writes “So you think that the only reason your dentist (mechanic, doctor, solicitor, etc) don’t fleece you is the threat of legal action?”
First, I am a Canadian. My doctor CANNOT fleece me, personally. And I dont think anything of the sort. Doctors, lawyers, etc. are members of a self-policing professions. These professions look very badly on members who do not behave ethically. So such professionals have a real incentive the behave professionally.
I dont think scientists are a breed apart. They behave the same as all normal human beings. They are quite happy to give their opinion, when there is no danger that, in giving an opinion, they put themselves at risk.
Precisely. Perhaps scientists who offer professional opinions for pay should be required to be licensed like engineers. If you want to testify in court or to congress? First question: are you a licensed professional scientist?
Just like with engineering, the unlicensed ones can still practice, they just can’t advise public policy, or offer letters in a legal context. Published peer-reviewed papers not stamped and signed by a licensed professional scientist aren’t generally considered admissible for legal purposes.
This seems to me like a no-brainer. Note that this, just like with engineering, is less about establishing competence than it is about giving them something to lose. You can’t revoke a PhD, but you can suspend or revoke a license.
Ummm…
In UK when I was grwoing up, the NHS paid dentists on a ‘per filling’ basis. It was rare to make a visit and come away without ‘needing’ at least one filling. The pay regime is different now and childhood fillings, once very common are now pretty rare. Simple confirmation that if you pay somebody to do something, more than likely they will do it. That’s why rewards are offered to catch criminals……often they work.
I don’t imagine that climatologists in general start put a any more honest/dishonest than any other bunch of individuals. But neither do I believe that the gravy train, and – for some at least – a near religious belief that they are saving the world from the sinners/deniers, has no effect on their behaviour. Their public actions certainly lead me to believe that many have let the ends justify the means.
The gravy train of oil/gas/coal millions is available to “skeptics,” and certainly one can see its influence on them, but there is no comparable “gravy train” for scientists who are not willing to lie.
Great.
Please explain how I can join the oil/gas/coal gravy train. Beihng semi-retired I can do with some extra cash to pay for my ever increasing energy and ‘green’ taxes.
Do I just apply to ‘Big Oil’, Wall Street, enclose a selection of my sceptical writings and expect a big fat cheque by return? Or is there an interview/aptitude test? If I have to travel to the US for it, will they pay expenses?
Or do I just pop into my local Total service station and say to the pump jockey ‘I’m a sceptic, give me all the cash from the till?’
A quick answer would be appreciated since its gone midnight here now and I think they close at 01:00. Cheers
Nonsense
“According to the report, conservative think-tanks, advocacy groups and industry associations raised some US$907 million during 2009, and spent a total of $787 million on their activities, with $259 million of that devoted specifically to climate and energy policy issues.
Over the same period, national environmental groups had revenues of $1.7 billion and spent $1.4 billion on their programmes, which included $394 million devoted to climate and energy issues.”
http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110419/full/news.2011.248.html
Heard from a dentist in a social setting: ” What I do is drill ’em, fill ’em and bill ’em”. Probably said in jest, but not too encouraging.
Sorry to lower the level of argument here but since Louise has already dragged it down I must correct her about her naiveté re the ethical standards of professionals and scientists.
Since Louise has such faith in dentists of all people, she should look at this article from the Guardian/Observer
“How the cowboy dentists are allowed to ruin our teeth”
The rip-off dentists .The appalling dental work being inflicted on most of the British population is exposed today by an Observer investigation which has uncovered evidence that up to 90 per cent of work falls below international standards. Critics argue that the appalling level of most dental work in Britain is due to a system that rewards poor work; an almost complete lack of quality checking and the near impossibility of having dentists disciplined or struck off.
——
It was in the Guardian so it must correct, eh, Louise?
Sod’s Law – if corruption and incompetence is permitted to happen it WILL happen. You cannot rely on some airy-fairy fantasy of personal ethics to police either an industry, a profession or individuals. Who is policing. i.e quality controlling, the climate scientists of the IPCC? Where is the equally well-funded “B-Team” ensuring rigorous testing of the A-Teams claims?
“Trust me, I’m an IPCC lead author” won’t wash.
“Sorry to lower the level of argument here but since Louise has already dragged it down ”
I think you will find that I was replying to a post by AC Osborn who said “Those people have vested interests in the outcome”
I fail to see how this is dragging down any argument, however, accusations that assume everyone is corrupt unless they are policed could be seen to be dragging down the argument.
Louise,
I think you mean well, but are a bit naive. A great deal of published research ends up being discarded one way or another. In most disciplines, the work is ultimately somehow self checking, but this can take a long time. Think back to the idea of polywater – the idea that there was another, more stable phase of water, that was viscous. Yes, there were serious articles written about the possibility that the stuff could nucleate the oceans, and wreck the earth! The whole phenomenon was ultimately traced to contaminants in the microscopic samples of supposed polywater.
Besides, the essence of this thread is that the UK can completely wreck it economy and way of life, and it will make a negligible difference to total CO2 levels!
Hello David Bailey
Thank you for your reply but I don’t see how that fits in to the discussion as to whether the scientists cannot be trusted because they have a vested interest in getting more research grants (which is the point I was responding to above http://judithcurry.com/2011/05/26/the-futility-of-carbon-reduction/#comment-70889 ).
Well part of that trust is not just in their honesty but their correctness! Informed scientists clearly have a range of opinions about climate change – compare Judith Curry with Phil Jones for example. They can’t all be correct!
The problem at the moment, is that people (and politicians) are really only hearing one side of the story – even when clear discrepancies exist in the science. This is based on the fiction that big business is funding skeptics of climate change, and that therefore their views are not worth reading.
Let me pursue my analogy. Suppose the polywater scare had happened now, perhaps we would have had an IPPC set up to make recommendations as to how to avoid a possible catastrophe involving a small quantity of polywater entering the sea and nucleating the rest of it to convert to polywater – like a wet windscreen on a cold winter’s day. This was considered to be a real threat for a while. I have no doubt that the IPPC would have come up with an ever more onerous series of suggestions, and its mere existence would have helped suppress the truth – that polywater was just contaminated water.
I used to support Greenpeace and WWF – I wish they would return to the real issues that affect our planet – nuclear weapons, rainforest destruction, depletion of resources, and over population. It see the CO2 issue as a massive distraction.
“Those people have vested interests in the outcome.”
How so? Do they hold stock in oil/coal/gas companies?
Fred Moolten, thanks for your observations.
The points that your comments fail to address are these:
The UK, for example, has made HUGE policy decisions in the climate change arena. Did the policy makers have a numerical temperature “reduction” target in mind and did they aim at a specific outcome? Did they do a cost benefit analysis based on this figure and decide that the impact of the policies was worth the cost?
If the target exists, why don’t we know about it?
If it doesn’t, then how did the decision makers arrive at specific targets?
Political Junkie
Once again thanks for your highly pertinent comment
‘Did the policy makers have a numerical temperature “reduction” target in mind and did they aim at a specific outcome? Did they do a cost benefit analysis based on this figure and decide that the impact of the policies was worth the cost? If the target exists, why don’t we know about it?”
My answer is that SURELY they must have done, but I can see no evidence to support that assumption as I’m certainly not aware of any target. That’s why I wrote this article- tgether with Ed,-in order to try to put forward some preliminary numbers for a debate that seems to notably lack any cost benefit analysis at present.
I am astonished by several commenters who appear to suggest thats its all too difficult to work out, but to just take their word for it that there is a BIG problem.
I think its reasonable to ask for the calculations on which this assertion is being made by scientists and Govts. Lets have access to the FACTS and FIGURES not platitudes.
tonyb
“SURELY they must have done.” Touching faith, Tony, not borne out by my experience as a government economic policy adviser. While political expedience is not universal, it is increasingly predominant.
“I am astonished by several commenters who appear to suggest thats its all too difficult to work out, but to just take their word for it that there is a BIG problem.”
The irony of that statement is pretty funny when you think about it…
Theoretician-climatologist on climate calculation: We can model our biosphere’s chaotic climate systems with enough confidence to know we are heading for a ‘big problem’ if we don’t mitigate CO2 emissions.
Theoretician-climatologist on estimating cost of CO2 mitigation calculation: We can’t make a very accurate estimate of the cost of mitigating CO2 and the resulting related temperature reduction because it’s too hard. (If we did, then everyone would see the futility and that would be a ‘big problem’.)
@Political Junkie
It seems like what you are asking for is central planning. That tends not to work well.
A much better approach is to approximate the negative externality of greenhouse gases via a tax. This allows the market to find the optimal cost/benefit tradeoff for greenhouse gas emissions, as well as the path of optimum economic efficiency in reducing emissions to that point. No central planning required.
Asking for central planning? – Hardly!
What simply amazes me (TonyB seems to agree) is that U.K. and other jurisdictions have enacted laws to mandate greenhouse gas reductions with HUGE impact on the taxpayers’ lives without any evidence that they have even thought about the effectiveness of their programs in actually reducing global warming.
It’s easy to find out U.K. targets for emissions reduction in tonnes or percentages, but who can tell me by how many degrees Centigrade is the government expecting to mitigate global warming by year 2050 or 2100?
tonyb,
“I think its reasonable to ask for the calculations on which this assertion is being made by scientists and Govts. Lets have access to the FACTS and FIGURES not platitudes.”
You’ll need to fire off some Freedom of Information requests!!!
“London doesn’t have smog any more, and that’s thanks to all 7 million people all following the lead of whoever went first.” No, Professor, it is due to the Clean Air Act 1964, which banned most of the sources of smog.
Heathrow’s Sunshine Hours which they started collecting in 1957:
Decade Sunshine Hours Total
1960s – 14555.7
1970s – 15118.6
1980s – 15264.4
1990s – 16801.9
2000s – 16776.8
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate/uk/stationdata/heathrowdata.txt
Not a small change. 2300 hours or so per decade change from the 1960s to the 1990s/2000s.
Heathrow is to the west of London, (away from the prevailing winds). You cannot draw conclusions about sunshine in Central London from observations 15 miles west. For that you need the observatiosn from the Met Office site in Holborn.
Rigghhtttt.
“In December 1952, London suffered its worst case of “pea soup” fog.
Over a four-day period, the combination of fog and coal pollution created a smog so thick, travel became virtually impossible.
Visibilities at London’s Heathrow airport were below 30 feet. Many residents couldn’t see across the street, and some pedestrians claimed the smog was so thick they couldn’t even see their feet.”
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4179/is_20031024/ai_n11807276/
The article may well be right. Perhaps the wind was from the east on that occasion and the grime of London blown out towards the airport.
But my general point stands. The prevailing (i.e most common) winds in SE England are from west to east. Measurements taken at Heathrow are not in general representative of Central London.
Here’s a map to help you orient your geography.
http://www.streetmap.co.uk/map.srf?x=507500&y=175500&z=120&sv=heathrow+airport&st=3&tl=Map+of+Heathrow+Airport+London,+Hillingdon+&searchp=ids.srf&mapp=map.srf
FWIW I live about five miles from Heathrow, so this is familiar territory to me.
Heathrow is just one of many weather stations in the UK showing more sunshine hours – especially over the last 20 years.
The Clean Air Act did not just apply to London.
“smoke control areas have been introduced in many of our large towns and cities in the UK and in large parts of the Midlands, North West, South Yorkshire, North East of England, Central and Southern Scotland. The implementation of smoke control areas, the increased popularity of natural gas and the changes in the industrial and economic structure of the UK lead to a substantial reduction in concentrations of smoke and associated levels of sulphur dioxide (SO2) between the 1950s and the present day.”
http://smokecontrol.defra.gov.uk/background.php#smoke
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate/uk/actualmonthly/
Pick England (or UK) / Sunshine / Annual
Quite a big difference over the last 20 years.
Does Bruce post this “sunshine hours” nonsense in every thread regardless of the topic?
Is it worthwhile to explain why that line of argument is nonsense? Or has that been tried?
Go ahead explain. Maybe you could post the difference in W/sqm on a sunny day versus a cloudy one. Then compare it to the piddling 1W/sqm claimed for current CO2 values.
A “scientist” would be genuinely curious about the effect of so much extra sunshine. An AGW cult member would react like you did.
Average solar radiation for a location on the northern hemisphere with a latitude angle of 47° – 55°.
sunny, clear sky
summer: 600 – 1000 W/m²
winter: 300 – 500 W/m²
sunny, skattered clouds or partly cloudy
summer: 300 – 600 W/m²
winter: 150 – 300 W/m²
cloudy, fog
summer: 100 – 300 W/m²
winter: 50 – 150 W/m²
http://www.renewable-energy-concepts.com/solarenergy/solar-basics/insolation-weather.html
Often the focus is only on the middle range of projections, dismissing the risk from the higher end of the range. But if the risk is great, then it may be worth acting against even if its probability is small. Think of risk as the product of consequences and likelihood: what can happen and the odds of it happening. A 10-degree rise in global temperatures by 2100 is not likely; the panel gives it a 3 percent probability. Such low-probability, high-impact risks are routinely factored into any analysis and management strategy, whether on Wall Street or at the Pentagon.
The rationale for reducing emissions of carbon dioxide is to reduce the risk of the possibility of catastrophic outcomes. Making the transition to cleaner fuels has the added benefit of reducing the impact on public health and ecosystems and improving energy security — providing benefits even if the risk is eventually reduced.
NOTE FROM JC: I did not write this message
Judith, from what you know of the public record, do you think that generally politicians who mandate green house gas reduction targets and programs (as in the U.K., for example) use the best available risk management and science based analytical decision making methodologies?
Or, alternatively, do you have the opinion (fear?) that politics is trumping science?
P.S.
Is the above question really about where the rubber meets the road:
Is “applied climate science” saving the world or doing positive harm?
Judith writes “The rationale for reducing emissions of carbon dioxide is to reduce the risk of the possibility of catastrophic outcomes.”
This is the nub of the difficulty of having a scientific discussion. There is no science, no physics, to show that there is ANY possibility of catastrophic outcomes. Physics cannot tell us what happens when we add more CO2 to the atmosphere. Such little data as we have indicates that the effect is somewhere between very small and negligible.
“The rationale for reducing emissions of carbon dioxide is to reduce the risk of the possibility of catastrophic outcomes. Making the transition to cleaner fuels has the added benefit of reducing the impact on public health and ecosystems and improving energy security — providing benefits even if the risk is eventually reduced.”
I agree with the rationale if the transition is rational.
The problem with that statement is that it’s completely devoid of numbers. How in the world can we put any value on “clean” when it’s undefined?
If it is a means to a favorable end, no numbers required. Remember you are dealing with the ban di-hydrogen monoxide crowd. Arguing fine points is generally futile.
It is hilarious watching them though. Ralph Nadar for example has published his list of the 12 cancer-causing products found in your home. Talc and silica are two of the dangerous ingredients. Jane Fonda happens to be a spokes person for L’Oreal cosmetics.
“L’Oreal HiP Lip Color, Brave
Lanolin Oil , Sesame Seed Oil , Oleyl Erucate , Microcrystalline Wax , PPG-5 Lanolin Wax , Acetylated Lanolin , Beeswax , Disteardimonium Hectorite , Fragrance , Tocopheryl Acetate , Rosa Canina Fruit Oil , Arginine PCA , Jojoba Seed Oil , Benzyl Alcohol , Silica , BHT , BHA , Calcium Sodium Borosilicate , Calcium Aluminum Borosilicate , Synthetic Fluorphlogopite , Polyethylene Terephthalate , Polymethyl Methacrylate , Iron Oxides CI 77492-CI 77499-CI 77491 , Mica , Titanium Dioxide CI 77891 , Red 7 CI 15850 , Red 28 Lake CI 45410 , Yellow 6 Lake CI 15985 , Carmine CI 75470 , Red 22 Lake CI 45380 , Yellow 5 Lake CI 19140 , Blue 1 Lake CI 42090 ”
My significant other happens to be warm and fuzzy. Instead of explaining why I am not worried about getting cancer from my cleanser, it is easier to just point out that another trusted liberal icon happens to endorse silica. She will be pondering the situation for some time.
So numbers are optional. Really, we are missing a fantastic opportunity to effect positive energy policy change by trying to be logical and showing the numbers.
“There is no science, no physics, to show that there is ANY possibility of catastrophic outcomes.” ??
That there is a 33% probability that that actual sensitivity could be higher or lower than 1-6degC. To bound at a 90% level, I would say the bounds need to be 0-10C.
Note from JC: someone is playing games, I did not write this
Dr. Curry
ALL of your assessments of risk are dependent upon estimates (guesses) of experts to guide the mathmatics of the applied statistical output. Depending upon who is choosing the experts, one obtains the results one is looking for. The IPCC is no less vulnerable to such guessing games than those on Wall Street, insurance actuarials, etc. Insurance companies go broke with bad guesses just as IPCC stated presumptions of the future have gone belly up. Visionaries who would like to guide where society should go next allow people/citizens to make choices. Only evangalists chastise our behavior and beseach us to all get onboard before its too late. Making statements that there is a 33% probability for the global temperature in 90 years to be between 1 and 10 degrees warmer than today, ignores the possiblity of global cooling. So the probability again is based upon experts whom you choose to endores. As the earth has warmed and cooled in the past, a prudent forecast would include the possiblity of global cooling. My guess is that in the next 100 years, global temperatures will be betweeen negative 10 and plus 10 degrees Celcius from today’s.
Judiith
Political Junkie makes another interesting point about politics trumping Science. Without getting into the discussions of how much difference we are making to any increase in temperature, presumably you-or your faculty- must have made some calculations as to what effect an aggressive carbon mitigation policy will have in actually REDUCING temperatures? Can you tell us?
There are several commenters here who appear perfectly capable of coming up with their own figures (but haven’t) and several others who are so sure we are having a calamitous effect on our climate that I can only conclude they also have access to coherent estimates.
Can I ask both groups to post their figures so we can actually put some tighter bounds on the current estimates so far of between 1 tenth and one degree Centigrade reduction if the worlds carbon economy were to be shut down completely.
tonyb
I can’t believe I’m reading this…
Whatever happened to saying those 3 little words:
beware, someone is posting messages under Judith Curry and curryja that are not mine. I will try to keep on top if this, i will start deleting them as I see them
Judith, well said. You should delete the messages from someone impersonating you. It’s a smart-arse trick which lowers the tone of the of the board as well as demonstrating bad faith. You are under no obligation to tolerate it. I admire your forebearance so far.
@curryja It looks like some mischievous person is using quotations from a previous period when you perhaps felt somewhat differently than you do now.
I’ve done some forensics for ISPs. It’s pretty easy to find the location of mischievous people if someone is inclined to look for them.
I dare say it is. The location of these mischevious quotes is even easier to locate!
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/10/AR2007101002157.html
http://curryquotes.wordpress.com/
tonto, messages like this are fine, but using my name to post messages is not. note your IP address shows up on my screen when you make a post.
“Sacrifice for the common good” universaly means a benefit transfered from the poor to the rich. In this case, the common good wishes to deny the poorest people of the planet the right to use coal to develop their economies. The rich countries of the earth, having used coal to industralize their own countries, now wish to deny this right to others.
Should CO2 and GHG theory be shown wrong by less warming than projected over the next decade, the poorest nations of the earth could quite conceivably expect significant reparations for the harm done by western science and governments.
The UN IPCC could quite rightly claim they were misled as they do not sicnce themselves, simply compile the results. It would be western governments that were at fault, by disproportionate funding to advocates of the CO2 GHG theory.
Cstles-Henderson critique: here is a 2003 paper which reiterates the original critique and responds to IPCC counter-arguments:
http://www.lavoisier.com.au/articles/climate-policy/economics/castles-hendersonresponse.pdf
The site also has C-H correspondence with the IPCC and notes on meetings with IPPC luminaries and staff.
C-H say that their main objective is to review and strengthen the economic dimension of the IPCC in a timely way. As this thread indicates, there is still a great deal of work to be done in this area.
“[W]hether atmospheric gases such as CO2 (and H20, CH4, and others) warm the planet is not an issue where skepticism is plausible.”
http://judithcurry.com/2010/11/30/physics-of-the-atmospheric-greenhouse-effect/
I have also been surprised by some of the recent purported comments by “curryja”. Further to my last post on the climate at Heathrow a couple of hours ago, I have now analysed the weather there and at Oxford since 1958 using annual rather than monthly data on sun, rain, CO2, and mean maximum temperature.
What climate change? There has certainly been none at Oxford, with mean annual Tmax on a down trend of -0.07 oC p.a. since 1958, while Heathrow, only about 40 miles away does show a rising trend of 0.034 oC p.a. which obviously could not possibly have anything to do with the explosive growth of air traffic there since 1958.
Even more amazing is that at Oxford, changes in its mean annual Tmax are heavily dependent on sunshine hours (t=2.7) – or lack of them – and barely at all on CO2 (t=1.6 and so not statistically significant).
Luckily for our friend posting here who lives near Heathrow, his government’s plans for zero emissions by 2050 mean closure of Heathrow, so he too can enjoy temperatures like those in Oxford that by 2110 will be a full 7 oC colder than now.
Re re-posting of comments made by Judith about four years ago: my recollection is that when Judith first posted on CA in late(-ish) 2009 (pre-Climategate), she largely accepted the conventional AGW case because she assumed that the proponents maintained the same professional standards as she did. As I recall, she had decided to touch base with, and initiate dialogue with, Steve McIntyre et al to try to undertsand where they were coming from. It seems to me that as a result of contacts with CA etc and of Climategate, she began to realise that there were flaws in the “Team’s” work, that not everything was as kosher as she had thought, and began to revise her position. Given the conformist pressures in climate science, this was a brave and welcome move. Judith now understands more of, and focusses more on, the uncertainties in this field; I believe she started CE in order to broaden the debate and increase her and our understanding in this forum rather than depending on the AGW proponents, whose material is of course still available to her. Of course, Judith’sviews have shifted since 2009 as she has more and often very different data and arguments available. I think she’s doing a great job, and has a great blog, subject to the flaws which all blogs have.
Judith, I hope that’s a reasonable representation, there seems to be some confusion arising from the doppelganger’s posts.
thank you faustino
Less hot air coming from Oxford over the years? It was certainly a good emitter when I was there in the 1970s
Perhaps the City of Expiring Dreams is running out of dreams…………
If you a trillion dollars spend could you build a space solar panels?
“For a space elevator, the cost varies according to the design. Bradley C. Edwards received funding from NIAC from 2001 to 2003 to write a paper…
whereas the fixed costs would be US$6 to 12 billion, for construction”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_elevator_economics
I think space elevator is dumb idea, but rather than transport payloads to space, I would use it to transmit electrical power. Rather than beam the electrical power using microwave or lasers.
So don’t believe 6 to 12 billion number, let’s say it costs 40 billion for something which should be cheaper than building space elevator that lifts payloads to space.
Next, could do it two different ways- bring solar panels from earth to GEO, or build solar manufacturing plant on Moon, make solar panels on the Moon and ship to GEO.
Shipping solar panels from Earth to GEO:
Since one spending such a large amount money, it probably cheaper to build a launch system designed from ground up to build large capacity rocket production.
SpaceX designed, and developed a rocket for 300 million in total cost- if you wanted something like SpaceX, you simply buy rockets from SpaceX.
But SpaceX and other launch companies didn’t design there rocket manufacturing to produce hundreds of rockets per year- more like as much as a dozen rockets per year.
Let’s simplify it, by looking at the cheapest that a rocket could cost, based on the costs of rocket fuel. Rockets are going to be around 90% of their mass being rocket fuel.
SpaceX Falcon 9 : Mass (GTO, 5.2m fairing): 332,800 kg (733,800 lb)
Rocket fuel is about $2 per kg so fuel cost per launch is about $660,000
SpaceX price per launch is about 60 million if they sell 5 launches per year
they would gross about 300 million per year.
If they launched 50 rocket per year and charged 20 million per launch they would gross 1 billion per year, and could net a higher profit per year as compared to 5 launches at 60 million.
A 100 rockets per year at 20 million per launch should be possible- whether one uses SpaceX, a different launch company or start build a new company that builds rockets.
So assuming one buys 100 or more launches per year, we will assume a cost of $5000 per kg to GEO and $8000 per kg to lunar surface.
“a solar panel mass of 20 kg per kilowatt….Very lightweight designs could likely achieve 1 kg/kW”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space-based_solar_power
We will conservatively assume it’s 10 kg per kW.
Or 400 kW per rocket launch.
And per 50 launches of solar panel, one launch for spacecraft tug and other gear to build maintain SPS.
So, suppose need 40 GW or 40,000,000 kW, needs 100,000 launches for solar panels and 2000 launches for building and maintenance.
So 2 trillion to launch the solar panel and 40 billion to maintain it.
And UK: “Maximum demand (2005/6): 63 GW (approx.) (81.39% of capacity)”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Grid_%28UK%29
If you assume you want this built in 10 years, instead 100 rocket launches, you actually need 10,000 launches
per year. And seems to indicate that you need a larger rocket than Falcon 9.
One could make a rocket with 10 times this payload or a larger than this.
And probaby get a significant cost reduction perhaps as much as 25% to 50% less per kg. Though unlikely to get to
the 1 trillion dollar target unless one was willing to use extreme types of launch such as Orion Nuclear rocket.
A less extreme rocket than Orion and still keeping chemical rocket would something like the Sea Dragon-
that put hundreds of thousand of kilogram into GEO. But these mentioned rockets have only got to paper design
and some testing. Instead you pick the largest rocket that flew- it would need to re-design, but at least you know
such a thing is possible. I am referring to the Apollo Saturn V, which had about a 45,000 kg to lunar trajectory
or GEO- so Saturn V would be about 10 times the payload- requiring 10,000 plus 200 launches. Which to make in 10 years,
would require over 1000 launches per year. As compared Sea dragon class rocket requires 200 launches per year,
and orion about 40 per year.
So for comparison to getting the solar panel made on the Moon, we will assume Saturn V type rocket.
Calculating this costs is more difficult.
First what is needed for this is minable water on the Moon which can then be made into rocket fuel.
To establish a “baseline” we will first determine how much rocket fuel would be needed on the Moon.
So, previously we needed 100,000 launches that delivered 4000 kg to GEO, or 400 million kgs [400,000 Mt].
So, this also means we will need 400 million kgs of rocket fuel on the Moon
Since we want this done in 10 years, this means we need 40 million kgs of rocket made each year.
Which also means we need 40 million kgs of lunar water mined per year [the moon could have billions of tons
of minable water, btw- not a shortage in this regard].
cont
I wish Tony Brown’s paper could be reprinted in a national newspaper here in Britain. This is a frightening example of the way in which our politicians are divorced from reality, and without effective public debate about the problem, the UK could be heading for serious problems.
David Bailey | May 28, 2011 at 6:55 am | “the UK could be heading for serious problems.”
Reply
I think it already is, apart from a few UKIP MPs and some ex MPs there doesn’t seem to be anyone man enough to challenge the current Group Think, which is already costing us considerably more in Taxes.
Louise’s apparent complete naiveté explains why she is prepared to defend even the indefensible. Robert is obviuosly just an AGW TROLL.
I wouldn’t mind some extra taxes (within reason!) if they gave us something – such as total self-sufficiency in energy. My real concern is that we could get power outages in this country that could be catastophic:
1) Food distribution is dependent on electric refrigeration.
2) Much crime prevention depends on electricity – street lights, alarms, etc.
3) Water and sewage probably depends on electricity, but there may be backup generators, I am not sure.
4) We have developed a vast computer infrastructure for all sorts of tasks. Much of this computerisation has been gratuitous, but it has happened, and if it breaks down there will be great confusion.
5) Such industry as we still have in this country, would obviously be badly hit.
Everyone could add to this list, I am sure.
Don’t worry. The UK has a 2GW connection to the French nuclear system (which is, as I type passing 998MW to the UK) and a 1GW connector to the Netherlands (which is, as I type supplying 286MW to the UK).
Sentiment about the UK’s continuing energy insecurity is obviously running high since Eurotunnel plans to invest €250M in a 500MW connection to the French system available to the highest bidder for a juicy rent.
Such confidence in renewables!
That was an interesting answer – where do you get you figures, and are they publicly available?
I live in the North of England, so I wonder what losses are encountered by the time electricity gets ‘up here’.
There are also the costs of buying electricity from the continent to consider.
Thanks for the info. 5% of UK electricity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HVDC_Cross-Channel
Bah. Arrant idiocy. Renewables are inherently unworkable, due to physics and economics. They are diffuse, every one of them, and the collection and transmission and storage requirements are ineluctable.
Reaching waaayy back, there is a cost benefit analysis, by a warmer than lukewarmista, no less: Nordhaus.
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/21494
Summary: even assuming AGW and its costs and mitigation’s benefits, mitigation is a major loser.
BrianH
That was a truly excellent link which I would urge all on this blog to read. The author in your link took a solely economic perspective on the matter which we have amplified in this article with an attempt at a scientific study.
His economic conclusion was that mitigation was not worth the cost. To that we can add the scientific observation;
‘….and will not achieve any temperature reduction.’
Perhaps some one can provide the answer as to exactly what is the point in this frantic attempt to (partially) decarbonise the advanced economies.?
tonyb
Brian H
Thanks for posting link to review of Nordhaus book. Sounds interesting.
Max
Now, we have to calculate the possible price of lunar water on the Moon.
If water was say $100 per kg, 40 million kg of it would be a gross yearly dollar amount of 4 billion dollars.
Which means around capital investment of around 20 billion in order to mine this scale. This seems plausible
if not perhaps a bit cheaper for the water.
To split 40 million kg of water per year, you need about 200 million kW/h per year, which means if the price of
electrical power on the Moon was $5 per KW/h it would be a gross of 1 billion dollars per year. Which is somewhere
close. So 200 million kW/h per year is assuming 80% of time is sunlit, is about 7000 hrs per year. And so need to
generate 28,571 KW- or 28.5 MW. Since one can get 1.3 kW per sq meter, it’s total area of 21,978 sq meters. Or
about 1/45th of a sq kilometer or 100 meters by 219.78 meters [about 4 football fields].
So with Saturn V to GEO we would get 4000 Kw, so roughly we need 10 Saturn V launches to deliver these solar
panels to the moon.
So first need to find minable water. Will pay 5 billion to explore moon to find minable water, then will paid 4
billion [to company that finds minable lunar water] per 40 million kg of water mined.
So 9 billion for first year of mined water. Plus the cost of delivering solar panels to the Moon.
And this gives 40 million kg of rocket fuel on the lunar surface- far more then is need for
any operational needs. The cost of this rocket fuel is extremely cheap. And will sell rocket fuel to any
company which deliver rocket fuel to lunar orbit and which we then will buy for 3 times the cost we sold
it for at lunar surface. So sell for 150 per kg, and buy the rocket fuel back for 450 kg in lunar orbit.
This will result is lower cost to ship anything to the Moon.
The cost instead 5000 per kg to GEO and $8000 per kg to lunar surface, will instead $5000 plus rocket fuel
cost at lunar orbit [450 per kg] plus the use of a reusable spacecraft. So instead 8000, it’s about $6000 per
kg.
Next will sell solar panel shipped from earth to a company for 1/2 the cost of putting them there, and will buy
electrical power at $2 per kw/h, and offer contract to sell solar panels to same company at price somewhere around
1/100 of cost to ship them to the Moon- once these solar panels are made.
So all doing after 1 year is buying water, and spun off/sold everything else.
Now, ship in from earth everything need to mine silicon and make solar panels.
So somewhere in the range of 1000 tons of equipment, so 1 million kgs at $6000 per kg. 6 billion dollars.
So somewhere around 10 to 20 billion to build factory that will make solar panel. Then spin off mining silicone,
so as to focus on making solar panels.
So start making the needed solar panels which eventually will be sent to GEO- probably starting at about 10% of yearly
average needed, and sell them first to anyone on the Moon that wants them. Buy anything which made on the Moon
by other companies so as to lower costs of shipping this stuff from Earth.
So two year later, haven’t yet shipped a solar panel to GEO, yet. Suppose by year three and making 20% of yearly
average needed, start shipping solar panels to GEO.
To ship solar panel to GEO from the Moon, requires half the vehicle mass to be rocket fuel- big improvement over
90% from Earth, also without a atmosphere there no need to make an aerodynamic rocket design.
This allows lifting from the Moon very large one piece solar panel- such a single solar panel being 100 meter
square [10,000 sq meters].
So need a vehicle that lifts this size and a large mass [could deliver lots of these large pieces]. And need for
backing material [such as aluminum sheeting] to be manufactured on moon in such wide sheets.
On the Moon surface paying about $150 per kg of rocket fuel- 75 times higher price than one pays on Earth [$2 per kg].
But on moon one using same mass of rocket fuel as payload- 0ne ton payload require one ton fuel. On earth One ton payload
requires Falcon 9 gross mass: 332,800 kg divide by 90% which is about 300,000 kg to lift 4000 kg. Per tonne lifted
it’s 300,000 divide by 4 which is about 74,000 kg per ton of payload- 74 tonnes rocket fuel per one ton payload.
So cost rocket fuel from earth is 74 times $2 as compared to $150 per kg and needing 1. Meaning the price paid per
kg or tonne solar panel delivered to GEO in rocket fuel is about the same cost. And the cost of the rocket fuel
from earth costs $660,000 of rocket cost of 20 million. So rocket fuel cost on earth are rather small part of the
cost of the rocket, and even though one is paying 75 times more for rocket fuel on the Moon it’s equally a rather
insignificant cost of the rocket launch per tonne or kg delivered to GEO.
Also on from the Moon, one could easily re-use your rocket. Something remotely possible from earth launch, but
would add to cost [I didn’t allow for this].
So being easily able to reuse rocket from the moon the cost to deliver might equal about 3 to 4 times the rocket
fuel used- so cost of $600 per kg delivered. Or about 1/10th the costs.
And since the cost of delivering the solar panel are the major costs, roughly instead 2 trillion dollars it’s about
200 billion dollars for 40 GW. Or for one trillion dollar one make about 200 GW.
And making 4 times more solar panels, will lower the costs. Instead lunar water costing 100 per kg, it easily be $75
per kg and cost of electrical cost to make rocket fuel less $25 per kg of rocket fuel made. So roughly for one trill
get about 250 GW. And this same lower costs would apply if buy 2 trillion instead one trillion dollar worth.
2 trillion wouldn’t give 500 GW, it could instead give you about 1000 GW.
So for the UK one get better way to reduce CO2 then they planning, but if you consider the world need, it’s far more
cost efficent. And far more cheaper if not in rush to do it within 10 years. You spend in the order of a few billion
per year and within 4 or 5 decades get enough electrical from space to provide 50% or more of all the electrical power
of the planet.
“Since one can get 1.3 kW per sq meter, it’s total area of 21,978 sq meters.
Oops. that amount solar energy, but panel have about 25% efficient- so the area is larger. Not important in terms costs- just wanted clue of scale- so instead 4 football fields it’s 16 football fields.
The reason I wanted to know scale, was because there is a limited amount area which has 80% sunlight- which is in the order of sq kms- so it doesn’t matter- in this regard, there are lots of lunar real estate for this.
according to a recent GE release, new technology will get efficiency up to 12.5 percent. How did you get double that?
Mark F
Believe gbaikie is talking about the % of time that a solar panel generates power on average in a typical European location.
Optimistically, this is around 25% for norther Europe and stated (by panel manufacturers) to be almost 30% for Spain, California, etc.
This means that (gas-fired?) standby plants are required to supply the load when there is no sun. These are quite flexible and can produce power when it is needed. But it adds an even greater financial disadvantage to solar and cancels out a part of the reduction in CO2 emissions resulting from the solar plant.
This is just as bad for wind farms (which points to the folly of the UK plan, as Tony B’s article points out).
The only technically (and economically) viable alternate to fossil fuel fired plants today is nuclear fusion, which appears (post-Fukushima) not to be politically viable right now.
Have the “greens” painted themselves into a corner?
Max
It’s actually a little more complicated than that. As long as solar is a relatively small part of the mix, it actually helps level the load curve, because demand is so much higher during the day than at night, and particularly if you have a lot of nuclear in the mix, solar will reduce the need for peaking generation.
There is, however, a point of penetration where you have too much power during the day, and not enough at night. We’re a long ways from that point currently anywhere in the world, but the extremists who want to go with all “renewables” and no nuclear will be creating a time-of-day generating problem even if the basic economics of solar can be made more favorable.
Wind is much worse btw, for reasons too involved to go into here. It’s not only unpredictable on a daily timescale, it’s unpredictable on a minute timescale.
ChE and Max –
It’s even more complicated because for wind, there are upper and lower limits to wind speed that can be tolerated or are usable. I’ve been on a ridge when the wind exceeded the tolerable speed and watched an entire wind farm shut down in a matter of a couple minutes. I’ve also seen entire wind farms with the blades feathered because the wind speed was too low to be useful.
I’ve also seen solar farms that were useless because they were snow covered – or alternatively – blocked by a massive dust storm or covered with the dust laid down by that storm.
I’m not anti-solar or anti-wind, but I’ve seen, first hand, some of the problems with them. And I’m not interested in entrusting the entire future energy supply for this country to them. That would be ignorant and frankly, stupid.
Jim Owen
I agree that neither solar nor wind power are the “solution” to the “carbon problem ” (whazzat?).
The “on-line” factors quoted by windmill suppliers are usually exaggerated and the same goes for photovoltaic suppliers.
That’s why I have to chuckle at what is going on in Germany today. Green movements are capitalizing on the Fukushima disaster to stage mass rallies in the attempt to get the government to accelerate the moratorium on nuclear power generation there. At the same time these very same groups are howling about the need to reduce GHG emissions (meaning CO2, of course) to “save our planet” and to switch to “renewable energy”. But they have no earthly notion what this really means or how to get there.
Some of this post-Fukushima angst has slopped over the border to Switzerland, as well, but there have been no massive rallies and the nuclear phase-out will take at least 20 years (if it happens at all). Meanwhile, a few new hydroelectric plants have come on stream (despite objection from Green groups). Other Green groups oppose “ungainly” new wind farms.
Meanwhile, France is gearing up to become Europe’s electrical power supplier with new nuclear capacity.
Fortunately, when people are too stupid to help themselves there will always be someone willing to do so – for a price.
Max
“Believe gbaikie is talking about the % of time that a solar panel generates power on average in a typical European location.”
Actually no I didn’t mention that- but solar power in UK is plain silly, you get about 1/4 of the solar energy as compared to other places in the world. Same applies to Germany- horrible amount of solar energy. Yet govt spends billions to encourage this idiocy.
I didn’t mention this because UK policy also includes wind generation, which also abysmal.
So UK and Germany get about 2 kw/h per average day [minus solar panels efficiency from that]. Whereas there many areas in world which one can get 8 kW/h on average per day [or more].
In GEO you get per day, 1300 watts times 24 which is about 31 kW/h
per average day. Which also mean a solar panel in GEO is worth about 15 times more than in UK. Or takes up 15 times less area to get same amount of power. Or said different has 15 times more energy density.
Of course taking up “land area” in Space isn’t a problem- unlike on earth.
That’s why a carbon tax is a much better tactic than subsidizing particular technologies.
Increase the price of fossil fuel energy, and market will find the most efficient alternatives.
As usual, you’re either not listening or not understanding.
Robert
How many degerees C of global warming will be averted by a “carbon tax” (please show calculation).
Max
A negative amount.
If the west burned more natural gas instead of coal, less CO2 would be produced than if a carbon tax drove industry to China where they burn more coal and produce more CO2.
You mean solar panel efficiency:
“The first generation technologies are the most commonly used ones in commercial production and account for nearly 90% of all cells produced.[citation needed] They are often described as high-cost and high-efficiency. They involve high energy and labor inputs, which has prevented major progress in reducing production costs.
These solar cells are manufactured from silicon semiconductors and use a single junction for extracting energy from photons. They are approaching the theoretical limiting efficiency of 33% and achieve cost parity with fossil fuel energy generation after a payback period of 5-7 years.[citation needed] Nevertheless, due to very capital intensive production, it is generally not thought that first generation cells will be able to provide energy more cost effective than fossil fuel sources.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_cell
There are higher efficiencies if one uses reflectors of various kinds, btw. Unlike on earth the cost of solar panels are not a significant factor as compared to launch cost. Therefore such panels which produce a $1 per watt for earth application can not be used.
As such:
“The second generation of solar cells has been under intense development for the 1990’s and 2000’s. They are often described as low-cost and low-efficiency cells. Second generation materials have been specifically developed to address energy requirements and production costs of first generation cells”
“A commonly cited example of second generation cells are printed cells that can be produced at an extremely fast rate. Though these cells have only 10-15% conversion efficiency,”
and:
“Third generation solar cells are currently just being researched. No actual products exist yet. Third generation technologies aim to combine the high electrical performance of the first generation with the low production costs of the second generation. The goal is thin-film cells that obtain efficiencies in the range of 30-60% by using new technologies. Some say that third generation cells could start to be commercialized sometime around 2020, but it is too early to say for sure”
I am not counting on 3rd generation solar cells.
But in any case as I said, it doesn’t matter- I was comparing earth launched to GEO compared to Lunar launched to GEO and using the same mass to KW/h. And I added the addition costs of shipping them to the moon as compared to shipping GEO, and minus the less solar energy they would receive- counted on only eighty percent compared to 100% in GEO.
I was merely trying to figure how area such solar panel array would take up and this had nothing to do with costs but checking to see if it took up more area or somewhere close to areas of “peaks of eternal light”:
“NASA and Europe revealed a small number of illuminated ridges within 15 km from the pole, each of them much like an island of no more than a few hundred meters across in an ocean of eternal darkness, where a lander could receive near-permanent lighting (~70–90% of time in lunar winter, likely 100% in lunar summer). ”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_of_Eternal_Light
Anyways it doesn’t say it there but there is around several sq km “worth” of area. And so even if solar panel were significant less than 25%- there would plenty of area available.
I am not giving a detailed plan- that impossible for anyone to do at this point in time- just feasibility type look at it. My point isn’t that UK govt should spend trillion dollar on this idea, but rather don’t spend that kind money to reduce co2 using foolish methods, as there are better ways of doing it, if you want waste a trillions of dollars- and actually have increased GDP- your citizens becoming more wealthy rather than more poorer.
[re-posted sorry if repeated]
If Judith Curry has changed her mind she needs to clear things up. Contrary to what Faustino as suggested, and JC has allowed to go uncorrected, even to the extent of denying authorship, this quote was from February of this year:
http://judithcurry.com/2011/02/26/agreeing/#comment-49648
“That there is a 33% probability that that actual [climate] sensitivity could be higher or lower than my bounds. To bound at a 90% level, I would say the bounds need to be 0-10C.”
So if the probability distribution function is symmetrical, JC is saying that there is a 50% chance of 2 x CO2 causing a 5 degree warming. Even if it isn’t symmetrical, there is according to none other than Ms Curry herself, a 5% chance of it being higher than 10 degC.
Again, to quote JC, and as she explained confidently in an article in the Washington Post in 2007 these level of risks cannot be allowed to be ignored and “if the risk is great, then it may be worth acting against even if its probability is small.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/10/AR2007101002157.html
Nothing in any leaked emails, or from any “dialogue with Steve McIntyre” changes the fact that she was just as correct in Feb 2011 as she was in October 2007. If she is now denying authorship then she needs to explain why.
Ms Curry allows her blog to be filled with unchallenged denialist nonsense which she knows herself to be wrong. Of course, most deniers can be excused, to some extent, because, they don’t possess enough knowledge to know they are wrong. But, how is it possible to go from knowing something, and being able to explain it all very well, to not knowing and not understanding?
It is no wonder the climate science community are wondering just what on earth has happened to Ms Curry
Of course, most deniers can be excused, to some extent, because, they don’t possess enough knowledge to know they are wrong.
tonto52 speak with forked tongue.
Tonto ol’ boy,
That’s Dr. Curry to you, zit-hole.
tonto52
You’re starting to get tedious with your statements such as:
I have followed Judith’s blog site here for several months, and she has been pretty clear on her views.
(These may not agree completely with yours or with mine, but she has certainly expressed them quite clearly.)
She has also recently given testimony to US congressional committees which are quite clear.
Of course, we all reserve the right to change our opinions on some facets as we gain new knowledge; anyone who does not do this no longer has a rational open mind, but instead is stuck with a dogmatic belief.
I’d suggest you get caught up on all this rather than hauling out old “but you said back in…” remarks .
Just my advice.
Max
Money quote:
“Even if it isn’t symmetrical, there is according to none other than Ms Curry herself, a 5% chance of it being higher than 10 degC.
“Again, to quote JC, and as she explained confidently in an article in the Washington Post in 2007 these level of risks cannot be allowed to be ignored and ‘if the risk is great, then it may be worth acting against even if its probability is small.’. . . how is it possible to go from knowing something, and being able to explain it all very well, to not knowing and not understanding? ”
Ouch. Pwnd.
Do you know the real meaning of the expression “Kemo Sabe”?
Jim Owen
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Kimosabe
Max
Robert
You ask the question:
Rational knowledge is a moving target. As one learns new things, the overall rational conclusion may shift slightly. In the case of a paradigm shift, it may even shift drastically. In some cases the newly acquired knowledge is precisely the fact that one realizes that one does not know the answer to a question one previously thought one did know.
Dogmatic belief is static. Like fundamental religious belief, it does not change because it cannot change by definition.
That is why the “science” is NEVER “settled” (while “religion” is).
Max
The whole point of giving bounds is that we don’t know anything about the distribution, so my statement about 0-10C says nothing about what is going on outside this range.
TonyB
Your article was a very interesting eye-opener on the UK’s proposed climate change legislation.
Your attempt to gather ideas from the various posters here on potential temperature impact of specific proposals is valiant.
I am beginning to sense, however, that those who most strongly believe that AGW is a serious potential threat requiring mitigating action are unable to come up with any specific actionable mitigation proposals that can be subjected to a cost/benefit analysis.
A closer look at those few specific actionable proposals, which have been made to date (Hansen et al. shutdown of US coal-fired plants, US plan for carbon capture and storage outlined on an earlier thread here by Rutt Bridges) reveal that they would achieve essentially no change in our climate at an exorbitant cost.
I then presented a rough estimate of the reduction in warming that would theoretically occur if the carbon-based economy of the UK were totally shut down. I later extended this to the carbon-based economy of the whole world. The result: no significant change in global temperature by 2100. The conclusion: We are unable to change our climate, no matter how much money we throw at it.
No one has at yet shown me where these estimates are incorrect.
As a rational skeptic, my alarm goes off when I hear rationalizations attempting to convince me why it is much too complicated to estimate the potential cooling impact of a specific action to reduce human CO2, yet, at the same time, I read in IPCC reports quite specific estimates of what the warming impact will be of NOT taking such actions.
I truly hope you will be able to get some of the supporters of the “dangerous AGW” premise (and especially those who have criticized your article) to get more specific on actionable proposals to reduce global warming, which can be subjected to a cost/benefit analysis.
So far, however, this group has avoided getting specific.
Max
“I later extended this to the carbon-based economy of the whole world. The result: no significant change in global temperature by 2100. The conclusion: We are unable to change our climate, no matter how much money we throw at it… No one has at yet shown me where these estimates are incorrect.”
That’s quite incorrect, Max. On more than one occasion, I’ve shown the calculations indicating a substantial temperature effect. On one of those occasions, I believe it was in response to a previous comment you made along the same lines, or that it was immediately followed by a comment from you (I don’t remember which), and I expect you saw it. If you search back through these threads, I expect you’ll find it. The fact that you disregarded it once disinclines me to take the trouble to search myself or do a recalculation, particularly since the evidence is already well known.
Fred Moolten
No, Fred.
You have not shown specific estimates of warming averted by specific mitigating actions.
Please do so now (both for my benefit and for that of TonyB).
Max
Fred Moolten
To the general request by TonyB and myself for specific actionable mitigation proposals with an estimate of how much global warming these will avert you replied that you had already posted this information here, adding:
This is a cop-out, Fred. You have NOT posted this in the past and appear to be weaseling out of doing so now.
It is time to put up or shut up, Fred (if you’ll pardon the expression).
Max
Fred –
You’ve done this several times in the last few weeks and I’ve said nothing because I’m both busy and lazy. This being a statement that you’ve said something before and see no reason to repeat it.
But there IS a reason. At least if you want to stay involved and maintain credibility. Allow me to illustrate from personal experience –
Long ago and far away in a different galaxy, I did something that was remarkable at the time. And then I found an Internet forum which, as such things tend to, was populated by those who were ignorant of the subject but (some, at least) wished to learn about it.. So I answered questions, argued, debated, advised, demonstrated – until I got very, very tired of answering the same questions over and over and over and…..
You get the idea? I know you do because you’re there right now. It took me about a year to get to that point. But I continued to give those same answers (or better ones as they developed) for over 15 years. And I still do when it’s appropriate. Why?
Because a friend that I’d never met at that point same to my rescue – he pointed out that the Internet forums are cyclic. IOW, the same questions, the same subjects, even the same idiocies, are repeated (in my case) EVERY YEAR – year in, year out, because every year brings a new crop of listeners, arguers, debaters, learners — and skeptics. Yes, I also have those who hate me on those forums.
The cycle time here is shorter, the subjects are more technical, if less immediately life threatening, and generally far more politicized. But the same principle is involved – if you want to be credible, involved and influential, you have to be engaged – and you have to care enough to keep on answering – even when you’re so sick of answering the same questions over and over and over that you want to strangle the next one to ask for that answer.
You and I disagree fairly often. That doesn’t mean I think your POV has no value – even when I KNOW you’re wrong (as I have on occasion). So I don’t really want to see you disappear – which is one of the several reactions I’ve seen in the last 16 or 17 years to the symptoms you’re showing. Therefore, I can only hope you understand what I’m trying to say here and the lesson it carries. I cannot , and would not if I could, force you to see it or act on it. That has to be your choice.
But I can tell you that the choice you made here is the wrong one if you want to stay credible, involved and influential. Good luck. :-)
Jim – Thanks for your considered (and considerate) comment. I agree with most of what you say, and like you, I’ve been content to repeat answers to the same questions and challenges on multiple occasions – for the reasons you indicate. On the other hand, I also recognize when the same question or challenge that has been addressed before is raised again by the same person as essentially a campaign tactic. In those cases, I have reserved the right to point out what I see happening rather than to treat the question as a legitimate search for understanding or answers. I don’t always refrain from repeating an answer, but I’ve done it here in concordance with a statement I made earlier in this thread that none of the calculations done by anyone here (including any I might provide) should be offered as a basis for policy decisions. I don’t wish to undermine that point by doing something that contradicts it.
What I’ve read subsequent to that earlier comment reinforces my conviction that my statement is justified, and Max Manacker’s oft-repeated and oft-refuted claim that we can’t affect climate further confirms my belief. You may have noticed, however, that I offered tonyb an answer via email rather than publicly in this thread. That will continue to be part of my policy to patiently address issues raised from a sincere desire to engage in meaningful dialog, but to resist being baited into repetitive arguments with individuals whose views are too entrenched to be reached by any exchange of comments.
Again, thanks, Jim. I take your admonition seriously, and I expect I will act in accordance on most occasions. I won’t on this occasion for the reasons I stated. Will my credibility suffer as a result? I hope not, but I’ll take my chances.
Fred
You do seem to have difficulty in modifying your position when you have ben shown to be incorrect beyond a reasonable doubt.
“This is a cop-out, Fred. You have NOT posted this in the past and appear to be weaseling out of doing so now.”
That’s rather personal, Max. I have two questions.
1. Are you a betting man?
2. How much can you afford to lose?
Fred Moolten
Stop the side steps and waffles, Fred.
Just show me your calculation of the anthropogenic warming that can be averted by specific actionable proposals (if you have any).
Otherwise I will have to assume that you do not have any.
Max
@ JC
Your stated reason for setting up this blog is to engage with the denier community. Many think that to be a waste of time but at least the argument is valid.
Well for goodness sake, at least with the articles themselves, if not all the comments, why not do just that? Engage with the authors via the points they have raised. This particular one is just a typical piece of denier drivel, for reasons you well know, or at least used to well know.
If you can’t bring yourself to say so any more, maybe you can take a look at the piece of punctuation in the title and answer the bloody question!
I have to admit that deniers who believe only one variable in climate has changed over the last 100 years (CO2) are annoying … but they get the big bucks from government.
sunshine –
deniers who believe only one variable in climate has changed over the last 100 years (CO2)
Can you find me one of those? I haven’t found one yet – but I know a gaggle of “believers” who fit the description.
Jim, I think sunshinehours is calling warmists deniers, which they are.
Tonto –
maybe you can take a look at the piece of punctuation in the title and answer the bloody question!
Why don’t you answer the question? AFAIK, you’ve said nothing of substance on any subject. If you have nothing to offer to the conversation then you’re a waste of time and bandwidth and truly deserve to be called Kemo Sabe. But then you’ve probably never talked to a Navajo about what that actually means, have you?
tonto52, I’m not aware of being a member of “the denier community.” I’ve been following this topic since the 1980s, my initial approach that if there is a potential catastrophe from AGW, we need to understand it and the associated costs and benefits of dealing or not dealing with it. [In 1989 or 1990 I was briefed by the IPCC’s chief scientist, a source you might regard as adequate.] I;ve continued to maintain that approach. I’m not a scientist, I’m an economist who has advised the UK, Australian and Queensland governments on a wide variety of topics, which required the skill to understand many issues outside of my immediate competence and to be able to provide advice on them. This includes, e.g., Cabinet submissions on greenhouse isues; around 1996 the Queensland government accepted my advice to support the Kyoto protocol on the grounds that there might be significant risks, restraining emissions would have significant costs but (on the Kyoto basis), modelling suggested that they would slow growth but would not devastate the economy other than light metals processing, and that if we took “no-regrets” measures, we could revise policy in the light of further research and information prior to the Kyoto period of 2008-2010. Among the material I looked at in 1996 was an assessment of 800 pieces of CC research done in the previous two years, which gave me a glimpse into the great complexity and very limited knowledge of global warming.
Over the years, the more I learned, the more sceptical I became, I don’t believe at this stage that the massive economic costs incurred by proposed anti-AGW policies can be justified, and that if it is proven to be a serious issue, then dealing with it is better deferred until economic growth and potential technological breakthroughs would make the cost more feasible, if and only if it had been demonstrated that (a) AGW were real; (b) the costs of inaction were enormous; and (c) the costs of action would bring commensurate benefits, e.g. would stop or long defer dangerous warming.
The more I’ve learned of the AGW community and their woeful standards of data collection and archiving and statistical work, and the more I’ve learned of the actual patterns of warming/stable/coolling temperatures and of alternative explanations for such movements, the more sceptical I’ve become that points (a) – (c) above will ever be satisfactorily demonstrated.
I think that makes me a rational human being rather than a “denier.”
@Fred Molten,
I doubt if there is anyway you, or any other single individual, can adequately address the issues of the economic costs and benefits of CO2 reduction short of devoting the rest of your life to the project.
Fortunately, there have been several studies worldwide to show carbon emission reduction not to be a futile exercise. The costs of not acting are much greater than the costs of acting. See for example the Garnaut and Stern reports.
But maybe there are other reports, of which I am unaware, from other governments, which come to the opposite conclusion? IF so, I’d be interested to hear about them.
tonto52, pro tem here are links to a critique of Garnaut’s work and to the application of econometrics to the AGW issue. I haven’t yet read them, but at a quick glance I think you “may be interested to hear about them.”
http://www.lavoisier.com.au/articles/climate-policy/garnaut/Curtin-the-science-of-climate-change-and-carbon-taxes.pdf
http://www.lavoisier.com.au/articles/climate-policy/economics/Curtin-Econometrics-and-the-Science-of-Climate-Change.pdf
Incidentally, I have been heard to cry at times, “Hiyo, Sliver!,” it took my kids some time to determine whether this was a gross error or my warped sense of humour. You decide.
PS: as I’ve pointed out before – cf the Castles-Henderson critique, which I’ve linked to earlier in this thread – all of the IPCC’s projected scenarios depend on econometric modelling (as well as statistical method). One reason for not restricting debate of AGW to climate scientists is that they do not have econometric modelling skills and have been shown in some instances to lack recquisite statistical skills.
Faustino,
The Lavoisier group? Come on you can’t be serious!
Hi All,
Regarding the claim:
“Greenhouse Effect = +33.00ºC Water Vapour causes 95% of the effect = 31.35ºC ”
or as stated in “CO2 Greenhouse effect calculations”
http://curryja.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/hoskins.pdf
“By far the greatest bulk of the greenhouse effect is caused by water vapour, approximately 95%. Of the remaining 5% Greenhouse effect caused by other Greenhouse Gases only ¾ is attributable to CO2, both Man-‐made and Naturally occurring [8].”
Reference 8 takes us to:
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html
which states:
“Water vapor constitutes Earth’s most significant greenhouse gas, accounting for about 95% of Earth’s greenhouse effect (5). ”
That reference 5 takes us to:
“5) References to 95% contribution of water vapor:
a. S.M. Freidenreich and V. Ramaswamy, “Solar Radiation Absorption by Carbon Dioxide, Overlap with Water, and a Parameterization for General Circulation Models,” Journal of Geophysical Research 98 (1993):7255-7264”
Which in turn has its abstract here:
http://www.agu.org/journals/ABS/1993/92JD02887.shtml
Title: “Solar Radiation Absorption by CO2, Overlap With H2O, and a Parameterization for General Circulation Models”
Note “Solar Radiation”, the paper deals with absorption of inbound SW radation NOT outbound LW radiation.
The Abstract commences:
“Line-by-line (LBL) solar radiative transfer solutions are obtained for CO2-only, H2O-only, and CO2 + H2O atmospheres, and the contributions by the major CO2 and H2O absorption bands to the heating rates in the stratosphere and troposphere are analyzed.”
This deals with absorption of solar radiation by H2O and CO2. This is quiet a different thing from the Greenshouse Effect as understood to be a LW absorption effect.
I dare say that if a direct link to the Freidenreich / Ramaswamy paper had been given with its title this might have been a lot more readily apparent and certainly a lot easier to track down.
As I see it the 95% claim as stated is not supported.
I troubled to check this as I thought it to be highly unlikely.
If someone can find a published reference to support this 95% claim for the H2O contribution to the Greenhouse Effect, I may go on to the next claim:
“Of the remaining 5% Greenhouse effect caused by other Greenhouse Gases only ¾ is attributable to CO2, both Man-‐made and Naturally occurring ”
Which I suspect has its own problems.
Alex
In another forum (on a planet far, far away), the following quote recently came up:
Since the Freidenreich and Ramaswamy paper is behind a paywall, there’s no way to check this one way or the other, but it seems like a very odd paper if it did deal exclusively with incoming radiation. That’s not a significant source of heating in the atmosphere, and thus not an interesting question. I’d bet that it was a poorly worded title, and not a paper on incoming radiation.
I’ve read the paper, ChE, and it does deal with incoming solar radiation rather than outgoing longwave radiation, which is the main component of the greenhouse effect. Contrary to your impression, incoming radiation contributes significantly to atmospheric heating , but less on a proportional basis than outgoing radiation.
Hi Fred,
I am pleased that you have read this paper. I can only find one paper citing it and that too relates to a similar claim made by Jasper Kirkby (CLOUD) at CERN.
Here (on page 5): http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0804/0804.1938v1.pdf
I know not the status of arxiv material, but the Kirkby paper does not seem to have been published in the traditional sense.
On the general topic, I am puzzled as to why anyone feels the need to state a novel, and poorly supported, method of calculation. Given that the UK makes up ~0.1% of world population, albeit one that consumes a greater then average propotion of world energy, I would have thought it to be blindingly obvious that its scope for a direct impact on future temperature rises will be necessary small.
Yet the need is felt for novel numbers and contestable calculations.
The merit of the UK position seems to be that of a proof of principle. Answering a question about what progress can and cannot be made given the will to try. Also it is significant precisely because it is a unilateral approach to a post-carbon economy.
I feel that there may be a hositlilty based on the prospect that it might succeed, and that many may see even the notion that such an experiment should be attempted, as posing a threat. Which is bizarre if it comes from people who believe that such a project is doomed to failure.
There is an interesting question.
If not the UK, where else should such an attempt be made?
I doubt that it is coincidental that this more than somewhat unique stance has occurred in the UK. Cultural, historical, moral and practical imperatives all may be playing a part. Some measure of success is almost guaranteed, for instance that Scotland shall become a post-carbon country, in terms of consumption, is low hanging fruit. And a state of affairs needing to be achieved by the date that its fossil fuel reserves finally deplete. This possibilities for Wales and Northern Ireland are improved by their small populations and geography. There can be no doubt that England is the country that faces the greater challenge. Perhaps old rivalries will play a part, there is pride at stake, considerations of future nationhood, and glorious opportunities for being smug and superior.
I detect fear that the UK stance could become a model for unilateral mitigation, and that this is perceived as posing some sort of existential threat. Also the hostile reaction, that the best way to avoid missing a boat is to torpedo it.
There is a lot of banter on How and Should but little on Why the UK. What is it about that post-imperial, post-industrial nation that seeks to be post-carbon? I suspect that the answers are complex and felt more than thought about. I doubt it is the science, or the economics, I suspect that the origins of the feeling may be ancient and that it is in that part their sense of history and what it may mean to be a citizen of the world. Perhaps it is just their burden of destiny, or simply a last hurrah. I do suspect that to do otherwise, to not make the attempt, would be in some sense a betrayal of something essential.
I think more attention could be paid to the Why. Not the rationale, but the cultural makeup that permits one nation to act so differently to another.
Alex
“Given that the UK makes up ~0.1% of world population”
I live in Finland and that would be correct for Finland, but UK population is close to 1% of the world population.
Thanks
Mea Culpa!
Alex
‘What is it about that post-imperial, post-industrial nation that seeks to be post-carbon?’
Absolutely nothing at all. It is electorally unpopular, costly and stoutly resisted by half of the Cabinet. It is one of those issues where politicians think they will gain kudos with the populace but who do not understand the issues.
In the case of our Prime Minister, he made some unfortunate greenist remarks prior to Climategate/Copenhagen and hasn’t yet got the confidence to back away completely.
But rest assured, any steps UK takes down the decarbonisation road will be very tentative and (IMO) the whole daft idea will be quietly dropped before the review in 2013.
LA UK
Update.
I just saw that Russia, Japan, France and Canada have made it clear that they will not take part in any further Kyoto style reductions. And the US never joined anyway.
UK is increasingly out on a limb and will find this position unsustainable, even if some nutters still think it is desirable.
Stay tuned for my post tomorrow, addresses the status of UN negotiations from U.S perspective.
I think that France was not part of that news. You may have picked it from the fact that the G8 meeting took place in France.
It may be dropped, but it might be difficult to do so quietly.
It is a matter of not policy but of statute. I cannot see how it can be dropped without fresh legislation.
There is a statutory duty and I cannot see that being changed without a lot of fuss being made and a lot of fun being had.
The Act is a can of worms and I suspect deliberately so. Politicians may seek to subvert it but I do wonder if they be brave enough to debate its repeal in Parliament. Without repeal the poor ministers responsible will have to keep coming back to Parliament to excuse their failure of duty. I think that they would be riddiculed without remorse. The opportunity for calling for a resignation is unlikely to be resisted. It would be interesting to watch a Prime Minster defend someone who had failed in their duty. The government of the day as a whole would risk being characterised as failing in its duty. I think this would be a nightmare.
So I suspect that someone would have to propose that the Act be repealed. Can you not hear the cries of “Canute!”.
“Does the right honourable member also propose to repeal the laws of nature, and perhaps turn back the tide?”
It would be an Oppositions wet dream.
As far as I have read there are no simple get outs. It is a unilateral act imposing a duty and the government will not be able to blame the usual suspects for letting the side down. Europe as a whole, the French in particular.
Also its repeal would might expose the real issue, that except for the Act, the UK government lacks a coherent energy policy, and without the Act there is no sound long term basis for private investment in the UK energy sector.
Past dithering also seems to have run the UK government dangerously near to the wire on the prickly subject of the lights going out unless fresh souces of power generation and distribution are put into the pipeline in the very near term.
So they may well try to escape the consequences of the Act and I do expect some wriggling, but I truly doubt that it could be done quietly. I think it would simply to rich a vein of political capital for any Opposition party to pass on.
Alex
Fred Moolten
You wrote:
This appears to be the case, at least according to the K+T energy balance diagram cited by IPCC.
But the more important statement is:
Spencer + Braswell have shown that over the tropics on a shorter-term basis, the net overall feedback from clouds with warming is negative; this is largely due to an increase in reflection of incoming radiation by increased clouds with a smaller effect from the reduction of energy trapping high altitude clouds, which slow down outgoing radiation by absorbing and re-radiating energy.
Palle et al have shown on a longer-term basis, that decreased reflection from clouds over the period 1985 to 2000 led to increased solar radiation entering our system and net warming, while an increase of clouds after 2000 has led to higher albedo and reflection of incoming radiation and hence to cooling.
Both of these studies demonstrate that the overall net effect of clouds is complicated but that changes in the the reflection of incoming energy may play a more important role than changes in outgoing radiation caused by the greenhouse effect.
Max
ChE:
“That’s not a significant source of heating in the atmosphere, and thus not an interesting question. ”
I am not sure why you should think this. My understanding is that of the incoming solar flux absorbed by the Earth System (which is ~70% of the TSI) about one third is absorbed in the atmosphere (mostly by water vapour) and two thirds by the surface. In terms of magnitude of atmospheric heating effect, aborbed solar seems to rank a close second behind latent heating, in terms of net heating. Or a close third behind latent heating in terms of gross heating. Considered either way it is a major player in atmospheric heating rates.
You may bet as you please, but I am not sure I should like the odds that the authors incorrectly titled the paper and failed to mention the import of their paper in its abstract.
Alex
Attributing the greenhouse effect to various gases was discussed in a resent paperSchmidt, G. A., R. A. Ruedy, R. L. Miller, and A. A. Lacis (2010), Attribution of the present-day total greenhouse effect, J. Geophys. Res., 115, D20106, doi:10.1029/2010JD014287.
Due to the overlapping effects the answer is not unique, but their abstract states:
Others may prefer somewhat different attributions, but this tells the order of magnitudes.
@ Fred,
PS Didn’t mean to challenge you to produce a credible report which may come to the opposite conclusion to the UK’s Stern report.
I don’t usually talk to deniers but I would think that may be a challenge to them!
Ahh, the state subsidized “open minded” Stern Report is touted by someone who won’t even talk to a person who thinks other inputs into climate exist other than Co2.
If it quacks like a cult …
So you cherry pick the people you talk to too? It’s probably a good strategy for you.
“other inputs into climate exist other than Co2.” ?
Yes of course. Methane and other GH gases, solar variability, particulates,….
All dealt with in various IPCC reports. Am I breaking my own rule of talking to a denier here?
Doubt it. No ‘deniers’ here.
But few ‘True Believers’ either. And amost none who believe in the unlikely circumstance that having ‘been dealt with in AR4’ is the final and last word on a topic Forever and Ever Amen.
They didn’t mention changes in bright sunshine recorded at weather stations around the world.
Up 10% in Japan. Up in the UK. Up in the Greater Alpine Region. In fact, according to severals papers by Martin Wild, sunshine hours fluctuated up and down int he 20th century in surprising synchronicity with temprature … or most like, temperature was in synch with sunshine.
Well Judith Curry is the climate scientist. The reason for Climate Etc is , supposedly, so she can engage with you guys.
I’ve criticised her for neglecting to do this on nearly all the threads. All she’s done is create another talking shop for deniers to promote wacky theories and who wish to gain some specious scientific approval for them.
But let’s see if she can do any better on this one.
What do you think Judith?
“All she’s done is create another talking shop for deniers…”
Translation: Censor them all!!!!! Aaarrggghhh! I hate skepticism. This a cult, not a science. Evict the heretics!
tonto52
If I have propounded a ‘wacky theory it should be very easy to disprove it.
If you are so sure of the scientific case and all those who question it are deniers, you must have evidence to back up your position. Can you specifically provide some actual figures- without pointing to say the Entire Ar4- that will answer my question about temperature reduction? Thanks
tonyb
tonto52
Back in the thread you spoke glowingly of the Stern report. Perhaps you havent read David Hollands reconstruction of it?
It was evident from the research I needed to do that Stern produced perhaps the first example of a post modern economic report which is perhaps appropriate for a post modern science.
BrianH provided the following link. Perhaps after reading it (but after providing me with your estimates of temperature reduction) you would like to make comment on the study?
tonyb
@tonyb
No link visible to me :-(
tonto52
Sorry, link didn’t come out-here is the comment again from BrianH
“Reaching waaayy back, there is a cost benefit analysis, by a warmer than lukewarmista, no less: Nordhaus.
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/21494
Summary: even assuming AGW and its costs and mitigation’s benefits, mitigation is a major loser.”
Tonyb
Well maybe Judith Curry would like to answer your question on the Stern report too. Tell me, TonyB, has she ever any answered any of your questions in any “engaging” or meaningful way? Her comments, whenever they do appear, are bland and non-committal.
Yet, she’s claimed the true purpose of Climate etc is to “build a bridge” between the climate science community and climate change deniers like yourself. Do you envisage making that trip any time soon?
I think you are used to blogs where The Great One gives their opinion and devoted acolytes queue up to say how much they agree with TGO and how anyone who disagrees must be cast into The Fiery Flames.
This isn’t like that. It seems you need there to be a Great Leader whose words you can follow (saves original thought) and Judith is not attempting to do that here. You are obviously having great difficulty in reconciling this idea with your preconceptions.
Judith is not obliged to act in a way that suits you…only to suit herself. That she attracts a good readership and a lively commnetary suggests that she is doing soemthign right. If you feel that there shoudl be another blog run in a different way, you are perfectly at liberty to start one and try to attract some readers. Judging on your comments here, I fear you would be rather disappointed if you did.
Get over it.
Tonto52
Instead of answering a question with a question why don’t you supply your own calculations to the question I posed-or provide a link to someone whose figures you trust. Thank you.
tonyb
I linked to two papers in a reply to tonto52, I’m flagging one here as it may important and anyone who tuned out of the tonto et al debate might have missed it.
http://www.lavoisier.com.au/articles/climate-policy/economics/Curtin-Econometrics-and-the-Science-of-Climate-Change.pdf
IN his abstract, Tim Curtin notes that “… In particular none of the leading texts such as the IPCC‟s Solomon et al. (2007), Stern (2006) and Garnaut (2008, 2011) performs or reports any econometric analysis of their core hypothesis. This chapter seeks to begin filling that gap, and finds that the core hypothesis is falsified at a wide variety of locations with lengthy time series data on various climatic variables, including atmospheric water vapour (i.e. [H2O]), opacity of the sky (OPQ), and solar radiation (SR) received at the earth‟s surface (as opposed to the top of the atmosphere). Multi-variate econometric analysis shows that at none of these locations is the role of [CO2] statistically significant, and even that it is can be negatively correlated with changes in temperature, whereas these other variables play highly significant roles. If the core hypothesis of climate science cannot be confirmed at any specific location, then by Popper‟s Black Swan paradigm, it cannot be confirmed for the globe, as that is the average of the local.”
Tim is a highly experienced economist, with an LSE masters and now at the Australian National University.
@ Latimer Adler,
I suggest you take Judith Curry at her word when she says “Taking the politics out of the science would help clarify both the scientific disagreements and the political disagreements. Neither the scientific or political disagreements are going to go away. But by separating them we stand to make much more progress on each. Am I being naive and optimistic about how this might work?”
She’s been running this blog now for at least a couple of years. How much “progress” has she made ? I’d suggest none at all. Not because she was initially being naive and over optimistic, but because she makes little or no attempt to help separate the science from the politics. I would suggest that you examine this particular posting from TonyB as a case in point.
“She’s been running this blog now for at least a couple of years. ”
She started this particular blog in September 2010 but I agree that not much progress seems to have been made. The comments here vary only slightly from WUWT and in fact the author of the post at the top of this thread actually solicited posters from WUWT to come here.
http://judithcurry.com/2010/09/02/test/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/05/28/open-thread-weekend-2/#comment-669138
For balance, did he ask them same at sites with a different bias?
and again…
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/05/28/open-thread-weekend-2/#comment-669138
Lousie
Forgive me, but I fail to understand your point. I have continually asked here for posters to supply factual information to get to the bottom of the question I asked. There was an open thread on WUWT and someone posted some calculations there that seemed to be of relevance here. This seemed to be a good intro, especially as someone else then turned up-a warmist but whose opinion I respect-and I asked them for their comments.
In due course, once I have sorted out those who have made a calculation-as opposed to those who appear capable of making the calculation but steadfastly refuse to-I will then approach others with whom I have had email correspndance in the past.
That includes our excellent host, plus Scott Mandia, Trenberth Mueller and Slingo..
Why won’t various people here make the calculation or provide a link to someone they respect who has? Don’t they like the answer? I truly don’t know, but my suspicions are growing. What about you Louise, have you got a practical contribution to make which I can include in version two of any article? Thank you.
tonyb
My point was that you asked for reinforcements from a noted skeptic site yet I don’t see where you did this on a warmist site.
My point was that this site has lost any balance it once claimed to have.
My point was in reply to tonto52’s post
I hope that is clear enough?
@Louise
‘My point was that this site has lost any balance it once claimed to have.’
You seem to have drawn a very big concluiosn from misunderstanding one very small piece of ‘evidence’.
Congratulations! I see a very successful career ahead of you as a climatologist. But get in quick before the gravy train shudders to a halt. You’ve only about five years left.
Louise, you have a career ahead of you inventing conspiracy theories for right wing newspapers. :)
There appear to be few people here common to both sites-you seem to be one of them so what an I to make of that?
I have asked you nicely to provide your own calculations or to post a link to someone who has. Surely an aggressive carbon mitgation policy must have vast numbers of studies to back up the claim for urgent and tough action? Please provide me with some.
If you can’t what am I to conclude-that they haven’t been done? That they didn’t like the answers? That they don’t know because there are so many variables?
You tell me
Tonyb
sorry above was duplicate, this is ‘again’
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/05/28/open-thread-weekend-2/#comment-669232
@tonto
I am struggling to find your point. Unless you have appointed yourself to provide JC’s annual appraisal?
Her success is judged by the volume and depth of the debate. And for that I think she has done extremely well. If you don’t agree, you are quite at liberty to find somewhere else to post..or start your own blog.
Or you could contribute something of relevance to the debates here, rather than just vacuously sniping at our hostess.
On the contrary I think a lot of progress has been made, primarily because there are very technical posts and very political/policy posts. For example, if you compare the first 50 comments on the scientific “zero feedback sensitivity” post to the first 50 on this policy post you will see a huge difference. By and large the discussions are quite good. There is a lot of technical competence here.
It is true that as the number of comments on any given topic increases the discussion diffuses, often wandering away from the original topic, but the focussed purpose has been served. This diffusion happens because the issues form a seamless network, and indeed science and policy are inextricable linked. (The diffusion would make an interesting study on its own.) But within that network there are many clearly distinct issues of science and of policy, several thousand at least.
In fact the 70,000+ comments to date would make an excellent resource for a systematic issue analysis. What they demonstrate quite clearly is the incredible complexity of the debate. This complexity is not surprising, given that many thousands, if not millions, of people are discussing and questioning two topics as complex as climate science and climate policy. Both are bottomless.
The climate debate is an historic event. Many billions of dollars have been spent and many millions of words have been written. This blog does a good job of sorting out the issues.
No progress for AGW project. Much progress for science.
tonto, tonyb’s post was tagged as “policy” not science
TonyB
In response to your request, here is another specific suggestion for slowing down global warming.
Further up the thread a poster named Hum made an excellent suggestion
This voluntary CO2 reduction plan would get you and others in the UK, who are rationally skeptical of the premise that AGW represents a serious potential threat, off the hook, while allowing Royal Society president, Sir Paul Nurse, UK environment secretary, Caroline Spelman, and other supporters of the “dangerous AGW” premise to “do their thing to save the planet”.
Let’s assume that rolling out this voluntary reduction plan world-wide would get at least 25% of the global population on board. A high percentage of these would be residents of high energy consuming developed nations, so the %-age of global CO2 emissions should be even higher. Some, like Al Gore, are mega-consumers today, so their sacrifice would bring about major CO2 reduction. A few of the posters here would certainly be volunteers to “do the right thing for our planet”. Populous nations like China/India would most likely have a very low %-age of volunteers, but the average per capita CO2 emission there is still quite low.
Let’s say we could get a reduction of today’s 30 GtCO2/year down to 20 Gt/year CO2 by year 2030 with this voluntary plan. This would be a major step, since it would get us back to the global level of year 1985, when global population was only 4.8 billion.
Assuming the descendants of “volunteers” would continue the good work, we would have a cumulative reduction of human CO2 by year 2100 of 700 GtCO2.
Half of the emitted CO2 “remains” in the atmosphere so this would be a reduction of global CO2 of 350 GtCO2.
Over the mass of the atmosphere of 5,140,000 Gt this equals 68 ppm(mass) or 45 ppmv.
IPCC AR4 WG1 “Scenario B1” projects that we will reach 580 ppmv CO2 by 2100 (without this voluntary reduction plan).
IPCC AR4 WG1 reports a model-based average 2xCO2 climate sensitivity with all feedbacks of 3.2C.
So, using the IPCC assumptions we have for scenario B1:
390 ppmv C1 (2011)
580 ppmv C2 (2100)
C2/C1 = 1.487
ln(C2/C1) = 0.3969
ln2 = 0.6931
dT (2011-2100) = 3.2 * 0.3969 / 0.6931 = 1.83C
With the voluntary reduction plan, we would have:
390 ppmv C1 (2011)
580 – 45 = 535 ppmv C2 (2100)
C2/C1 = 1.372
ln(C2/C1) = 0.3165
ln2 = 0.6931
dT (2011-2100) = 3.2 * 0.3165 / 0.6931 = 1.46C
So the overall reduction of global warming we would see by year 2100 from this major voluntary reduction plan would be:
1.83 – 1.46 = 0.37C
My wife (who always wants to know everything better than me, despite the fact that she has no technical or scientific training at all) has proposed an even simpler solution: simply move all the thermometers inside urban areas or near airport runways out to the countryside – this should result in about the same reduction of global warming. But you can see how unscientific (and therefore, unworthy) this proposal is.
Max
Max: Brilliant as always!
Faustino: Many thanks for the ads. There is one error in your account (and a minor Typo), where I refer to TOA when I meant TSI (Total Solar Irradiance, which is indeed 24/7). In the main text I think I have that right.
Who are you? Do drop me a line – tcurtin at bigblue.net.au – confidentiality assured.
TonyB
Getting serious, you pointed out in your article the major political obstacles, which an all-out expansion of nuclear power would have in the UK following the Fukushima disaster.
From my vantage point, I see the same highly charged angst in Germany and (a bit less) in Switzerland, while France seems to be continuing on a nuclear path, based on recent government statements. I have seen no references to the situation in the USA (other than California, which has started a “nuclear-free future” dialog) – maybe some bloggers here can comment on the chances of major nuclear expansion in the US today.
Unless the situation changes drastically, I would see this avenue as essentially closed to us (with some exceptions, like France).
This raises your question:
My initial reaction to this proposal is that it makes a lot of sense. It may not please those who fear that every ton of human-emitted CO2 puts us closer to climate disaster, but I have seen no convincing arguments to support this fear nor have I seen any workable and actionable alternate from these individuals to avert the postulated global warming problem.
Improving energy efficiency, reducing waste and real pollution (at all levels) are no-brainers – but they will not get us there alone.
Hand-wringing will not solve the posited future global warming.
Nor will the imposition of a direct or indirect carbon tax (no tax ever impacted our planet’s climate and it is foolhardy to think that this one would be any different).
So it appears to me that we are left with the choice between two “imperfect” solutions: one that faces immense political opposition today and the other that “buys us the time” to develop a “more perfect” solution: i.e. a technically and economically viable alternate energy source, which does not depend on fossil fuels.
This new non-carbon energy source could be improved solar or geothermal technology, GM biofuels, nuclear fusion, something totally new (or a combination of all these).
But until we have this (probably more quickly than your 30-year estimate), I would agree to your suggestion of re-introducing fossil fuels into the mix as an interim solution.
It would be interesting to see how others here see this.
Max
Max said
“So it appears to me that we are left with the choice between two “imperfect” solutions: one that faces immense political opposition today and the other that “buys us the time” to develop a “more perfect” solution: i.e. a technically and economically viable alternate energy source, which does not depend on fossil fuels.”
The ‘buy more time’ is essentially one option I outline in my article so I must agree with you, although politically that is blasphemous talk. However it does appear the only sensible course of action.
To your list of power sources (and an article on the current state of fusion would be an interesting topic here) I would add Wave/tidal although adding the caveat that it is horses for courses as that is a solution not too viable for land locked countries.
Tonyb
TonyB
Thanks for your response.
Living in Switzerland, we’ve got lots of experience of getting power out of rain (and snow) that falls on mountains on its way down to the flatlands, but tidal power is indeed “not too viable” here (as you point out).
And I agree with Latimer Alder that Fukushima was not a disaster as far as human loss of life or injuries was concerned. But it certainly was a political disaster for the nuclear power industry in many countries of the world. German politicians are now debating whether the total moratorium on nuclear power should be in 10 or 20 years. This despite the fact that Germany does not lie on any seismic fault lines and a tsunami is impossible. It also has no fossil fuel reserves other than coal.
I cannot speak for the political situation in the UK, which also has no history of earthquakes.
Nor can I speak for the USA, except that I have heard that there is a movement in California to move out of nuclear power generation there.
But, unless there is a shift of public opinion back in favor of adding new nuclear power capacity to cover growing power demand, I believe this option is not politically feasible in many industrialized nations at this point.
So we are back to your “plan B” of “buying more time” by adding new fossil fuel fired power plants when new capacity is required (regardless of what James E. Hansen thinks of this option).
Max
What Fukushima disaster?
How many people were killed or injured? As many as die on the roads of UK in what timescale (hint average fatalities = 9 per day)? The reactors stood up to one of the biggest conceivable earthquakes without disastrous consequences.
Green activists can no longer frighten us with ‘what happens if there is an earthquake?’. Now we know. Not much.
And our understanding of earthquakes is such that we can be pretty certain that the UK’s geology does not lend itself to quakes. The San Andreas fault does not run through Sizewell….
manaker writes “It would be interesting to see how others here see this.”
I agree with you completely.
I have a suspicion that climate science is going to change towards calling for less drastic cuts. The 80% cut will be thrown out and replaced with a smaller 20-30% cut. The reason for this is that because of China and the rest of the world. Their emissions are rising, so an 80% cut is simply inachievable, and makes any reductions by other countries futile. With a 20% cut, it is still possible to place the burden on the countries that can be convinced t cut emissions, so I wouldn’t be surprised to see the science be fixed around the policy.
20% wouldn’t make much difference. At least so the alarmists would have us believe. So why not none at all?
Louise,
Yes you’re right. Climate Etc hasn’t been running as long as I perviously stated, so I guess 8 months of no progress is better than 2 years of no progress.
Of course, climate deniers thinks Judith is doing a great job. She allows them to post the most obvious nonsense without any risk of a correction or rebuke from her. They can then link to their comments and articles, on other denialist websites, and claim credibility due to their association with a suitably well qualified climate scientist.
So, yes, I did decide to post up comments, almost exact quotes, under the name of Judith Curry, to demonstrate what she ought to be doing, and I’m sure she thinks I’m reprehensible for doing that. Just consider it a protest at what you are allowing to go unchallenged on this blog, Judith !
If I’m reprehensible you really are a disgrace!
tonto52
C’mon, Tonto, get a life…
Max
Ms. tonto,
The sort of model you’re recommending for this blog has been tried and is a proven failure–just check out that control-freak greenfyre’s loser blog, if you don’t believe me.
“Deniers” may be able to post “their obvious nonsense without fear of corrections or rebuke” from Dr. Curry (actually, she does challenge comments from time to time) , but you, ol’ side-kick , are certainly free to provide those corrections and rebukes. But then, perversely, you don’t “usually talk to deniers”–apparently, even to point out their “obvious nonsense. ” You’re a joke, my fine feathered tag-along friend.
You know, tonto, between that goof-ball trick of yours where you used Dr. Curry’s name on some posts and the tediousness of your nagging comments, you’ve pretty much made an obnoxious pest of yourself. You couldn’t be that zit-hole creep, greenfyre, by chance? If not, you might want to check out his blog, ‘cuz he’s your kind of guy.JC moderation note: this is over the top, pls read blog rules ifyou are unfamiliar with them.
So, tonto, you still want to maintain that Dr. Curry does not “correct and rebuke” comments by “deniers?”
mike –
If you want to be insulting just call tonto by his/her chosen name. It’s a Native American word that translates as stupid.
Kemo sabe is even more insulting but the translation would be over the top for this blog.
Bottom line – if one wants an anonymous name (trailname in the places that I play) they should REALLY know what they’re calling themselves. Cool sounding words are not always so cool.
Hollywood has always been full of progressives, with the dismissive view of minorities that is common to that tribe. But it is a bit of a stretch to try to accuse the directors and actors of that old series of being racists.
Here is a looooong list of possible definitions for the term kemo sabe:
http://www.aaanativearts.com/article888.html
The name apparently came from a camp the director’s uncle owned.
http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/971/in-the-old-lone-ranger-series-what-did-kemosabe-mean
And tonto means stupid in Spanish; but I’m not sure why anyone thinks either character was Spanish or hispanic though, or would use a Spanish nickname. The show was produced, written and directed (both on radio and later TV) by white folk who wanted to sound authentic. My bet is someone thought it spounded like an Indian name.
Tonto was in fact one of the few sober, often heroic Indian characters of the day. This was television after all. I know it became fashionable after the fact to claim that Tonto was an “Indian Uncle Tom,” but I have never been attracted much to fashionable thought. For the time, and given how progressive racists treated most minority characters in Hollywood then (like how progressives treat minority voters today, as useful props), Tonto was a rare exception. (Next people will say Bruce Lee was an “Uncle Chin” for portraying Kato on the Green Hornet.)
Let’s save our cultural disdain for the many, many, many other examples that truly deserve it.
And now we return to our regularly scheduled climate programming.
Gary –
Go talk to the Navajo. I talked to a retired Navajo school teacher.
Keep in mind that some of the Navajo words also come from Spanish roots.
Also keep in mind that the same word can have different meanings to different people. Anasazi, for example, means one thing to the Hopi and something entirely different to the Navajo.
Jim,
That was the whole point of my comment, “the same word can have different meanings to different people.” The cite I posted included numerous definitions, only one of them derogatory, a number consistent with the character as he was portrayed. Given the tenor of the whole production, I just don’t see the point is picking the worst definition and using it as an implicit accusation of racism.
The guy who directed the series originally apparently named it after a camp in Wisconsin. He wasn’t Navajo, he was lily white. So, I don’t know what the Navajo think of the name, never asked one, nor have I asked a Chreokee, an Ottowan or a Potowatami. Nor does it seem terribly relevant to me what a particular translation is in determining what the guy who coined the name meant by it.
On television, Jay Silverheels played Tonto as cool as can be, a tough character, one most kids respected. Lots of lily white kids in Chicago played Tonto while shooting each other with cap pistols, because they respected him. Silverheels was no Uncle Tom, nor was the character he portrayed. So I will give the producers, directors, writers and cast the benefit of the doubt.
Jimmy . . .
Your scientific ignorance aside, your posts all full of childish insults (“Didn’t your Mommy teach you . . . etc.) Given your own inability to control yourself and stick to the topic, do you really think you’re in a position to judge others?
“Hollywood has always been full of progressives, with the dismissive view of minorities that is common to that tribe. ”
Riiiiight.
This is the “hidden history” of climate change denial: right-wingers who were practiced in the art of lying outrageously and continually (see above) imported the Bushian approach to facts (“we make our own reality”) to a scientific discussion.
Among scientists, this goes over like a lead balloon, but practiced self-deluders, raised on Faux News, eat it up.
“After the war, the Democratic Party held a lock on the South for more than 100 years. All of the “Jim Crow” laws that prevented blacks from voting and kept them down were enacted by Democratic governors and Democratic legislatures. The Ku Klux Klan was virtually an auxiliary arm of the Democratic Party, and any black (or white) who threatened the party’s domination was liable to be beaten or lynched. Democrats enacted the first gun-control laws in order to prevent blacks from defending themselves against Ku Klux Klan violence. Chain gangs were developed by Democrats to bring back de facto slave labor.
President Woodrow Wilson, the second Democrat to serve since the Civil War, reintroduced segregation throughout the federal government immediately upon taking office in 1913. Avowed racists such as Josephus Daniels and Albert Burleson were named Cabinet secretaries. Black leaders like W.E.B. DuBois, who had strongly supported Wilson, were bitterly disappointed, but shouldn’t have been surprised. As president of Princeton University, Wilson refused to admit blacks and as governor of New Jersey ignored blacks’ requests for state jobs, even though their votes had provided his margin of victory.
When Franklin D. Roosevelt had his first opportunity to name a member of the Supreme Court, he appointed a life member of the Ku Klux Klan, Sen. Hugo Black, Democrat of Alabama. In 1944, FDR chose as his vice president Harry Truman, who had joined the Ku Klux Klan in Kansas City in 1922. Throughout his presidency, Roosevelt resisted Republican efforts to pass a federal law against lynching, and he opposed integration of the armed forces.
Another Ku Klux Klan member, Sen. Robert C. Byrd, Democrat of West Virginia, personally filibustered the Civil Rights Act of 1964 for 14 straight hours to keep it from passage. He is still a member of the U.S. Senate today. As recently as the 1980s, Sen. Ernest Hollings, Democrat of South Carolina, publicly referred to blacks as “darkies” and Hispanics as “wetbacks” without suffering any punishment from his party.
In short, the historical record clearly shows that Democrats, not Republicans, have been the party of racism in this country.”
Well, sunny, your unsourced, historically inaccurate right-wing screed is enough for me. [rolleyes]
Robert –
Sunshine has got a really good grip on reality there. As I said – you’re ignorant – of history as well as science. Keep talking and we’ll find out what else you’re ignorant about.
BTW – you’re not capable of “hurting my feelings.”
“A century of right-wing bigotry and hate…”
Sounds like somebody learned his history in public school. That’s OK, I like posting the true history of organized racism in the U.S. every once in a while.
The Republican Party was formed for the express purpose of fighting slavery.
The Democrat Party fought against abolition; fought reconstruction; enacted poll taxes and reading tests to prevent Blacks from voting.
The Ku Klux Klan was formed as a terrorist organization by the Democrats to fight reconstruction. Democrats Orville Faubus, Bull Connor, George Wallace Robert Byrd fought desegregation with fires hoses, dogs, and worse. And contrary to urban legend, almost every major racist of the Democrat Party remained racist their entire lives.
Dwight Eisenhower first attempted to pass civil rights acts and voting rights protections for Blacks, and was stopped by the Democrats. When the Democrat president Lyndon Johnson finally decided to give in and pass the acts (so the Dems could take credit) Democrats filibustered the Civil Rights Acts. That filibuster was overridden with Republican votes.
Republican members of Congress voted in a higher percentage for the Civil Rights Acts than did Democrats. The myth of the movement of racists from the Democrat Party to the Republican was started when a progressive campaigner for the progressive Richard Nixon (wage and price controls, creation of the EPA) claimed he used a “Southern Strategy” to get Nixon elected.
The Democrat Party has run public education in almost every major city in the US for decades, and progressives have run the educational colleges and history departments of universities for just as long. Not surprisingly, the actual history of institutional racism is not taught in many schools in the U.S., at any level
If you think the progressive propaganda machine has been busy on climate change, it is nothing compared to their attempts to rewrite American history to erase their own history of institutional racism.
“Sounds like somebody learned his history in public school.”
The conspiracy theorist at work; if we don’t share his delusion, there must be a vast conspiracy by government history teachers to hide the truth!
The operative word here is “learned.” I learned history. You absorbed propaganda. It’s sad.
The Republican Party was formed explicitly to fight slavery.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_United_States_Republican_Party
The Republican Party under Eisenhower first proposed civil rights legislation to congress.
http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/1957_civil_rights_act.htm
The Democrat Party was in the majority and first blocked, then watered down that legislation to the point it was largely ineffective.
http://www.answers.com/topic/civil-rights-act-of-1957
Democrats filibustered the civil rights acts that were ultimately passed in the 60s.
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAcivil64.htm
The Republican Party voted in a higher percentage for the civil rights acts that were finally passed in the 60s than did the Democrats.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/may/25/michael-steele/steele-says-gop-fought-hard-civil-rights-bills-196/
The most prominent racists who fought the civil rights movement (just like they fought reconstruction) were all lifelong Democrats: Bull Connor, Orville Faubus, George Wallace, Lester Maddox, Richard Russell (leader of the civil rights filibusters).
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/conservatives-should-give-pc-pushing-liberals-a-taste-of-their-own-medicine/
Oh,and that famous racist “Southern Strategy?” In 1968 George Wallace won in Louisiana, Arkansas, Mississippi, Alabama and Georgia. Humphrey won in Texas.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1968
And in 1972 Nixon won in every state but Massachusetts (and D.C.). Nixon won in 49 states not because of racism, but because McGovern was a disaster.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1972
Tonto52,
Perhaps you would do better over at Climate Progress… what’s left of it. You can look forward to a big makeover too! Joe Romm could use a few ‘side kick’, cheerleader comments as well since his traffic seems to be… well just take a look at the number of comments he illicits from his blog…. I guess it’s that darned communication problem that keeps cropping up. Bye now.
“OMG,” Rob, at least I write posts with actual words.
Don’t like it? Don’t read it.
I’m sure that if Judith ever feels she needs advice on how to host this blog, she’ll know who to ask.
Suggest that you don’t hold your breath waiting for her call.
tonto52 and Louise
Meoww….
CO2 mitigation on Europe leads to more CO2.
“For example, the commitment made by China to reduce its CO2 emissions intensity by 40% compared with business as usual effectively allows it to increase emissions by 75% to 90% by 2020. This is an increase of five billion to six billion tonnes of CO2 in just 10 years, an increase that alone will be more than today’s total European CO2 emissions.
Experts predict global annual steel production will grow from 1.3 billion tonnes in 2010 to 2.3 billion tonnes in 2020. This growth will be generated outside Europe, mostly in emerging economies, with an increase in CO2 emissions in the range of 2.5 billion tonnes in the global steel sector.”
http://www.steelguru.com/international_news/Europe_must_steel_itself_to_rethink_its_unilateral_emissions_policy_-_EUROFER/207270.html
On the other, switching to cheap plentiful shale gas would lower CO2 emissions and keep jobs in Europe.
In response to Pekka Pirilä who said on
May 29, 2011 at 11:54 am
“Attributing the greenhouse effect to various gases was discussed in a recent paper Schmidt, G. A., R. A. Ruedy, R. L. Miller, and A. A. Lacis (2010), Attribution of the present-day total greenhouse effect, J. Geophys. Res., 115, D20106, doi:10.1029/2010JD014287.”
However Schmidt & co are as always totally muddled in treating water vapor as only a feedback from rising temperature rather than as the prime mover (which they briefly admit in their Abstract), which both Tyndall and Arrhenius knew well. The feedback effect is non-existent as the annual average rise in temperature of 0.007 oC p.a. since 1900 can have done little or nothing to increase evaporation, as compared with the huge variations in sunshine at the evaporative surface of the oceans due to changing cloud cover. The authors of that paper need to undergo remedial courses in basic scientific understanding and statistics.
The results given in the paper have nothing to do with your comment. They specifically look at the radiative forcings of H2O, CO2 and other gases. For these numbers they consider H2O on same footing.
The feedback effect is mentioned only in a comment on the expected change in the atmospheric constitution assuming that the CO2 concentration is increased, but the numbers are given for the present atmosphere, not for the hypothetical modified one.
It was easy to guess that someone will attack the paper based on the name of the first author, but who is going to point out actual errors in the paper.
In response to Robert on May 29, 2011 at 11:16 am who said “We don’t need central planning, Latimer. Charge a carbon tax that reflects the negative externalities of emissions accurately, and the free market will do the hard work for you”.
Dear Robert: what are those negative externalities?
Here is a typical formula for combustion of what you no doubt call a fossil fuel but which non-climate scientists refer to as hydrocarbons.
2C8H18 +25O2 → Energy + 16CO2 +18H2O …(1)
In addition to the energy (is that a negative internality?), the combustion yields both CO2 and H2O, and neither of these is a negative externality, as both are necessary preconditions for all life on this planet.
That is because the formula for all plant life, which is the basis for all animal life, is
2CO2 + 2 H2O + photons → 2CH2O + 2O2 …(2)
Or, in words, carbon dioxide + water + light energy → carbohydrate (=food) + oxygen.
But then like Greenpeace perhaps you consider all life forms to be negative externalities that should be got rid of by eliminating CO2 and H2O and thereby CH2O.
Wind solar and nuclear energy do not have positive externalities, which is perhaps why Greenpeace loves them.
BTW, why is there no mention of those formulae in the 996 pages of AR4 WG1 2007? Is it because they clearly are not very convenient?
Mike,
Feel free to call me any names you like. It doesn’t bother me – I’d rather Judith Curry didn’t have to waste her efforts editing those out.
I’d much rather she spent her time on this sort of thing which appeared in the original article. “Total worldwide Man-made CO2 is about 7% of atmospheric CO2 = 0.086 degC ”
Judith knows it is just plain wrong. So why not say so?
Atmospheric Co2 has increased from around 280 ppmv in pre-industrial times to around 390ppmv now. That’s an increase of 39% due to human emissions.
Surely, even the hardest denier can’t disagree with that? Even you Tony B?
Yes or No ?
Louise,
Just realised that Manacker or Max took my “If I’m reprehensible you really are a disgrace!” comment as being directed at yourself. I agree that I should have made it clearer that this remark was directed at Judith for allowing climate deniers to to have carte blanche on a blog bearing her name.
Sorry if you read it that way too.
You really really cannot get used to the idea that a forum for debate can cover a variety of viewpoints, can you?
And that it is possible for a sceptic like me to discuss things with avowed alarmists without me getting a nasty green rash all over. Or vice versa.
There are plenty of other blogs where you can speak unto the Chosen Few without risk of moral pollution. Please utilise their facilities. They need a bit of propping up nowadays as the pool of believers diminishes. And the winds of change turn to blow against them
tonto52
Good morning-hope you are well.
Answering of continually answering my question with a question why don’t you merely back up your assertions by pointing me to some studies that could tell all of us on this forum what temperature reduction could be expected by the aggressive mitigation measures proposed. Thank you
tonyb
TonyB,
Again that is another question that Judith Curry might like to answer if she really is serious about engaging deniers in climate science discussions.
But, as I’m an obliging sort of a person I’ll help her out and if I do get anything wrong then maybe she’d like to tell me. Let’s see if we can agree on where we are now and take a look at a couple of likely scenarios for the future.
I’m not a climate scientist, but as I understand the situation, the level of CO2 has risen by the above mentioned 39% due to human activities. Also risen have other warming gases like methane. On the converse, side particulates (smoke) have also risen and have to some extent offset the warming effect from greenhouse gases. Temperatures have risen by around 0.8 deg C since the start of the 20th century.
Are we in agreement so far?
Come on tonto 52 you’re starting to sound like a time share salesman who tries to elecit a constant stream of ‘yes’ responses before hitting the punter with a closing question such as;
“Can you afford just rice of a pint of milk each day in order to secure wonderful holidays for life for you and your family.”
To which the only answer is also a ‘yes’
Why don’t you finish your essay and then we can see your argument in total. But thanks for engaging at last.
tonyb
In the absence of Judith not engaging with the deniers here, perhaps you can break your golden rule and speak with one of the proletariat… I’ll take you up on your question game…
Let’s first agree that [(390 – 280)/390] x 100 = 28% increase and not 39%… and the increase is a combination of both manmade and natural causes. A temperature rise of 0.8 deg C has been observed over that time.
Ok, now what?
John,
It’s actually: [(390 – 280)/280] x 100 = 39%
oh my, that is a bit of a gaffe
However, 28% is the figure Hoskins reports in his paper… but not as the % increase rather the % of the current CO2 atmospheric concentration added since 1850,
Tonto 52
Should have read;
“Just the price of a pint of milk…”
tonyb
This article starts:
“This article assesses the impact of UK’s proposed climate change legislation.”
I am not aware of any proposed legislation, and I did not see where any is described in the article. Can someone please tell me what it is and what stage it is at and its name?
Alex
Hi Alex
I give a substantuial reference within my article here;
“…So we now know the likely costs for achieving a 20% overall reduction, which as mentioned by many parties is considered nowhere near enough. The UK’s Climate Change Act 2008 set legally binding emission reduction targets for 2020 (reduction of 34 percent in greenhouse gas emissions) and for 2050 (reduction of at least 80 percent in greenhouse gas emissions), and introduced five-yearly carbon budgets to help ensure those targets are met.”
Don’t know if they come out on this copy but in the original article there is a link toi the climate change act 2008 and the green budget which seeks to expand the provisions of the Act.
It was passed by Parliament with one dissenting voice and obligates all Govt depts and, increasingly, businesses to reduce carbon emissions by law.
Tonyb
Hi Tony,
Re Your: TonyB | May 30, 2011 at 3:17 pm
Thanks, it was the “proposed” bit that puzzled me. So you are dealing with the mandated requirement (under the 2008 Act) to set a carbon budget for the period that 2022-2026 inclusive, that comes due tomorrow (I think it is June 1st that it happens). You are not referring to any new or prosposed legislation.
I am not sure that many people visiting here, or all that many in the UK will know what this is all about in any detail.
As I understand it, setting of the budget is not optional. It is not something that can be simply ignored and how it is decided is also constrained under the exsiting Act. I say this as I suspect that some may have a very different understanding. If it is thought that the UK government could somehow not set a budget for that period, or set one that was in obviously against the recommendations of the statutory climate commitee. I think that is not the case.
The consequences of 2008 Act do not seem to be fully recognised,(almost universally). My reading is that it sets tight constraints on governement in a quasi-constitutional manner. In that it is statute that deals with governmental duties, and UK constitutional rights and duties are set by statute. In that case, the UK governement has to either set an appropriate carbon budget every five years or reapeal the Act. This goes someway towards explaining why the UK government does not (cannot) put all this on the back burner at this point in time, and why it pursues a track that lacks multilateral support. The UK situation differs, perhaps uniquely, in that fresh legislation would be required before any of these budgets, mandatory requirements to meet them, or the whole project to cut carbon emssions 80% by 2050, could be could be abandoned or ignored.
Alex
It will indeed be fascinating to see how far or fast the UK and its government can run, or even walk, with one ankle thus firmly tied behind its neck. Cynical hilarity will abound!
John Carpenter,
You might accept that the increase, due to human emissions, in CO2 emissions is 39% , or if you want to downplay it slightly you would say that they make up just over a quarter of total CO2 concentrations. You might also accept that the world has warmed by 0.8 degC in the last century.
But what do deniers say?
1) Correlation doesn’t prove causation. It could be solar variability.
2) 0.8deg C is much too high a figure. The temperature record isn’t reliable. What about the UHI?
3) If you are a really macho denier, which, judging by his quotation of a 7% figure for human CO2 contribution, I suspect TonyB may well be, even the rise from 280ppmv to 390ppmv for CO2 levels is disputed.
I really do question the sense of setting up just another denier website to peddle these sort of myths. What is Judith Curry thinking about?
tonto52
Please don’t get all excited.
Your arithmetic (390 / 280 = 1.39) is correct.
Your 0.8C dT is a bit on the high side, though, using the temperature record favored by IPCC (HadCRUT). You can check this out on woodfortrees or download the HadCRUT record directly.
The HadCRUT record 1850-2011 shows a linear rate of warming of 0.041°C (y = 0.0041x – 0.496). This equals a linear warming of 0.67°C over the 161-year period. [UHI effect? Fuggidaboudit.]
So let’s do a quickie check on observed “anthropogenic greenhouse warming”
Atmospheric CO2 level based on Mauna Loa measurement was 390 ppmv in 2011. Mauna Loa has only been in operation since 1959, but Vostok ice core estimates (cited by IPCC) put the CO2 level at around 280 ppmv in 1850.
IPCC AR4 WG1SPM (Figure SPM.2.) tells us that all anthropogenic forcing factors other than CO2 essentially cancelled one another out 1750 to 2005. [IPCC is the “expert” on anthropogenic greenhouse warming, so let’s accept this statement as correct.]
Radiative forcing of CO2 alone was 1.66 W/m^2, while the total net anthropogenic forcing (including aerosols, black carbon, other GHGs, land use changes) was 1.6 W/m^2.
Under “natural forcing components” IPCC lists only direct “solar irradiance” and estimates this to be quite low compared to anthropogenic forcing components: 0.12 W/m^2 compared to 1.6 W/m^2. However, IPCC also concedes that its “level of scientific understanding” of “natural radiative forcing components” (including “solar”) is “low”. [IOW, natural climate forcing is not the IPCC’s primary area of concern or expertise.]
But let’s first assume that IPCC is correct in its assumption that natural forcing components were essentially insignificant, and that all the warming was caused by anthropogenic forcing (~ CO2 forcing, according to IPCC).
C1 = 280 ppmv (1850)
C2 = 390 ppmv (2011)
C2/C1 = 1.393
ln(C2/C1) = 0.3314
ln2 = 0.6931
dT(observed) = 0.67°C
2xCO2 climate sensitivity (all warming anthropogenic)
dT(2xCO2) = 0.67 * 0.6931 / 0.3314 = 1.4°C
But wait! IPCC told us it’s “level of scientific understanding” of “solar forcing” was “low”.
So let’s look elsewhere to see if we can find a source of data with a higher “level of scientific understanding” than IPCC.
Voila! There have been several studies by solar scientists on temperature impact of changes in solar activity, going back to pre-industrial periods of very low solar activity and colder than normal temperatures (Dalton and Maunder minima). (Shapiro 2011, Scafetta + West 2006, Solanki et al. 2004, Shaviv + Veizer 2003, Lockwood + Stamper 1999, Dietze 1999, Geerts + Linacre 1997 among others).
These studies conclude on average that the around half of the 20th century warming can be attributed to the unusually high level of solar activity (highest in several thousand years) with most of this occurring in the first half of the century. Let’s ignore any other factors (ENSO, PDO, etc.) for now.
We then have:
dT(natural = solar) = 0.335°C
dT(anthropogenic = CO2) = 0.335°C
Using the same calculation as above we arrive at:
dT(2xCO2) = 0.335* 0.6931 / 0.3314 = 0.7°C
So the observed change in CO2 and temperature since 1850 tell us that doubling atmospheric CO2 should cause an increase in global temperature of somewhere between 0.7°C and 1.4°C
In addition, since IPCC tells us that the total net anthropogenic radiative forcing is essentially equal to the radiative forcing from CO2 alone, we can essentially ignore other anthropogenic forcing factors (positive and negative).
Please let me know whether or not you agree with the above simplified calculation and, if not, why not.
Thanks.
Max
Max,
I realise I’m breaking my own rule talking to you guys but I’m just wondering , if you knew Tony Brown figure of 7% was way off the mark, why you, or someone else with similar views, didn’t make that correction? For someone like Judith Curry to let this go without comment, on any blog bearing her name, is totally inexcusable.
Deniers like to be known as skeptics. I would suggest that anyone ignoring or failing to correct an obvious scientific falsehood, has absolutely no right to claim the title of skeptic. Scientists, both professional and amateur, should not feel they are batting for any particular team. The goal for everyone should be to establish the facts as far as is humanly possible. That CO2 levels have risen by 39%, since the 19th century, is as close to established fact as it is possible to be. There are only a few cranks on the extreme who would dispute this, and it just isn’t possible to reason with cranks, or deniers!
That’s why I shouldn’t really be talking to you!
tonto52
Am not really sure what you are talking about:
If you are referring to the statement in the TonyB article:
this is not from Tony, but appears to be a remark by Prof. David Mackay as written to Ed Hoskins.
If Mackay means by this that only a small amount of the ~39% increase in atmospheric CO2 since “pre-industrial” times is directly attributable to human CO2 emissions, I’d say this sounds much too low (but I have not asked Mackay whether or not that is what he had in mind and, if so, what his basis is).
What do you think? Have you asked Mackay?
Max
What I think, is that any figure used in an article whether in the form of a quote, or stated in the text, needs to be correct. It looks like the 7% figure originated with TonyB’s “colleague” Ed Hoskins , and for whatever reason, the ‘mistake’ wasn’t picked up by Prof Mackay in his emailed reply.
TonyB has obviously looked into the the CO2 figures and would have known it was way too low, and that’s why he used it.
That’s what deniers do. We all know that, don’t we?
That’s what deniers do. We all know that, don’t we?
We also know that believers do it. And in that case, many times there’s no question that it might be inadvertent.
“I really do question the sense of setting up just another denier website to peddle these sort of myths. What is Judith Curry thinking about?”
I’m not sure that was really her intention, any more than it was the intended outcome on the NYTimes DotEarth blog.
Anywhere on the internet where deniers’ aren’t closely moderated they tend to drown out pro-science folks. An illustration of the truism “A lie travels halfway around the world while the truth is putting its boots on.”
Edit: deniers (no apostrophe)
Robert is a typical global warming support fantasizing about fascistic solutions to make people believe their propaganda. They seem to be all over the internet … but maybe they are just Soros employees.
Now that I think about, I think Robert works for Exxon. His job is to make AGW supporters look really, really stupid. No one could be as dumb as he is and still use a computer.
Thank you for illustrating my point, sunny: once confronted and rhetorically pwnd, you shift to this weird third-person talking-around thing.
Way to come through with an example of the phenomenon.
Enjoy your holiday.
“maybe they are just Soros employees.”
Well, of course Soros is behind the vast conspiracy to make you look foolish by stocking the Internet with people who make your arguments sound ridiculous, but who is behind Soros?
That’s right. It’s the Freemasons.
Soros owns a lot of “journalists”.
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/05/11/dont-hear-george-soros-ties-30-major-news-organizations/#ixzz1M93kp47x
Are you here to discuss science, or to simply denigrate people who wish to?
Peter –
Playing with trolls can be bad for ones blood pressure. Although I’m not subject to that particular effect. I tend more toward laughing jags.
Yes, I can picture the laugh very well.
You’ve now repeated three times your unconvincing claim that getting schooled in these discussions doesn’t bother you (your clumsy but vehement replies suggest otherwise.) One more punch in that card, and it’s officially protesting too much.
I don’t think I’ve denigrated people who wish to discuss science. The appropriate and proportional response to malignant absurdity is to laugh at it. Don’t say ridiculous things, and I won’t make fun of you.
This thread is about the practicality, or not, of reducing carbon emissions to slow greenhouse gas warming. Is there something about that you would like to discuss, from a scientific perspective?
Nobody who just read your posts would ever have guessed what this thread is really about.
So I extended to you a polite invitation to talk about the topic.
You replied with another attack, not willing to move the focus from people to ideas.
That amply proves who is here to talk science, and who is here denigrate other people.
Sorry. You lose.
If you wish to discuss the science, discuss the science. Don’t come here accusing others of your own failings.
Have you already forgotten who made the accusation? Above: “Are you here to discuss science, or to simply denigrate people who wish to?” Asked and answered. You had an opportunity to discuss science with me, but you chose to continue the personal attacks. At that point your hypocrisy cost you any credibility you might have had.
Hypocrite loses argument, end of story.
Prior to this exchange, none of your posts on this thread discussed anything about the science – they were all either polemics or back-slapping with tonto – who has incidentally at least attempted to discuss the science on this thread.
That’s all I set out to point out – I wasn’t pretending to want to post anything about the science at the time, so you can’t accuse me of hypocrisy on that score.
If your posting of 5:57 pm was a genuine attempt at holding out an olive branch then I apologise, but at the time I saw it as a case of you simply making excuses.
“I wasn’t pretending to want to post anything about the science . . .”
Hence the hypocrisy. I’m glad we clarified that.
Let’s allow others to make up their minds on that, shall we?
I’m through discussing it.
In fact, can you point me to just one of your postings on this thread which discusses the topic from a scientific perspective?
His silence speaks volumes
It speaks to the fact that I have a life. I’m not hovering over this site at all times to provide instant counterpoint. Be patient. Remember, you will always be able to lie faster than I can tell the truth. ;)
Robert
Bring facts – not empty polemic.
Max
The facts of the case are as I laid them out above. We have a hypocrite claiming to want to discuss the science while refusing to discuss the science. Case closed.
If you, or anyone, would like to have a serious discussion about the topic, I am right here. But you seem more interested in polemically attacking others for being polemical than in following your own advice.
Robert
You seem to believe that this is a “denier website” where deniers “tend to drown out pro-science folks”.
I am assuming that you consider yourself a part of the “pro-science folks” group (whatever that is supposed to be).
If that is the case, why do you feel obliged to participate here?
Just curious.
Max
Oh, I wouldn’t put a label on it. Any one can post here. I haven’t seen any censorship of viewpoints. Deniers just tend to be the more prolific and animated commentators. This happens anywhere there’s not pretty stiff moderation.
Having people of different viewpoints is a strength, isn’t it? You wouldn’t want to be stuck with a legion of other people thinking just the same as you.
Robert,
Yes that is true. Also it is interesting to observe how Judith Curry’s profile has soared in the last couple of years, and her voice is much amplified now she’s changed her line – saying what much of the corporate world wishes to hear. It must a tempting option for other ignored mainstream climate scientists to follow
Yes, the notion that scientists tow the global warming line in exchange for fame and money seems to ignore the many benefits of being a published climate scientist who tows the “skeptic” line, or even seems to sympathize with some of their talking points — who are valuable, as market theory would predict, because they are very scarce.
tonto52,
Sorry for the simple arithmetic error above… my bad. Now, on with the questions. I agree with your initial set of conditions… 39% CO2 increase and 0.8 deg C increase since preindustrial times.
How much of a temperature reduction would be expected by mitigating (world wide) 50% of today’s CO2 emission by 2050… and what would be the resulting decrease in temperature we could expect by 2100?
See if we can keep to the calculation and leave what deniers might say out of the equation for the time being, if you stick with me…I’m sure it will come up at some point.
Let me give it a shot — strictly back of the envelope:
CO2 growth is running at about 2ppm/yr.
Half of that is 1ppm/year. We are doing total emissions, not per capita emissions. Assume a smooth linear decline to half over the next 40 years (40 * 1.5ppm = 60, 60 + 390 = 450ppm.) Fifty years at 1ppm/year gives us 500ppm.
That’s a little better than the B1 scenario (550ppm peak), but once you factor in permafrost melting and such, it’s probably pretty close. Warming expected: 1.8C.
BAU (A1F): 4.0C.
Difference: ~2.2C
The 280 ppm is the pre-industrial level. I presume it fluctuates, but for the purposes of this calculation it should remain static. So growth calculations that grow the 280 ppm are flawed.
In 1750 mankind is considered to have begun adding significant fossil-sourced CO2 to the atmosphere. Financial calculators are inappropriate. They assume a level of compounding. Again, CO2 does not grow itself. It ain’t money. So the only way to approximate it with a financial calculator, I think, is to do the 260 years since 1750 as one period. How do you estimate mankind’s initial contribution to anthropogenic atmospheric CO2. I’m going to guess at .000000001 ppm. After mankind’s initial contribution, atmospheric CO2 was 280.000000001 ppm. Day one of the Anthrocene. Stick .000000001 in a calculator as the beginning balance and 110 as the ending for one period. That is the net growth in the anthropogenic component from 1750 to 2010: 260 years of ever increasingly flicking our Bics on a chunk of coal, etc.
CO2 does not grow itself. To get more up there, some lazy member of mankind has to get off his duff and take his Bic to some fossil fuel. No matter what the period, we’re starting with ZERO ppm and adding what we produce during that period. So the march from zero in 1750 to 36 in 1958 was quite slow. It took us lazy bums 209 years to accumulate 36 ppm. The march from ZERO in 1959 to 74 in 2010 was significantly faster: 51 years and it doubled plus 2 ppm. When you add the pre-dustrial to the two periods, you get 390 (280+36+74 = 390, the 2010 level.)
If population and GDP growth continue as usual, a lot people will be taking their Bics to chunks of coal, etc. in the next few decades. Where it ends up is dependent upon human behavior and earth’s responses, which could change.
Currently it’s doubling in ~31 years. So 110 in 2010 could be 220 in 2041. 220 plus 280 = 500 ppm: 60 ppm short of doubling atmospheric CO2.
HADCET
1750 June/July/August – 15.5
1958 June/July/August – 15.3
2008 – June/July/August – 15.4
2009 – June/July/August – 15.8
2010 – June/July/August – 15.9
Somewhere between -0.1 and 0.4C change in 260 years
Thats some powerful gas that CO2.
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcet/ssn_HadCET_mean.txt
Obviously, for the vast majority of the 260 years, the ppm was pretty low.
280 ppm does a lot. Want to give it up?
I’m worried how much colder it would get if CO2 actually stopped rising … or actually went down. Brrrr.
CO2 appears to have no warming effect.
JCH
You analysis of what happened to atmospheric CO2 in the past is correct.
It is worth mentioning that human population increased by 1.7%/year CAGR from 1960 to 2010. It has slowed down to around 1% today and is expected by the UN to slow dramatically over the rest of this century, leveling off at around 9 billion, with a CAGR over the century of 0.3% per year.
So if CO2 grew at a CAGR of 0.43%/year from 1958 (when Mauna Loa started) until today, that is a rate of around 1/4 the population growth rate.
It is therefore reasonable to assume, if the UN population growth estimates are correct, that CO2 will grow at a slower rate in the future than it has in the past.
IPCC AR4 scenario B1 is based on a continuation of the 0.43% CAGR (actually a rate a bit higher), reaching ~560 ppmv (or ~2x the estimated “pre-industrial level” by 2100.
If we adjust this for the slower rate of population growth and do not assume a dramatic replacement of fossil fuels with something else , we would probably reach the 560 ppmv level early in the 22nd century.
If there is a concerted shift away from fossil fuels it might take a bit longer.
But that is all conjecture.
Max
This claim is false on several levels. Most importantly, you cannot assume that if one variable (population growth) influences an output (CO2 emissions growth) that that variable must be the primary determinant. That’s a fallacy.
Richer people tend to produce more CO2 per capita (though this is not inevitable by any means). And economies around the world continue to grow.
This claim is false on several levels. Most importantly, you cannot assume that if one variable (population growth) influences an output (CO2 emissions growth) that that variable must be the primary determinant. That’s a fallacy.
It would be a fallacy only if you could provide evidence that other variables are more important. The original numbers include rich/poor factors and economy growth. So the assumption that the correlation will hold is valid unless you can demonstrate otherwise. Either way you make an assumption, but assuming the correlation will hold at least has some historical basis whereas AFAIK, assuming it won’t has no basis in fact.
So – what do you have to back it up?
Jim Owen,
I would think it must be an incontrovertible statement that total human emissions of CO2 can be calculated by multiplying the total number of all of us, and our average emissions per person.
So , yes, as you say population is one factor but as Jim points out, maybe not the main factor. So which has increased faster in the last 100 years in? Population or average emissions? Certainly in the developed world it would have to be the latter.
Thanks to Vaughan Pratt, I can always find this Hofmann graph.
That claim is also false. The fallacy is in the reasoning, not the world. The assumption is baseless, and nothing is offered in its support. If JCH wants to argue that, he needs to support it with some evidence.
Edit: If manacker wants to argue that, not JCH.
Hoffman graph —
This is a ridiculous graph that ignores the stop/start nature of technological progress and adoption and falls in the arena of pure assertion (e.g.there ought to be major spikes corresponding to the widespread postwar adoption of automobiles, etc.) This was discussed with Pratt some time ago and any conclusions based on it are indefensible imaginings. Moreover the graph proves ZILCH. It purports to show CO2 rise in proportion to population; the lack of technology spikes would argue that at worst the problem is respiration based (more bodies.) It also fails to prove that any such correlation is not simply the result of a naturally warming environment, and in fact this would be the null hypothesis and MY interpretation of it.
Anyone resorting to waving this graph about as proof of anything at all is simply claiming “proof by repeated assertion.”
Robert –
The assumption is baseless, and nothing is offered in its support.
Manacker showed you his work and source. If you believe it to be baseless that’s fine. Prove it.
But you offered another baseless assumption without even the courtesy of a source, much less how you got to your conclusion.
And for Tonto –
So which has increased faster in the last 100 years in? Population or average emissions? Certainly in the developed world it would have to be the latter
The answer is both. And the point was that making baseless assumptions is not science. Or even logical.
Annual addition rate, 1960 to 1974 = .5 ppm
Annual addition rate, 1974 to 1985 = 1.0 ppm
Annual addition rate, 1985 to 1997 = 1.5 ppm
Annual addition rate, 1997 to now = 2.0 ppm
Widespread?
The vast majority of the world’s population did not buy a car immediately after WW2. But they’re workin’ on it.
JCH
I hope you realize that the numbers you provided are only general estimates and can not be scientificall proven. I am not doubting that humans put a lot of CO2 into the atmosphere, but you can not say with any reasonable certainty how much of it in the atmosphere today is due to humans.
The numbers are from the Mauna Loa, which I’ve read is confirmed by numerous CO2 monitoring sites around the world.
2 comments:
1) You evaded the point: how much of that is anthropogenic?
2)Faster, please! The world’s flora are depending on us fauna to pick up our game.
JCH –
The numbers are from the Mauna Loa, which I’ve read is confirmed by numerous CO2 monitoring sites around the world.>
True – BUT -Those numbers don’t tell you how much is anthropogenic.
One of the things that both sides of the dance floor should mourn is the loss of not one, but two, spacecraft that were aimed at this kind of information. Both losses due to the same company and the same launch vehicle. Wanna guess why they’re still in business?
~All of it is due to humans.
The natural portion of the carbon cycle is in approximate equilibrium at ~280 ppm.
Carbon Dioxide Information Center:
Anthropogenic CO2 comes from fossil fuel combustion, changes in land use (e.g., forest clearing), and cement manufacture. Houghton and Hackler have estimated land-use changes from 1850-2000, so it is convenient to use 1850 as our starting point for the following discussion. Atmospheric CO2 concentrations had not changed appreciably over the preceding 850 years (IPCC; The Scientific Basis) so it may be safely assumed that they would not have changed appreciably in the 150 years from 1850 to 2000 in the absence of human intervention.
In the following calculations, we will express atmospheric concentrations of CO2 in units of parts per million by volume (ppmv). Each ppmv represents 2.13 X1015 grams, or 2.13 petagrams of carbon (PgC) in the atmosphere. According to Houghton and Hackler, land-use changes from 1850-2000 resulted in a net transfer of 154 PgC to the atmosphere. During that same period, 282 PgC were released by combustion of fossil fuels, and 5.5 additional PgC were released to the atmosphere from cement manufacture. This adds up to 154 + 282 + 5.5 = 441.5 PgC, of which 282/444.1 = 64% is due to fossil-fuel combustion.
Atmospheric CO2 concentrations rose from 288 ppmv in 1850 to 369.5 ppmv in 2000, for an increase of 81.5 ppmv, or 174 PgC. In other words, about 40% (174/441.5) of the additional carbon has remained in the atmosphere, while the remaining 60% has been transferred to the oceans and terrestrial biosphere.
The 369.5 ppmv of carbon in the atmosphere, in the form of CO2, translates into 787 PgC, of which 174 PgC has been added since 1850. From the second paragraph above, we see that 64% of that 174 PgC, or 111 PgC, can be attributed to fossil-fuel combustion. This represents about 14% (111/787) of the carbon in the atmosphere in the form of CO2.
Robert,
Thanks for picking this up, I am very curious to see this from another angle. For the time being, I’ll accept the quicky calculation… Tell me if I got this right. By your calculation, if we are able to reduce today’s emission rate of by 50% in the next 40 years (by 2050) to result in 450 ppm, then maintain that emission rate for the next 50 years (by 2100) to 500 ppm, the resulting difference in temperature would potentially be 2.2 deg C? I understand this is a very rough approximation so I am not holding you to it, but that is the ‘ballpark’?
That’s what my calculation suggests, but over on the other thread, tonto points out that if uptake continues at the current rate (which would make sense if it is a concentration-dependent process) then halving emissions could bring the net change in concentration down to zero — basically, since half of our emissions are now going into sinks, if we cut emissions in half, all of it would.
If that is correct or even partially correct, the difference in temperature could be even greater (using the same calculations above but tonto’s uptake calculation, we top out at 440 with maybe 1C warming vs 4C = a difference of 3C). In any case, it’s a large difference.
We could cut emissions by half, and the CO2 would stop going up. That’s what IPCC stabilization scenario model results essentially showed, and it demonstrates how Kyoto was just a baby first step in what would have to be done to prevent CO2 from rising beyond some level. If this were done pCO2 in the atmosphere would sort of float at the present higher-than-natural level. We would still be adding carbon to the atmosphere / ocean system, and it would still theoretically take 10^5 years to get pCO2 back down to a natural interglacial value of 280 ppm. David Archer, 2005
And there you have it. I for one am pleasantly surprised.
When you factor in efficiency gains/waste reduction/carbon fixation strategies, we do not have to change our energy balance all that dramatically to make a big difference.
Robert
A “big difference” in WHAT?
The first two things you mention are happening anyway, as fossil fuels become rarer and more expensive. In fact the historic increase in CO2 emissions has been much slower than the increase in GDP (and slower than the population growth rate, as well, as pointed out above).
The third (CCS) is a hare-brained scheme that would cost trillions for essentially no reduction in global temperature, as was pointed out earlier on the thread here discussing that topic.
Other actionable proposals have been made, for example by Hansen et al. to shut down coal-fired power plants in the USA by 2030. This scheme would reduce warming by 2100 by 0.08C at a replacement investment cost of $1.5 trillion, so is also a hare-brained scheme.
No matter what we do, Robert, it will not make any perceptible change in the amount of global warming we will have by the year 2100.
Make the calculation yourself, Robert. It’s quite easy to do.
Max
Ok, between your rough calculation and tonto52’s/max’s discussion about ocean sink uptake, the range of estimated temp increase could be 2.2 deg C (worse case) and 1.0 deg C (best case) if a stringent 50% emission reduction plan were successfully implemented. Are we agreed here? if so now let’s look at what Hoskins says… He references the CDIAC that “the total man-made contribution to the level of CO2 to date should only be calculated as approx 40% of the rise in CO2 since 1850, thus amounting to 11% of the current total of 390 ppm”. Is this a claim you would buy into? This is important for assigning a ‘man-made’ component to the calculation. I guess I should ask, do you think there should be an assignment of a ‘man-made’ portion to this calculation or is the 2 ppm/yr 100% ‘man-made’ ?
What an odd claim! I followed his citation, and found this:
Seems like Hoskins confused fossil fuel contributions with total anthropogenic contributions, 40% with 64%, and a source saying more than twice the total increase had been emitted by humans with one that said less than half.
In short, he’s very confused.
Robert,
I posted a response to your comment below Fred’s comment.. just trying to conserve ‘reply’ thingys.
John – In concurrence with Robert’s comment, the CDIAC and most other sources attribute all or almost all of the 39% increase in atmospheric CO2 to anthropogenic activity, but only a fraction of that (the major part) is due to fossil fuel combustion.
Robert and Fred,
Perhaps he is using poor wording here. I read the CDIAC quote provided by Robert as; only 40% of the additional CO2 added to the environment by manmade activities remains in the atmosphere while the balance, 60%, has been transferred back to planet earth (oceans and terrestrial biosphere). Of the 40% remaining in the atmosphere (the GHG contribution of concern), 14% of that is from fossil fuel combustion. So where Hoskins says “the total man-made contribution to the level of CO2 to date should be calculated as only 40% of the rise in CO2 since 1850” is not wrong in my estimation. Where he seems to go off the track is with his 11% vs. the CDIAC’s 14%
Fred, to your point that 100% of increase in CO2 since 1850 is ‘man-made’, I note in Hoskins paper, he credits the CDIAC for CO2 proportions (pie chart) where NATURAL ADDITIONS of CO2 is 17% on top of the original 72% with the remaining 11% as man-made. I have not been able to locate this anywhere at the CDIAC site after only a cursory look, but that appears to be where he gets to the 11%. He invokes David MacKay and Judith Curry accepting this number.
Regardless of whether the fossil fuel portion is 11% or 14%, for sake of moving the calculation forward, I will accept the 14% as indicated by the CDIAC.
We should expect this percentage to increase as the amount of fossil fuel usage will continue to add to atmoshphere in this hypothetical situation, but how much?
14% CO2 of the 390 ppm is due to fossil fuel usage now, 2011. By Robert’s approximation, 60 ppm additional CO2 will be added by 2050 provided we adhere to the 50% reduction mitigation strategy. Do we dare approximate 64% of that will only be from fossil fuel burning (the remaining from land use changes and cement production per CDIAC)? That would put the fossil fuel contribution at approx 38 ppm. Let me know…
Natural addition? It was in some sort of approximate equilibrium in 1750. What changed?
According to the CDIAC it was in some sort of equilibrium in 1850 also…
Upthread you said:
“In 1750 mankind is considered to have begun adding significant fossil-sourced CO2 to the atmosphere”
Where do you get this from?
It was used in an article I read last night.
These sorts of graphs.
I’ve seen 1795 used, and 1800. The initial growth is so slow; I don’t know that start date matters. I usually try to remember to ~1750 it.
Robert
Sorry to have to point it out, but there are some basic errors in your “back of envelope” calculation.
IPCC Scenario B1 assumes CO2 will increase at the same CAGR we have seen since 1958 (or most recently). This is 0.42% per year.
World population grew at 1.7% per year CAGR from 1960 to 2000 (and has slowed down to around 1% today, but the UN projects a significant slowdown over the 21st century, namely to 0.3% CAGR, leveling off at around 9 billion sometime late in the century.
So scenario B1 sounds pretty much like “business as usual” to me, Robert (if not a slightly exaggerated case)
Back to your calculation:
We cut 1 ppmv/year (or roughly half of the current annual increase in atmospheric CO2) for 50 years = 50 ppmv cumulative reduction by year 2100 (your figures).
Let’s stick with your IPCC scenario B1 (with no cutback in emissions). The data I have shows this to project a CO2 concentration by 2100 of 580 ppmv (slightly higher than the figure you cite of 550 ppmv).
So let’s see what the 50% reduction in CO2 emissions got us:
Case A (no cutback = IPCC scenarfio B1)
C1 = CO2 today = 390 ppmv
C2 = CO2 in 2100 = 580 ppmv
C2/C2 = 1.487
ln(C2/C1) = 0.3969
ln 2 = 0.6931
dT(2xCO2) – per IPCC = 3.2˚C
dT (today to 2100) = 3.2 * 0.3969 / 0.6931 = 1.83˚C
Case B (50% cutback)
C1 = CO2 today = 390 ppmv
C2 = CO2 in 2100 = 580 – 50 = 530 ppmv
C2/C2 = 1.359
ln(C2/C1) = 0.3067
ln 2 = 0.6931
dT(2xCO2) – per IPCC = 3.2˚C
dT (today to 2100) = 3.2 * 0.3067/ 0.6931 = 1.42˚C
Difference = net warming averted by 2100 through 50% cutback = 0.41˚C
Your figure of 2.2˚C is five times too high, Robert.
Come back down to Planet Earth.
Max
Correction. The 39% above should refer to CO2 concentrations not emissions. Its often mistakenly thought that excess atmospheric concentrations are proportional to human emissions. However, CO2 emissions do accumulate over time.
tonto52
Regarding human CO2 emissions vs. atmospheric CO2 concentrations.
You are right (as pointed out above). The 39% increase is in atmospheric concentration since “pre-industrial” times (not emissions).
On a year-to-year basis there does not appear to be any direct correlation between human CO2 emissions and CO2 concentration: the annual increase in CO2 varies between 15% and 90% of the CO2 emitted by humans.
However, on a longer-term basis this averages out at somewhere under 50%.
Human emissions at recent levels are equivalent to an annual increase in concentration of 4.5 ppmv per year.
Mauna Loa tells us that concentration has only increased at 2.2 ppmv per year over the most recent period.
So the rest , equivalent to 2.3 ppmv per year, is “missing”.
There are a lot of hypothetical deliberations on where this “missing” CO2 is going: into increased terrestrial plant photosynthesis or soil absorption, dissolved into the ocean, where it is buffered chemically or converted by photosynthesis from phytoplankton, entering the food chain and possibly getting converted to carbonates that eventually end up on the ocean floor, into limestone through weathering or dissipated into space, etc.
The natural carbon cycle is many times greater than the human emissions, so “finding” the “missing” CO2 is like looking for a needle in a haystack.
But here is one possible xplanation.
CO2 has a long term “residence time” in our climate system (I am not talking about the short-term residence time of 5-15 years described by Tom Segalstad); IPCC has estimated this long-term residence time to be between 50 and 200 years.
Zeke Hausfather has presented data at a recent Yale Forum, which showed that the half life of CO2 in our climate system is around 100 to 120 years.
Assuming this is correct, the half-life formula tells us that an amount equal to 0.58% of the concentration theoretically leaves our climate system each year.
390 ppmv * 0.58% = 2.3 ppmv
By coincidence (?) this happens to be exactly the amount that is “missing”.
So, if this explanation is correct, it would mean that the “missing” CO2 is leaving our climate system and, as CO2 concentration increases, so does (in proportion) the amount that “leaves our climate system”.
This would be helpful in calculating the atmospheric concentration at which CO2 would cease to increase if emissions were naturally (or forcibly) capped at X% higher levels than today.
Max
How is that loss rate reconciled with paleo data that shows more like a 10 ppm per million years loss of CO2 in the atmosphere? Why was 280 ppm stable for so long, and not declining towards zero over a few millennia? The answer is that it is a slow process for the CO2 to go into the soil and rocks, and the oceans hold the bulk of it in equilibrium with the atmosphere. Once it is injected into the ocean-atmosphere-biosphere system, it is hard to get out, and it just cycles between these reservoirs.
[Resent with format correction]
Jim D
You ask a good question and then surmise an answer, which is not quite so convincing.
Over geological time our atmosphere’s CO2 content has apparently varied from 25 times the current value to around 200 ppmv, with an estimated “pre-industrial” value of 280 ppmv and a measured value today of 390 ppmv.
The Vostok data going back 450,000 years shows that CO2 lags temperature by several hundred years, so was obviously not the “driver”. There were at least 3 periods when the record shows that temperature started to drop when CO2 levels were above normal levels, and three when temperature started to rise when CO2 levels were below average, further demonstrating that CO2 was not the driver of temperature.
But that is another discussion.
You say:
This appears to be true on annual or decadal time scales. But IPCC has estimated that the long-term residence time of CO2 in our climate system is 50 to 200 years and the Zeke Hausfather data have shown that its half-life in our climate system is 100 to 120 years (which would check roughly with the IPCC estimate).
On that basis its annual “decay rate” would be 0.58% of concentration (according to the half-life formula), which (coincidentally?) happens to be the same as the “missing” CO2 from human emissions.
Was this “decay rate” offset in the past by slightly higher animal respiration than plant photosynthesis, plus unknown CO2 emissions from submarine volcanoes and fissures in Earth’s crust? Who knows the answer to that question?
Some biologists state that atmospheric CO2 levels of 200 ppmv or less are getting near the lower end of the range for natural plant growing conditions and that plant growth rates increase with higher CO2 concentrations above this level (Hincke et al 2011, Coleman et al. 1993, Tilan 1992, Sage et al. 1988, Nosky et al. 1986)
From Hincke et al.:
http://meetingorganizer.copernicus.org/EGU2011/EGU2011-10440.pdf
So it is quite likely that plant photosynthesis (including that happening in the ocean from phytoplankton) could well be constrained by CO2 concentration at 280 ppmv, with a slightly higher input from animal respiration plus emissions from the Earth’s interior balancing out the natural decay rate. But that is all conjecture.
What is known today is:
Humans emit annually the equivalent of 4.5 ppmv increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration, yet we only see an annual increase of 2.2 ppmv, so there is the equivalent of 2.3 ppmv “missing” CO2.
If the Hausfather (and IPCC) estimates on long-term residence time of CO2 in our climate system are correct, we can estimate the “decay rate” at an equivalent value to 2.3 ppmv, which would account for the “missing CO2”.
Max
Is it interesting to anyone that the Eemian started out at about 190ppm and maxed out at 290ppm and the Holocene started out 260/290ppm and is not also 100ppm higher?
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/eemian.html
http://www.biocab.org/Holocene_Delta_T_and_Delta_CO2_Full.jpg
Chiefio in “Wood for Trees” has the interesting thesis that the flora of the planet have eaten themselves into a borderline CO2 starvation condition, and absent (another) major influx of that food like a flood basalt eruption, will tend to hold things at that level indefinitely.
“IPCC has estimated that the long-term residence time of CO2 in our climate system is 50 to 200 years and the Zeke Hausfather data have shown that its half-life in our climate system is 100 to 120 years (which would check roughly with the IPCC estimate)… On that basis its annual “decay rate” would be 0.58% of concentration (according to the half-life formula), which (coincidentally?) happens to be the same as the “missing” CO2 from human emissions”.
The lifetime of excess CO2 from anthropogenic emissions is an intriguing and often misunderstood phenomenon. Decay is not described by single exponential function, and so there is no single half-life. Rather, excess CO2 returns toward baseline at a multitude a different rates, with chemical equilibration in the ocean occurring over decades (depending on depth), ocean carbonate buffering through sediment dissolution requiring centuries to millennia, and eventual restoration of carbonate sediment levels by terrestrial weathering occurring over hundreds of thousands of years – a long “tail” that can account for as much as 20 to 40 percent of CO2 excess in the estimates described by David Archer et al in CO2 Atmospheric Lifetimes. According to Archer et al, the IPCC never did get it right except for the early parts of the decay curve.
As to the similarity between an exponential decay calculation and the current difference between emitted CO2 and atmospheric increase, any similarity is indeed purely coincidental. The tendency of atmospheric CO2 excess to dissipate into the ocean and terrestrial sinks is a decay function, whereas the observation that about half of an added emission disappears into those sinks is a distribution function. If next year’s emission by chance rose to 10 ppmv (very unlikely), the amount that disappeared into the sinks would be about 5 ppmv even though the decay rate would have changed little.
To elaborate on my above comment, the redistribution example of 5 ppmv I mentioned would not be completed within one year but over a small number of years – much faster than the rate at which atmospheric CO2 burdens would tend to decline from their current level. It is the other end of the scale – the long tail – that is particularly problematic, however, because it portends climate effects of increasing CO2 that will persist far longer than the current history of human civilization. For practical purposes, a sizable fraction of added CO2 must therefore be considered irretrievable unless future methods are developed to remove CO2 in quantity from ambient air.
Fred Moolten
Yes. I have seen the Archer stuff on CO2 residence time in our climate system.
Instead of Archer, I used the IPCC estimate and the data cited by Zeke Hausfather, which shows a shorter long-term residence time, with a half-life (time it takes for 50% of the concentration to disappear from the climate system) of 100 to 120 years.
So I suppose it depends whose estimate one uses. My conclusion is that the IPCC (and Hausfather) data are probably a bit closer to the mark than those of Archer, so that residence times of thousands of years, as you have suggested, are more likely than not exaggerated.
The short-term residence time has been shown based on several analyses compiled by Tom Segalstad to be 5 to 15 years.
Your statement below is conjectural and very likely incorrect:
Annual emissions show very little correlation with annual changes in concentration. If you check both numbers, you will see that between 15% and 90% of the emitted CO2 “remains” in the atmosphere on an annual basis. The average currently is slightly below 50%, although it has been higher in the past.
Max
Since you haven’t provided any reasoning behind your “conclusions”, Max, I’m unable to identify the source of errors in them. However, if other readers are interested in this topic, they should read the Archer reference, the references therein, and other earlier papers by this author in Climatic Change and other journals, and compare the information with the IPCC and other estimates. I doubt that anyone can do this and conclude that CO2 decay rates can be characterized by a single half life, since this is incompatible with the physics underlying the multiple equilibrations that occur at different rates. Anyone further interested is welcome to discuss this further here or contact me.
Your second conclusion is also undocumented, but my original point remains the correct one – an increased CO2 pulse will be distributed between atmosphere and sinks fairly similarly to current smaller pulses, over a period of a small number of years. The reasons are also based on the physics, which require that initial equilibration involves the rapidly equilibrating sinks in the ocean mixed layer and some terrestrial sources, while the overall decay rate that involves slower equilibration with larger sinks is much slower. Again, interested readers can review the involved processes to understand why this must be so.
Fred Moolten
Readers (including you) can check IPCC references as well as the data presented at the Yale forum by Zeke Hausfather to see the documentation upon which I based my “conclusion” on the CO2 residence time in our climate system. It’s all there.
Max
Fred Moolten
In addition to the source already cited (Hincke et al. 2011), readers can check the sources below for the increase in plant photosynthesis and growth, which has resulted frpm higher CO2 concentrations.
Piao et al. Contribution of climate change and rising CO2 to terrestrial carbon balance in East Asia Global and Planetary Change, 2011
https://www.bgc-jena.mpg.de/bgc-mdi/uploads/Publ/Piao_et_al_2011.pdf
Phillips et al. Changes in the carbon balance of tropical forests: evidence from long-term plots Science, 1988
There are many more studies, covering all sorts of plants, from desert agave to pine forests, all of which show increased photosynthesis and growth rates with higher CO2 concentrations.
You may wish to check these out yourself, Fred, to get a better picture of how the natural carbon cycle is responding to higher atmospheric CO2 concentrations.
Max
Which brings up an important question that I’ve never heard asked: how much of 20th century agricultural productivity increase might be attributed to higher CO2 in the atmosphere, and what would be the impact on agriculture if CO2 could be returned to 280?
What’s the precautionary principle say about that? If we, hypothetically, were able to reverse the upward trend in CO2, is it not possible that there could be a significant negative impact on the world’s ability to feed itself?
I’m sure there’s some paper out there that says there’s no link, but there are papers that say everything. Do we really want to tempt fate with the world’s food supply at a time of record population?
ChE – I’ve seen substantial data on the effects of anthropogenic climate change on agricultural productivity – it’s a subject that has been addressed in detail by the IPCC and many other organizations concerned with agriculture, as well as by the climate science literature. I will comment here only tentatively, because I would need to review an extensive literature to give you an accurate assessment. I would also warn you and others readers, though, that it is a subject highly vulnerable to cherry picking, because the consequences are so variable from region to region, crop to crop, and from one level of climate change to another. It is therefore always possible to select one or more papers purporting to show whatever conclusion you are trying to promote.
From what I have read, I can say, tentatively, that current changes appear to be creating a negative effect when averaged globally, although in many regions, the changes are positive. It’s important to understand that the total effects on agriculture depend on a large multiplicity of variables. These include CO2 concentrations (which generally mediate a positive influence), temperature increases (beneficial to some crops in some regions and harmful elsewhere), increases in droughts, flash floods, weeds, and insect infestations (all harmful), as well as drains on the availability of soil nitrogen needed for the protein content of food crops. It is also true that small changes in a particular direction (e.g., warming) may be beneficial where larger changes are harmful – i.e., there are optimum temperatures for many crops that have determined where they are now grown, based on thousands of years of evolution.
It is also an area where mitigation is not the only potentially useful strategy, because it should be possible to create new strains of important food crops better suited to a changed climate than current varieties. On a global scale, however, this is likely to be inefficient and expensive, and so the benefits are likely to accrue most to more affluent regions.
For more details, I believe you will have to consult the large body of data that has accumulated on this topic, and you will have to be on the alert for commentary that is too highly selective in the data it cites.
Fred,
More or all indirect influences of climate change are severely subject to unintentional bias in addition to purposeful cherry picking. This is a major problem of the IPCC WG2. It becomes very clear, when one starts to look at the research covered by WG2. That is visible in the high proportional share of various reports that have not been subjected to peer review.
Looking at a randomly picked paper shows very often that the work was done starting from the idea that climate change might cause damage to some particular ecosystem. The research has been funded as a work to describe potential damage from climate change. If the researchers (I’m intentionally not using the work “scientist”, because the research is often not really scientific) know that they get funding as long as they tell about risk of damage, but not, if they cannot find such risk, you may guess, what is going to happen.
In my view this problem with WG2 is so severe that I cannot judge at all, what I should take seriously, and what is spurious consequence of the bias in research.
The actual report of WG2 is furthermore affected by cherry picking. I have looked at a few specific details, and I might say that the outcome is shocking. In one case the reference is not to the original work published in peer reviewed journal, but to a intermediate report by a environmental group, and what is worst: the outcome has been modified to the same direction at both steps. The report of the environmental group distorts the message of the original paper, and the IPCC report distorts the text of the report even further from the original paper.
I have looked at very few examples only, thus I cannot say with any certainty that the findings are representative, but I have made my findings personally on points not hinted to by others. Thus I have really lost my trust in the WG2 report.
I have some direct personal experience from the area of WG3 as well, and that’s equally bad.
I should that I do still believe that climate change presents a severe risk and will be detrimental in many ways. The problem is that I don’t know, how to get even a very rough estimate of the damages and the risks, when the research is so obviously biased by factors very difficult to eliminate or compensate for.
At a rough guess, the odds of warming being benign are about 80%, and of cooling being benign about 0.01%. The odds of warming occurring are about 10%, and of cooling occurring about 60%. The ratio of the riskiness is thus [(1-.8)(.1)]/[(.6)(1-.9999)] = .02/.00006 = 333. So it makes 333X more sense to prepare for cooling disaster than for warming.
:D LOL
LOL is right.
Pekka – my own source of information on agricultural impacts has come more from the literature than from WG2, but even here, differences among regions and among crops, as well as difficulties modeling future trends compound the problem of arriving at an accurate assessment. It does appear, however, that regions of particular concern include parts of Africa and China, where future food shortages may create regional instabilities. I have seen less data on North America and Europe, where in many regions, changes in the short term are likely to be beneficial, particularly at higher latitudes.
I believe the longer term horizon is clearer, at least as far as direction is concerned although not necessarily in term of quantitation. Over hundreds or thousands of years, civilization and the biosphere have adapted and evolved to match a climate not very different from that of recent times. It is likely that minor changes may cause benefit or harm depending on circumstances, but more severe changes are likely to result in more harm than benefit. In the case of food crops, the critical issue will be the nature of the variable that is limiting for growth and/or protein content. In some cases, current CO2 levels may contribute some degree of limitation, so that higher CO2 concentrations will be salutary, but with very substantial climate change, it is likely that most of the limitation will involve water and nitrogen. In particular, an increase in the duration and severity of drought in currently fertile regions appears to be a significant threat, as for example, in regions north of the tropics as the Hadley Cell widens and the ITCZ migrates northward. Paradoxically, flooding is an additional concern, and involves both coastal flooding with seawater contamination of agricultural land, and flash floods due to river overflow within continents.
Temperature rises are likely to exert mixed effects depending on latitude, but may require shifts within nations or continents in the locations where particular crops are grown, so as to avoid excess heat at low latitudes and benefit from increased warmth at higher latitudes. With sufficient planning, it should also be possible to breed crops better adapted to a changed climate than those currently dominating world food production.
Pekka, these are very interesting remarks. Could you expand on them and provide further details of the examples you have studied? I would suggest at your own blog, rather than here after 550 comments.
[Somehow this ended up in the wrong place, so am re-posting here]
ChE
You asked (May 31, 2011 at 7:21 pm)
I have seen no specific studies regarding lower CO2 levels than those we currently are experiencing, but it is generally agreed in the scientific literature (despite some IPCC claims to the contrary) that an increased atmospheric concentration of CO2 will be beneficial to most plant growth, including agricultural crops.
In addition the large grain growing regions in northern latitudes (Canada, Russia, etc.) are expected to benefit from projected higher temperatures, with both increased crop yields and also a larger surface area where crops can be grown.
A good summary of early literature on this subject can be found in the references cited in this study:
Cure et al. Crop Responses to Carbon Dioxide Doubling: A Literature Survey, Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 1986
http://ddr.nal.usda.gov/bitstream/10113/34722/1/IND87009844.pdf
Later studies include:
Shen et al. Temporal and spatial changes of the agroclimate in Alberta, Canada, from 1901 to 2002. Journal of Applied Meteorology 2005
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JAM2251.1
Bootsma et al. Potential impacts of climate change on corn, soybeans and barley yields in Atlantic Canada Canadian Journal of Soil Science, 2005
http://www.agrometeorology.org/topics/selected-bibliography/articles/potential-impacts-of-climate-change-on-corn-soybeans-and-barley-yields-in-atlantic-canada
Over 90% of the agricultural plants are in the C3 group (rice, wheat, barley, potatoes, soybeans, carrots, coffee, tea, peanuts, grapes, fruits, etc.), with the rest classified as C4 plants (corn, millet, sorghum, sugar cane). While both groups benefit from higher CO2 levels, several studies have shown that C3 crops will benefit more from higher CO2 levels than C4 crops.
A general study on the impact on crop plants overall has concluded:
http://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/effects-of-rising-atmospheric-concentrations-of-carbon-13254108
In contrast, studies have shown that a large percentage of noxious weeds (such as crab grass, barn grass, ragweed, pampas grass, burrgrass, etc.) are C4 plants, which do not respond as strongly to increased CO2 levels as most crops, which are of the C3 variety.
Zeng et al., Elevated CO2 effects on nutrient competition between a C3 crop (Oryza sativa L.) and a C4 weed (Echinochloa crusgalli L.). Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems, 2011
http://www.springerlink.com/content/e7846374l8263345/
There have been many studies on this subject and the scientific literature generally agrees that increased CO2 levels will lead to higher crop yields worldwide. Increased temperatures will affect crop yields primarily in the northern latitides (Canada, Russia, north China, northern USA, northern Europe, etc.) and at higher elevations, geographical regions, which are currently not suitable for agriculture.
To your specific question on the 20th century impact on crop yields. The scientific literature cited above refers to crop yield increases of 30 to over 100% with a doubling of CO2, with an average cited of around 40%.
Atmospheric CO2 is estimated by IPCC to have been around 290 ppmv in 1901 (based on ice core data) and was measured at 369 ppmv in 2000 (at Mauna Loa), for a 27% increase.
The correlation between CO2 concentration and crop yields appears to be somewhere between linear and logarithmic, so the observed increase would result in estimated average increase in crop yield over the 20th century between 11% and 14%. This does not include any added benefit resulting from the slightly higher temperature.
Since estimated CO2 levels in 1900 (290 ppmv) were not that much higher than those in pre-industrial times (280 ppmv), one could roughly estimate that going back to pre-industrial CO2 levels would result in an equivalent reduction in crop yields.
Hope this has answered your question.
Max
Fred Moolten
Further to my earlier post, it is the current rate of annual decay of CO2 in which we are interested, rather than the long-term time, which all CO2 molecules would remain in the climate system if no further additions (from whatever source) occurred.
At a half-life of 100 to 120 years, this represents around 0.58% of the concentration.
It would, of course, be a gross oversimplification to assume that the only factor leading to changes in CO2 is the rate of anthropogenic emissions.
Since the amounts absorbed or emitted by plant photosynthesis and animal respiration are an order of magnitude greater than those emitted by humans, it is clear that a slight shift in either of these could represent a major shift in the balance.
McGuire et al. 2000 (as well as several other studies) have shown that plant photosynthesis has increasesd at higher atmospheric CO2 concentrations.
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2001…/2000GB001298.shtml
The amount of CO2 absorbed by soils is also much larger than that emitted by humans, and it is not clear how this will change with higher atmospheric CO2 levels.
An increase in photosynthesis by phytoplankton could also result in a shift, with a portion of this entering the marine food chain and being converted to calcium carbonate, which ends up at the ocean floor.
The amount of CO2 absorbed from the atmosphere and released to the atmosphere annually by the oceans is also an order of magnitude greater than that emitted by humans. This ratio has been shown to shift on a short-term basis with changes in ENSO and other factors. The amount of carbon contained in the deep oceans is thousands of times as high as that emitted by humans and hundreds of times that contained in the atmosphere. In the ocean, which is alkaline, the CO2 is chemically converted to bicarbonates and carbonates, and an unknown percentage of this ends up at the ocean floor, as well.
The amount of CO2 added to our atmosphere by terrestrial volcanoes is estimated to represent only a small fraction of that emitted by humans, but the total amount entering our climate system via the ocean from submarine volcanoes and fissures in the Earth’s crust is unknown. Geologist Ian Plimer has estimated this to be greater than the amount emitted by humans, although this estimate is controversial.
And there is, of course, some CO2, which is dissipated out to space along with other atmospheric components, although I have seen no good estimates of this.
So it is clear that we are not talking about a simple system that is in “equilibrium” except for the human emissions. To believe that would be a gross oversimplification, as I am sure you are aware.
Max
” Further to my earlier post, it is the current rate of annual decay of CO2 in which we are interested, rather than the long-term time, which all CO2 molecules would remain in the climate system if no further additions (from whatever source) occurred.”
That’s clearly not true, Max. Over time, CO2 disappears from the climate system. This occurs mainly through subduction zones into the Earth’s mantle, as carbonates. This is why a cessation of anthropogenic contributions to atmospheric CO2 would eventually tend to return atmospheric concentrations to the preindustrial level of about 280 ppm in the absence of other perturbations of the balance between the atmosphere and other parts of the system. The carbon atoms eventually return to the system in the form of volcanism, which as you point out, is a small fraction of anthropogenic emissions on an annual basis but the only major source by which carbon is added to the climate system. Escape of CO2 molecules to space is so negligible (because of their molecular weight) that it can be ignored.
The concept of a CO2 half life continues to be based on a fallacy. It is indeed true that at current atmospheric levels, CO2 would drop to 50% of its current value over about 100 years (or perhaps less) if no more were added, so that recycling among the various components of the system were the only process ongoing. That is not a true half life, however, because the time needed for a 50% reduction depends on the atmospheric concentration, and would become longer with a higher atmospheric burden.
Fred,
A good point about CO2 half-life. Furthermore looking at the evidence of past geological eras we can see strong evidence that climate hasn’t gradually changed from one to the other, but has in fact flipped from one quasi stable state to the next.
An increase in CO2 levels, beyond certain levels, may push the Earth’s climate into a new state which will be irreversible. I know people like Max will scoff at the notion of tipping points but they aren’t anything new.
On the subject of tipping points, here’s a new study that tries to put a number on carbon release from permafrost melting: http://nsidc.org/news/press/20110216_permafrost.html
Their estimate is about 80ppm by 2200, +/-30ppm. But this estimate uses older estimates for permafrost carbon stores — some papers estimate there’s twice as much carbon there as this paper estimates. So depending on who’s right, you could be looking at 50ppm — 220ppm over two hundred years.
Fred Moolten
You wrote:
The “concept of a CO2 half-life” is not “based on a fallacy”, Fred. You are directly contradicting yourself when you add in the next sentence: ” It is indeed true that at current atmospheric levels, CO2 would drop to 50% of its current value over about 100 years”. That’s what a “half life” means, Fred.
The rest of what you have written appears to me to be double-talk, but let me see if I can explain.
At a half-life of 120 years (the upper range of the Hausfather data) the annual decay rate equals 0.58% of the concentration at that time. This is what appears to be happening right now, Fred. 0.58% of 390 ppmv equals 2.3 ppmv, which is the amount of “missing” CO2. Where this “missing” CO2 is going is another question, but according to the Hausfather data (and the IPCC estimates) it is leaving the climate system.
If more CO2 is added this certainly increases the residence time (as you state), regardless of whether the “added” CO2 came from anthropogenic or natural sources. It would also increase the instantaneous rate at which CO2 concentration decays.
If no net CO2 were added to the system (a purely theoretical case) the atmospheric CO2 would slowly decrease, and it would take several centuries for it to return to 280 ppmv (as IPCC has stated), so there would be (according to IPCC) a long-term GH warming effect from anthropogenic CO2 long after humans stopped emitting it.
If the net CO2 added to the system (from whatever source) were reduced to a value equal to 0.58% of the concentration, the level would theoretically level off at that concentration.
[These are all hypothetical deliberations here, Fred, so don’t get too excited about them.]
The point is: humans are emitting the equivalent of 4.5 ppmv per year to the atmosphere, but only 2.2 ppmv are being added to the atmospheric concentration per year. IOW 2.3 ppmv are “missing”.
At a theoretical “half life” of CO2 in the climate system, the instantaneous annual rate of decay equals 0.58% of the concentration at that time. 0.58% * 390 ppmv happens to equal 2.3 ppmv, which happens to be the same as the “missing CO2”.
Max
Max – Your concept of a half life for CO2 is based on a fallacy, because there is no single half life. Rather the time needed for a 50% decline in the absence of further emissions will vary with CO2 concentration and has no fixed value. See my description and references above for more details.
It is misleading to refer to CO2 emissions that do not increase atmospheric concentration by 100 percent of their value as “missing”. They are partitioned between the atmosphere and oceanic or terrestrial sinks. It would be a physical impossibility for this partitioning not to occur. Some details are provided in the previous reference I cited.
Fred
I have already responded to this post, with references to cited literature (see above), and we are beginning to flog a dead horse here.
We appear to be in agreement on the “long tail” of the CO2 residence time curve, where there is also no substantial disagreement between Archer and the Hausfather data. As Pekka points out, the “long tail” doesn’t really mean very much in practical terms.
As far as the instantaneous rate of decay at the “start” of the curve, Archer gives no specific figures in the abstract you cited but his conclusion is quite the same as that of Hausfather, namely that the removal starts off at a fairly rapid rate and then slows down.
So it appears that we may actually be agreeing.
Nicht wahr?
Max
Max,
Just because we can say something is halved in a certain time doesn’t necessarily mean that the concept of “half life” is valid over a full range of parameters as it would with, say, with radioactive decay.
For example if I switch on a filter in a swimming pool I may observe that the water gets half as murky in a certain time. Then half as murky again in roughly the same amount of time so the concept of half life might seem to apply.
However, if the condition of the water is really bad to start with, the filter gets overloaded and a more linear relation would apply to the effective cleaning rate and the first “half life” may well be longer than the others.
Fred can correct me if I’m wrong but I think that’s what he means.
A clarification question from left field, if you will. Everyone talks of how slow CO2 gets “absorbed” into rocks, e.g. and I understand the half-life etc business. But I’ve never reconciled this with the estimate that global natural CO2 emissions are 33+ times that of anthro emissions, and total absorption of CO2 (very roughly half by terra, half by sea) is a little bit more than natural emissions and about 34- times that of anthro emissions. By these numbers (1990s per EIA) it is still the anthro emissions that account for the atmospheric buildup, but there is none-the-less a pot load of CO2 that gets absorbed each year — near 34 time that of man’s emissions. Is this odd?
Your worry has been voiced over and over again, but it’s based on a different framing of carbon cycle and this different framing is not the one that helps us understand things correctly.
The better way of looking at the issue is to take as the starting point a stationary carbon cycle where large volumes of carbon are moving around all the time and consider the human contribution as a disturbance to this system. Then we wish to analyze, how this disturbed system will deviate from the starting stationary system.
Of course this approach is useful only, if the system would really be close to stationary without the human addition. It has to be close to stationary over the time scale of decades. Annual variations do not matter, if they do not lead to a persistent trend. Persistent rising trends require that we have some reservoir that can release the required CO2 and that can do it at a speed that is large enough to be be significant compared to the observed increase. The effect should also be recent, because it’s certain that the rising trend observed at Mauna Loa has not continued for long. Nobody has been able to propose plausible sources of that type. Some proposals do of course exist, but no plausible ones. As an example a significant recent increase in the rate of CO2 through volcanic activity doesn’t seem plausible.
The well known large carbon fluxes are all by their nature equilibrium fluxes. There is such an equilibrium exchange of CO2 between atmosphere and the surface layer of the oceans, and there is the natural equilibrium that most of vegetation first grows and then decays and returns CO2 to the atmosphere. Only persistent deviations from these balances influence the CO2 trend, and we know from observations that the natural deviations work now in the direction of reducing CO2 in the atmosphere back towards preindustrial concentration.
If the human contribution is not the sole important source of the increase in concentration, we must have another independent process that releases CO2 from some reservoir. Then the responses by natural processes must be more efficient than they are thought to be as they must remove both this additional release and the human contribution leaving over only the observed increase.
The details are not known precisely, but they are known well enough to say that the combination of human contribution and what is known about the response by natural processes is not inconsistent with the Mauna Loa observations, but adding to that significant presently unaccounted for releases from some reservoir would lead to great problems in explaining the observed trend.
Everything fits well enough together and no plausible alternatives have been presented. This is a strong reason for believing that the present explanation is essentially correct. This is true for the period of decades. For the longer periods the response of the oceans (and to lesser degree of continental areas) appears to include many badly understood factors. Therefore we have still significantly differing estimates for the long tail of the return to equilibrium after the human contribution has been reduced again to a low level.
I can see that logic; thanks. It’s just one of those annoying little itchy inconveniences ;-) .
That’s one of the things that really bothers me.
Given the fact that many forests, deserts etc have come and gone over the millennia, just how did CO2 levels remain so stable?
Tonto52, are u trying to set some kind of record? Lets see how many times I can write “denier” without actually answering one single question that those evil denialists ask me?
From where I am sitting/lurking, your behaviour just proves what we denialistically denying deniers think of people like you: all insults and demands for censorship, but no actual content…please keep it up, you are only helping the denialicious cause, showing your true colors this way.
So…..thanks!!
TonyB,
I was wondering if my last remark about you being a macho-man denier was being a little bit harsh. After all, we can all make mistakes from time to time.
Isn’t Google a marvelous thing? A quick seach turns up this:
http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2010/03/06/historic-variations-in-co2-measurements/
Or is this written by another Tony Brown?
Maybe you should ask Judith if you can write another article and tell us all just how we’ve got it all wrong and that CO2 levels were actually higher in the 19th century than they are now!
Tonto,
Imagine there was a human civilisation ~120.000 years ago (during the last interglacial). They had an industrial revolution just like we and raised atmospheric CO2 concentration for ~100 years. Lets say the peak was ~500 ppm CO2. Then they disapeared.
Do you think the ~500 ppm peak would appear in the ice core records?
Considering that the ice core record can identify pollution from Roman lead foundries, the answer is certainly yes.
I asked about CO2, not pollution.
Is CO2 pollution? Yes, according to the EPA
but the EPA is well known for its ability to make up stuff…
The Vostok ice core for the Eemian shows a 100ppm rise in CO2 (starting at 190ppm) after temperature started to rise (not the other way around).
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/eemian.html
The Holocene also has shown about a 100ppm rise starting at around 270ppm.
http://www.biocab.org/Holocene_Delta_T_and_Delta_CO2_Full.jpg
So … both the Eemian and Holocene have see a 100ppm rise in CO2 after temperature went up.
And both the Holocene and Eemian will end and the ice age will return.
tonto52
Still looking for a response from you to my post May 30, 2011 at 4:58 pm regarding observed 2xCO2 climate sensitivity.
Thanks.
Max
Max, Observed 2 x CO sensitivity?
What model have you assumed for the rate of the oceans’ heat uptake?
Look, I sincerely hope that 0.7deg C does turn out to be a correct figure but it will take more than a few lines of arithmetic to address the issue with any degree of scientific vigor. Estimates of Climate Sensitivity Based on Instrumental Observations are as follows: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch9s9-6-2.html
tonto52
Yeah. I read that IPCC stuff.
But then I simply went back to the CO2 record and the temperature record (for what they are both worth) and figured it out for myself , using IPCC’s estimates for CO2 and all anthropogenic forcings (no “models” or “rocket science” required).
Then I checked for reliable sources on possible natural forcing (IPCC tells me its level of scientific understanding here is low), and – voila! – I find several solar studies, which all tell me that around half of the observed warming can be attributed to the unusually high level of 20th century solar activity.
So the two estimates (with and without solar forcing) give me a range of 0.7C to 1.4C for the 2xCO2 climate sensitivity, based on actually observed CO2 and temperature records, rather than model simulations and assumptions.
Quite simple, actually.
And it appears that you have no rebuttal other than referring me to IPCC (which I have already read).
Max
tonto52
As an add-on to our discussion on observed 2xCO2 climate sensitivity you asked:
I have used no model, tonto, just physical observations. Unfortunately we do not have any reliable and comprehensive measurements of upper ocean temperature and heat content prior to 2003, when ARGO measurements replaced the old expendable and spotty XBT data. Since ARGO has been in operation, the record shows a net heat loss of the upper ocean (which team leader, Josh Willis, has referred to scientifically as a “speed bump”).
But this is another discussion (i.e. the Hansen et al. “hidden in the pipeline” postulation), which I won’t go into here (unless you insist, of course).
Max
“Quite simple actually” You may think that. The likely reason being that you’ve failed to appreciate the complexity of the problem.
Max,
Your calculation on rates of CO2 absorption looks to be slightly more convincing than your 2xCO2 doodlings.
You could be right – excess Co2 could have an effective half-life of anywhere between 50 and 200 years. I’m not sure how either figure would have a bearing on the desirability, or affordability, of increased CO2 mitigation efforts though.
tonto52
We are drifting into several different discussions here (including the exchange I am having with JimD).
A postulated CO2 half-life of 120 years is equivalent to a decay rate (i.e. the amount of CO2 leaving our climate system) of 0.58% of the concentration, or 0.58% * 390 = 2.3 ppmv.
Human emissions equate to an increase of 4.5 ppmv, yet atmospheric CO2 only increases on average by 2.2 ppmv.
So it is reasonable to assume that the “missing” CO2 is really leaving our climate system as the data would imply?
What implications could this have for the future?
Think about it a bit and then come back to me if you have any thoughts on this.
Max
tonto52,
“I’m not sure how either figure would have a bearing on the desirability, or affordability, of increased CO2 mitigation efforts though.”
Speaking of…. any chance to look at the question I posed to you earlier on that topic? See here,
http://judithcurry.com/2011/05/26/the-futility-of-carbon-reduction/#comment-71995
If you don’t mind, reply to that comment above to keep it all together for ease of discussion.
@Richard Carpenter,
The effect of mitigating to 50% CO2 emissions by 2050 would vary depending on the rate of change to that goal. If Max is correct, and he may well be, with his 50% take up estimate, it would be reasonable to say, at present levels of CO2 concentrations, an immediate reduction to 50% of present emissions ( which I do realise is just not going to happen! ) would stabilise those concentrations, though whether this would be naturally sustainable indefinitely would be open to some question and need further research – if we ever get that far.
It certainly would be an interesting experiment to throttle back all GHG emissions to a sufficiently low level at which atmospheric concentrations do stabilise.
Under a BAU scenario CO2 levels are set to approximately double by the end of the century. Of course, the full extent of the warming caused by this doubling will not be immediately felt, as it will take further decades for the Earth to settle into a new equilibrium. Even if no further increases occur after the year 2100 the Earth will continue to warm for many years afterwards.
tonto52,
It’s ‘John’, not ‘Richard’… but I’m ok with that. The role of the oceans is a bit of a wild card wrt to CO2 uptake as a sink…. and I think we will get that far in understanding, we just need to try again on the OCO project, that would have helped answer a lot of questions about how CO2 exchanges with the atmosphere and the planet. Feel free to comment on the thread above I am having w Robert on the CO2 mitigation effects on temp.
Yes John. Sorry about that.
Cold water holds more CO2 than warm.
Warmer means more plant life which means more Co2.
The Eemian ice cores clearly show Co2 was a response to warming and greater plant growth.
“Warmer means more plant life which means more Co2.” This is not correct.
Plants, at least while they are alive, are net absorbers of CO2. A plant may appear to be growing from the ground upwards, and certainly it does take up water and nutrients via its roots. But also, it absorbs CO2 from the atmosphere, via its leaves, and by the process of photosynthesis converts that to organic (carbon based) compounds.
Have you heard of fall? When leaves drop off, fall to the ground, and rot giving off CO2?
More plants … more dead plants.
Rainforests tend to reward certain trees which grow and choke out lesser trees and they die and rot where they stand.
More ground foliage, more animals live to eat the plant material which emits Co2/Methane when digested and more when the animals die.
You’re still not correct. Yes, at times plants shed leaves and even ‘breathe out’ CO2 at night but overall they are net carbon absorbers.
The wood in a tree would have a 70-80% carbon content. Where has that come from? The atmosphere of course. Where else?
They are net carbon absorbers until they die. Then they rot. Unless they are cut down and made into lumber.
It is even suggested that drought cycles can return huge amounts of carbon to the atmosphere.
“It is estimated that, with low water levels causing thousands of trees to die, some five billion tonnes of carbon dioxide were released into the atmosphere over the course of the year, making the world-famous forest part of the problem of climate change rather than part of the solution.”
http://www.earthtimes.org/pollution/droughts-turn-amazon-rainforest-major-polluter-scientists-warn/262/
And then again in 2010:
“The study, published in the journal Science, found that last year’s drought caused rainfall shortages over a 1.16 million square-mile expanse of the forest, compared with 734,000 square miles in the 2005 drought.
It was also more intense, causing higher tree mortality and having three major epicenters, whereas the 2005 drought was mainly focused in the southwestern Amazon.
As a result, the study predicted the Amazon forest would not absorb its usual 1.5 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere in both 2010 and 2011. In addition, the dead and dying trees would release 5 billion metric tons of the gas in the coming years, making a total impact of about 8 billion metric tons, according to the study.”
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41412922/ns/us_news-environment/t/amazon-drought-caused-huge-co-emissions/
Those pesky trees …
sunshine –
some five billion tonnes of carbon dioxide were released into the atmosphere over the course of the year
Maybe.
Note that trees DO NOT decay quickly. Most of them take years – many years. Many of them, especially in rain forest, also become “nurse trees” which are the genesis of new generations.
Note also that deforestation is not a monotonic activity. Logging has a purpose – the production of lumber, which is used in building – which does NOT return carbon to the system. At least until the building burns.
“Decaying matter (dead wood and leaf litter) is processed so efficiently because of the abundance of decomposers including bacteria, fungi, and termites.”
Not totally disagreeing, but that’s only part of the story. You don’t spend much time hiking the backcountry, do you? Never had to work your way through 15 miles of constant blowdown in a driving rain? Where some of those trees had been down for 8 years or more? BIG trees – LOTS of carbon – take LOTS of time to decay – won’t happen in one year – or two – or 5. Photos available on request.
In general, though, the smaller organics do fit your description. But it might take 2 or 3 years rather than one. This is a case where “size matters” – as well as temp and rainfall. :-)
@Sunshinehours1,
If nature is so good at processing plants and dead wood, how were coal and peat deposits ever formed?
@tonto52
‘If nature is so good at processing plants and dead wood, how were coal and peat deposits ever formed?’
I believe that the formation of peat deposits is very well understood and involves the dead wood falling into an anaerobic (no oxygen) environment, (eg stagnant water) so that the general equation C+O2 –> CO2 cannot take place. Coal is effectively compressed and heated peat.
You can read further details in any O level geology textbook should you wish to increase your knowledge of these natural processes, so basic to our understanding of the carbon cycle.
And then there are times when stuff burns …
1998:
“According to the cover story in Nature, the fires in Indonesia released upwards of 2.57 gigatonnes of carbon, 40 percent of the mean carbon emissions released annually from fossil fuels, and “contributing greatly to the largest annual increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration detected since records began in 1957.””
http://www.esa.int/esaCP/ESAOB17708D_index_0.html
“Peatland fires in Indonesia alone released up to 900 million metric tonnes of CO2 in 2006 — more than the total amount emitted by Germany that year, new research has found.”
http://www.greenbang.com/indonesias-peatland-fires-release-more-carbon-than-germany_12755.html
Those pesky plants …
5 years, 10 tops.
http://climateresearchnews.com/2009/08/atmospheric-residence-time-of-man-made-co2/
Any other Co2 is caused by warmer oceans and more plant life.
I spent a little time reading Ed Hoskins’ argument — it stretches the definition to call it a paper. It’s full of basic mistakes, including:
* The claim that only 40% of the increase in greenhouse gases since 1750 is attributable to human activities.
* The claim that 95% of the greenhouse effect is caused by water vapor (this fallacy is the primary way he gets very low temperature estimates for reducing CO2).
* The claim that “Additional atmospheric CO2 significantly improves all plant growth and thus food production.”
In addition to these basic scientific mistakes, there are many errors of grammar and capitalization, and dubious, unsourced claims.
This article is an embarrassment. Tony, did you read it before you promoted it here, and if so, did you identify these basic factual mistakes which lead to his erroneous conclusion?
Robert said;
“I spent a little time reading Ed Hoskins’ argument — it stretches the definition to call it a paper. It’s full of basic mistakes, including….”
Very early on I said the purpose of presenting the paper was to ask others here to deconstruct it, then to provide their own calculations.
You have attempted the first part of that but now need to prove your assertions that Ed has got it so wrong by providing your own calculations that will answer the question I posed;
Question: Temperatures are expected to rise by 3 degree Centigrade because of actions we have already taken. If the world collectively closed down their carbon economies what temperature reduction could be achieved?
Look forward to seeing your estimates so that in version two of the article we can use the information that turns out to be correct.
Thanks.
Tonyb
a) By 2100
b) By 2200
(Please describe your calculations together with caveats or provide a reference/link.)
TonyB,
You say “Temperatures are expected to rise by 3 degree Centigrade because of actions we have already taken.”
Expected by whom? I would expect them to rise slightly from present values but not by so much.
A credible reference in support of this claim would be much appreciated , if you don’t mind.
@tonto52
The first remark form Tonybwas a statement, You may agree or disagree with it.
But the actual question to you was unaffected by that opinion, and was:
‘If the world collectively closed down their carbon economies what temperature reduction could be achieved?’
Are you able to help us with your calculations on this point?
Tonto52
Forgive me, but I had suspected that you hadn’t read the article properly and were shooting from the hip because you didn’t approve of what was being said, and your comment reinforces this suspicion.
As Latimer observes it is a statement, but one based on a sythesis of information such as 350.org and Bill Mc Guire that I refer to in the article, and others such as The Chief Scientist of the UK at the time who explicitly said this;
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/3-degrees-chief-scientist-warns-bigger-rise-in-worlds-temperature-will-put-400-million-at-risk-474180.html
As Latimer observes I then posed a question, which most people-including you- seem to want to avoid answering.
I would suspect that those such as yourself would hve a much harder job of selling the notion that the earth is doomed and we must all mend our ways immediately if those who you demand be made guinea pigs knew that, even if we went onto a total global carbon fast immediately, that our collective efforts would make no tangible difference on reducing the temperature for at least 200 years.
Furthermore, that their efforts as a member of a single sovereign nation-such as the UK-whose government wants to involuntarily enrol them in the ‘Carbon reduction club’ of gullible- mostly western- nations, will bring vast costs and impositions but with no measurable benefits to those members ever.
I can hear the rallying cry now at the next Green peace rally in Britain
“What do we want?
A two thousandths of a degree temperature reduction
When do we want it?
In two hundred years or more-possibly.”
You couldn’t sell that Tonto 52 could you, which is why you must greatly exaggerate your case.
If you dispute this scenario why don’t you finish the calculations you started making here which you seemed to have stopped?
tonyb
Your claim: “Temperatures are expected to rise by 3 degree Centigrade because of actions we have already taken.”
When we track it back to your source, we find: “The world’s temperature is on course to rise by more than three degrees Centigrade despite efforts to combat global warming, Britain’s chief scientist has warned.”
This again is not accurate. Warming expected with a BAU scenario is not at all comparable to warming caused by actions already taken, i.e., warming in the pipeline resulting from past emissions.
I’m sure you’d agree that it’s very important for anyone — climate scientist or “skeptic” — to be very scrupulous with the facts. Otherwise, regardless of who you are or what the topic is, you will tend to lose credibility.
Robert
This is taken from the 350.org site already referenced and which Hansen and Gore endorse.
20.5 Some implications of the revised understanding of Climate Sensitivity are spelled out in the text. For instance:
20.5.1 Increase in Equilibrium temperature following stabilisation of CO2 concentration at 440 ppm is revised upwards from 2ºC (Charney) to 5ºC (ESS).
20.5.2 CO2 concentration consistent with limiting temperature rise to 2ºC drops from 440 ppm (Charney) to 330 ppm (ESS).
20.5.3 Available budget for further emissions consistent with the 2ºC guardrail stands at 750 GT CO2 (Charney). ESS collapses the budget into a massive debt. We are already in overshoot of the capacity of the global commons to absorb our industrial effluent. Maintaining the 2ºC Guardrail requires “negative emissions” (i.e. draw-down from CO2 already in the atmosphere) of over 390 GT CO2 to be achieved by 2080.
20.5.4 If CO2 concentration could be stabilised at its current value of 390 ppm, then Charney estimates temperature increase already in the pipe-line as 0.8ºC. ESS predicts a further 3.0ºC.
—
This from a recent study.
http://opac.yale.edu/news/article.aspx?id=7168
“To do this, the team focused on the most recent episode of sustained global warmth with geography similar to today’s. Their reconstructed CO2 concentrations for the past five million years was used to estimate Earth-system climate sensitivity for a fully equilibrated state of the planet, and found that a relatively small rise in CO2 levels was associated with substantial global warming 4.5 million years ago. They also found that the global temperature was 2 to 3 degrees Celsius higher than today while CO2 levels were only between about 365 and 415 parts per million (ppm)—similar to today’s concentration of about 386 ppm.”
The precise amount of warming will depend on climate sensitivity and the exotic feedbacks that are factored in, but I think you are dancing on the head of a pin with your comments-
Could you please answer the question I posed. Thank you
Tonyb
tonto52
You ask TonyB where the idea of 3C warming by year 2100 comes from.
It is an IPCC model-based projection.
As you know, IPCC prefers the model-based 2xCO2 climate sensitivity (with all feedbacks) of 3.2C on average.
IPCC has also developed several “scenarios” and “storylines” of what might happen in the future.
These “storyline and scenario families” are described on the last page of AR4 WG1 SPM report. They result in different predicted atmospheric CO2 levels by year 2100, which are then used together with the assumed 2xCO2 climate sensitivity, to arrive at a net GH warming expected by year 2100. This is expressed as the temperature change in degrees C at 2090-2099 relative to 1980-1999.
“Best estimates” range from 1.8C (scenario B1) to 4.0C (scenario A1F1).
NOTE: The top two scenarios estimate an atmospheric CO2 level which exceeds the total carbon contained in all the optimistically estimated fossil fuel reserves on our planet (although here I will mention that Pekka Pirilä has found a study, which give higher potential fiossil fuel reserves than the studies, which I cited).
Scenario B1 assumes a continuation of the compounded annual growth rate in atmospheric CO2 of the most recent period and the period since Mauna Loa measurements started in 1958 (a bit more than 0.4% per year CAGR). This results in a CO2 concentration by 2100 of 580 ppmv.
The others assume an acceleration of this rate (between 1.5 to 4 times the past CAGR) to reach assumed CO2 levels of 700 to 1600 ppmv. Obviously, the computers were running in overdrive to arrive at alarming projections when these “storylines and scenarios” were cranked out.
So back to the 3C forecast.
The average temperature rise estimated by IPCC for all the scenarios by year 2100 equals 2.8C, which is pretty close to Tony’s figure of 3C
Hope this helps clear this up.
Max
tonto52
You asked Tony for a “credible reference” for the 3C temperature increase by 2100.
Sorry, I can’t give you that.
All I can do is refer you to the IPCC AR4 WG1 SPM report pp. 13 and 18.
Max
that was either mean or funny…depending upon your perspective
That is really not a valid excuse for presenting a “paper” with a large number of glaring factual errors. Such a paper is not “interesting” except from a psychologist’s perspective.
A basic obligation in any productive discourse is to try as hard as you can to present accurate information. If you don’t think these statements are accurate, you shouldn’t promote them. If you do, then we have another problem, but given your reaction, I suspect you understand that these claims are not remotely defensible.
Robert
If the claims are not defensible you should find it very easy to deconstruct them and answer the question I posed. I look forward to your calculations as that was the point of the article. Over 600 comments so far and only Max has had a stab at them.
tonyb
ChE
You asked (May 31, 2011 at 7:21 pm)
I have seen no specific studies regarding lower CO2 levels than those we currently are experiencing, but it is generally agreed in the scientific literature (despite some IPCC claims to the contrary) that an increased atmospheric concentration of CO2 will be beneficial to most plant growth, including agricultural crops.
In addition the large grain growing regions in northern latitudes (Canada, Russia, etc.) are expected to benefit from projected higher temperatures, with both increased crop yields and also a larger surface area where crops can be grown.
A good summary of early literature on this subject can be found in the references cited in this study:
Cure et al. Crop Responses to Carbon Dioxide Doubling: A Literature Survey, Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 1986
http://ddr.nal.usda.gov/bitstream/10113/34722/1/IND87009844.pdf
Other studies include:
Shen et al. Temporal and spatial changes of the agroclimate in Alberta, Canada, from 1901 to 2002. Journal of Applied Meteorology 2005
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JAM2251.1
Bootsma et al. Potential impacts of climate change on corn, soybeans and barley yields in Atlantic Canada Canadian Journal of Soil Science, 2005
http://www.agrometeorology.org/topics/selected-bibliography/articles/potential-impacts-of-climate-change-on-corn-soybeans-and-barley-yields-in-atlantic-canada
Over 90% of the agricultural plants are in the C3 group (rice, wheat, barley, potatoes, soybeans, carrots, coffee, tea, peanuts, grapes, fruits, etc.), with the rest classified as C4 plants (corn, millet, sorghum, sugar cane). While both groups benefit from higher CO2 levels, several studies have shown that C3 crops will benefit more from higher CO2 levels than C4 crops.
A general study on the impact on crop plants overall has concluded:
http://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/effects-of-rising-atmospheric-concentrations-of-carbon-13254108
In contrast, studies have shown that a large percentage of noxious weeds (such as crab grass, barn grass, ragweed, pampas grass, burrgrass, etc.) are C4 plants, which do not respond as strongly to increased CO2 levels as most crops, which are of the C3 variety.
Zeng et al., Elevated CO2 effects on nutrient competition between a C3 crop (Oryza sativa L.) and a C4 weed (Echinochloa crusgalli L.). Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems, 2011
http://www.springerlink.com/content/e7846374l8263345/
There have been many studies on this subject and the scientific literature generally agrees that increased CO2 levels will lead to higher crop yields worldwide. Increased temperatures will affect crop yields primarily in the northern latitides (Canada, Russia, north China, northern USA, northern Europe, etc.) and at higher elevations, geographical regions, which are currently not suitable for agriculture.
To your specific question on the 20th century impact on crop yields. The scientific literature cited above refers to crop yield increases of 30 to over 100% with a doubling of CO2, with an average cited of around 40%.
Atmospheric CO2 is estimated by IPCC to have been around 290 ppmv in 1901 (based on ice core data) and was measured at 369 ppmv in 2000 (at Mauna Loa), for a 27% increase.
The correlation between CO2 concentration and crop yields appears to be somewhere between linear and logarithmic, so the observed increase would result in estimated average increase in crop yield over the 20th century between 11% and 14%. This does not include any added benefit resulting from the slightly higher temperature.
Since estimated CO2 levels in 1900 (290 ppmv) were not that much higher than those in pre-industrial times (280 ppmv), one could roughly estimate that going back to pre-industrial CO2 levels would result in an equivalent reduction in crop yields.
Hope this has answered your question.
Max
Fred
You can not accurately make the statement you have made:
“It is misleading to refer to CO2 emissions that do not increase atmospheric concentration by 100 percent of their value as “missing”. They are partitioned between the atmosphere and oceanic or terrestrial sinks.
How can you eliminate the possibility that the “missing” CO2 was absorbed by plantlife or lost into space?
Rob – A “terrestrial sink” consists mainly of plant life. Escape to space will be so tiny that it can be neglected in practical quantitations, due to the molecular weight of CO2.
Fred –
It’s also a LARGE assumption to think that we know all the sources and sinks – or processes. The carbon cycle will make an interesting picture – WHEN/IF we ever learn all the processes and parts to complete that picture.
And I think there’ll be some surprises when that picture is complete.
Jim – I certainly agree that we haven’t defined all the processes in detail, but I’m not sure what point you are making in that regard. As you know (or should know), I responded to your question in an earlier thread as to the source of the 39% excess atmospheric CO2 since pre-industrial times, pointing out that it is entirely or almost entirely anthropogenic in origin, for reasons I gave in my earlier response. For that response, see Comment 69532, and if you are interested, review the commentary before and after that comment, which is quite extensive. This doesn’t imply that we know where every carbon atom goes, but it gives us a good picture of the carbon cycle budget. Perhaps you had some other point in mind.
One can never exclude “surprises”, but it’s sometimes possible to conclude that major surprises requiring a radical reevaluation of evidence are unlikely.
Fred –
I watch these discussions and I’m constantly struck by the number of assumptions that are made. And you’re not the only one making those assumptions. So once in a while I feel the need to remind that assumptions are dangerous – and have historically led to more bad science than bad scientists have.
So – I see assumptions in this discussion – like this one
Escape to space will be so tiny that it can be neglected in practical quantitations
I’m not saying that’s wrong – but it’s unconfirmed and cannot at this time be quantified. Therefore it’s an assumption. That’s why the loss of the OCO spacecraft was such a big deal. Not just that one point, but the accumulation of all the little points of assumption in the argument.
Someplace here (not gonna look for it now) I told sunshine that one of the references was screwy – because it claimed forest biodegradation (decay) as a one year process. And that’s only partially true. The majority of forest “decay” carbon is on a lot longer cycle than that.
I do this as a caution to you – I’ve seen some of the surprises that have come out of the spacecraft data – and some of them have been BIG surprises. I think this will be one of those places, but I’m not gonna speculate about that here. Just – be careful of your assumptions. They “can” come back to bite – and usually do.
Fred
I consider a terrestrial sink to be both land and plant life, which would also mean that the CO2 is “missing” since we do not know where it went.
We certainly don’t have a complete accounting of how carbon is distributed terrestrially, Rob, but we know the basic outlines. Most is attributable to CO2 uptake by forests – see Terrestrial Carbon Sinks. Relevant to other discussions in this thread, rising atmospheric CO2 tends to stimulate forest growth and CO2 uptake, thus mitigating atmospheric CO2 increases, although this process is impeded in areas subject to drought . Even when trees die, only some of the material returns to the atmosphere as CO2 and methane, while other parts become buried and eventually turn into peat and ultimately into coal. Deforestation removes that reservoir for atmospheric CO2, thereby increasing the atmospheric burden.
Fred –
Something else occurred to me wrt this subject. That is that deforestation can be a good idea – as long as the forest is replanted. One of the long-ago NASA studies concluded that young (growing) forests remove far more carbon that mature forests.
Just something to think about.
Jim,
The growth is important, if the material is taken to use, but concerning forest themselves only two issues matter: the amount of carbon in live biomass and the amount of carbon in soil. Reducing these inventories releases carbon, and maximizing them minimizes the amount of carbon in atmosphere and other reservoirs.
Jim – Thinning of forests for logs or other purposes can be useful, but clear-cutting involves a net loss of a carbon sink for a period of years. Even if the cut area is replaced with food crops (as has happened in the Amazon as part of the biofuel misadventure), it takes years before the rate of CO2 absorption rises to the previous level, and with some crops, it may never happen.
Hmmm – you have most of it, Fred.
If an areas is logged and the wood used for lumber to build housing, for example, that wood/carbon is out of the cycle for many years (unless the house burns). If that same area is replanted, the young trees, within 1 or 2 years will absorb more CO2 than the previous mature trees did. Doesn’t take that long – trees grow faster than you think. IOW – mature forest is a lousy carbon sink; new (second growth) forest is far better.
Food crops are another story – there were a number of NASA studies that told different stories depending on the crops being studied. Those may well have been superceded by now but there were some crops that contributed to cooling of the local area. I’ll have to see if I still have any of those references. It’s been a long time since I played with crop data (1975?) but the studies I’m talking about would have been within the last 9 – 10 years.
Also – a historical note – one of the lesser known characteristics of pre-Columbian America was the Amerind practice of burning the forest undergrowth (and therefore sometimes the forest) on an annual or semi-annual basis as a method of controlling (pruning?) the hunting grounds. We’re not talking small fires, but rather HUGE areas that would have rivaled any of our present day wildfires. Always thought that was interesting as a CO2 and soot source.
We still do that today BTW. I’ve walked through several dozen of those “controlled burns” that weren’t controlled – some of them while they were still burning. This may or may not be a major CO2/soot source, but added to the many wildfires every year, it’s not insignificant either. :-)
Fred – wherever I have seen clearcut felling, the ground thus cleared (and exposed to sunlight) becomes very quickly populated by new growth of a much more diverse nature. By the way that certainly happens also after forest fire here in Australia. As Jim Owen has pointed out, juvenile plants are at their most metabolically active, and as I have pointed out smaller species are more metabolically active relative to their mass than large ones. By cutting down those huge, slothful trees and shining light on the forest floor, may we not find that, after a short period of deprivation, the efficiency of our carbon sink rises? Perhaps we should be cutting down our forests to allow our more active plant-forms, currently lying dormant on the forest floor, the opportunity to get at all that pesky “carbon”?
This one that has always bothered me as I’m a wood freak. A growth ring is a cone, and a tree can be thought of as stacked ice-cream cones. It never stops growing, and the poundage in an old-growth tree’s annual growth ring is pretty impressive. It represents a lot of wood, and carbon. Old trees can die from within, but not all do that. Some old trees are remarkably sound throughout the trunk, and, if you know that for which you’re looking, sound wonderful.
Anyway, I have read articles since then that have disputed the general conclusion that old growth necessarily bleeds carbon. It could be a management decision.
Jim surely it’s more profound than that? I don’t have the refs to hand, but is it not the case that, throughout their lives, the most avid metabolisers (gobblers of CO2) are the unicellular plant forms – and that the least avid are the trees? Another case where size matters?
40 years of unscientific environmentalism have conditioned us to think of those beautiful, majestic, endangered trees as the “lungs of the planet”. But this is rhetoric, not science. Isn’t the truth that we owe more (in regard to carbon consumption) to bits of green slimy stuff than to trees? And that to fixate on trees is to look through the wrong end of the telescope?
In the ocean, Tom, plankton are the main CO2 absorbers, but on land it’s the Trees.
Fred – presumably you are familiar with this paper – I don’t have time to read it in full – can you point me to the relevant section?
Are you then also disagreeing with Jim Owen’s statement that young growth is more carbon-hungry than old? Or are you merely saying that tree species are more effective CO2 absorbers – at any stage of growth – than species which have a smaller mature size?
Fred –
I suspect that Tom has more of a point than you might realize. All those lush green trees in PA provide a lot of photosynthesis, a lot of O2, and a large carbon sink. BUT – they don’t do that year-round. Come winter that process doesn’t work all that well. And those words work for both Hemispheres. Nor can one claim that the NH supplies O2 to the SH during NH summer and vice versa. There’s not that much exchange between the two. So – my question out of all this, and one I’ve considered before but never asked, is – since the CO2 cycle is attributed to winter/summer variations in photosynthesis, who tracks the corresponding O2 variations? And do they match? Or more to the point – are they complementary?
For Tom -I don’t really have your answer. As I’ve said before, as a biologist, I’m a very good engineer. But I am a systems engineer and climate is nothing if not a system. So I do greatly suspect that trees are not the only major contributors to the process.
As I said – the carbon cycle is not nailed down. If it were, there’d be no reason to be launching spacecraft to determine what it is/how it works. Fred may well be right that we have the general framework, but as with many things – the Devil is in the details. And surprises happen. :-)
Although the oceans are currently the greatest carbon sink,
terrestrial carbon sinks are also important. The greatest
terrestrial carbon sinks occur in young, growing forests,
because a hectare of trees holds up to 50 times more carbon
than a hectare of grasses or crops. Older forests and soils
may also accumulate carbon but the rates are generally low
compared with the rate for young trees. Nevertheless, low
rates over large areas, including grasslands as well as
forests, can yield a sink that is globally large.
Jim – since I am neither an engineer nor a biologist, you may be able to comment on this:
http://universe-review.ca/R10-35-metabolic.htm
As I read it, Kleiber shows us that metabolic rate in ANY species varies with mass to the power of 3/4 – ie pound-for-pound, an organism’s metabolic rate declines exponentially with increasing mass. Or have I got it wrong?
Based on these figures, if I were worried about CO2 I would be all for chopping down those inefficient trees and replacing them with the green slime I referred to earlier (it wasn’t term of abuse for warmists!).
Tom and Jim – I’m merely stating that on land, trees are estimated quantitatively to be the largest carbon sink in the sense of uptake minus loss to the atmosphere due to respiration and decay- i.e., they are the largest source of net uptake, presumably because other terrestrial plant entities are not expanding their total mass as rapidly in absolute terms, and/or because dead trees and leaves have a greater tendency than most other plants to lead to carbon burial in the soil with eventual conversion to peat rather than to return all their carbon to the atmosphere. I believe most of the net absorption is in the tropics, but temperate and boreal forests also contribute despite their more seasonal growth characteristics. Some of the data are provided in the Tables within the article I linked to.
If climate were completely and persistently stable (i.e., if CO2 were not rising), the situation would be different, both for trees and other plant life. A steady state would eventually be reached wherein CO2 loss balanced CO2 uptake, because any tendency of plants to absorb more CO2 would reduce atmospheric concentrations so as to reduce plant growth.
It is claimed that oceanic plankton are an even greater source of net CO2 uptake and oxygen production, but although their total rate of CO2 uptake is enormous, I don’t know whether we have enough data to determine that their current expansion and/or burial rate (in the deep ocean for plankton) is greater than that of trees and other terrestrial plants.
I agree with Jim that old, mature trees exhibit lower net carbon uptakes, but they still contribute some net sink capacity on average while they are alive – again part of this is due to growth but another part to burial of detritus in the soil where it adds to carbon stores. In this regard, though, I don’t know how one would compare old trees with young plants of a different nature, except to say that even a young plant must grow to more than negligible size before it can absorb much CO2.
The carbon sink is operating, when growth is going on, but it doesn’t lead to any net effect unless the carbon gets stored in some way for a long time. Replacing old slowly growing forest by young rapidly growing one is useful only if the old trees are either stored so that they will not release their carbon back to atmosphere or used to replace fossil fuels or materials, whose manufacturing causes CO2 emissions.
Fred,
As I wrote in my short additional comment, I do believe that risks are severe and that also the expectation value of damages may be large, but at the same time my view is that all quantitative estimates are hopelessly poor.
The intuition is of little value in deciding what to do, when problems are so remote from daily experience. Thus we would really need at least semiquantitative cost/benefit analysis. For that unbiased estimates of the risks and expected damages would be needed, but obviously biased data is continuously used, and the biased data forms a significant fraction of all data on damages. A major effort should be taken to eliminate the bias in spite of the fact that a major part of the information would then be left out of the analysis. Still it’s better to have an unbiased analysis based on less data than a more extensive analysis that is known to have strong bias, but without knowledge on, how strong the bias is.
Concerning WG3 the problem is that many of the specialists have real conflict of interest. That’s particularly clear for issues like estimating the potential of renewable energy alternatives and the value of subsidies and other support mechanisms for renewable energy. Many people, who have published on these issues and also many people who have contributed to IPCC activities on these issues are either strongly linked to activities running on this support or represent countries with strong specific national interests with respect some forms of renewable energy.
The other principal problem with WG3 is that the role of scientific research is very limited. The issues are rather of the nature of scenario analysis and futures research. All major issues are highly dependent on guesswork on what is going to happen in 50 years or 100 years or even later. The complex interactions of social values, economy, technology and natural resources determine the outcome, and every time the limits of what the future may bring have been assessed, they have been found to be so far apart that very little can be said with any level of certainty. In practice the consequence is that conclusions are based on individual prejudices and political preferences.
This is not science, and improving the decision making process is influenced more by other factors than science. The issues are still real and very important, but we need some other approach than the one provided by IPCC.
Pekka – My ability to judge IPCC conclusions, based on information I’ve acquired outside of the IPCC reports, is fairly good for WG1, modest for WG2, and very poor for WG3. I accept your claim that WG3 is a poor foundation for decision making, due to bias and inadequate knowledge.
I also accept, and agree with your assessment regarding climate change that “the risks are severe” – I assume you mean “risks” in the sense of reasonable possibilities rather than certainties. The problem of how to address risks on the basis of less than adequate information has been discussed many times here, and is a topic subject to philosophical biases in all directions. The only relevant physical fact I would emphasize from the discussions in this thread is the long atmospheric residence time of atmospheric CO2, and as Solomon et al have pointed out, the even longer persistence of temperature changes that occur from a prolonged forcing, even after the forcing has subsided – a consequence of heat storage in the deep ocean. This implies that while we are gathering additional information, we are also experiencing climate phenomena that are essentially irreversible on human timescales. This must inevitably be factored into the decision-making process, even as we try to improve our knowledge. It might be considered as a principle asserting that actions that are reversible are safer than those that are not, when otherwise equivalent in their consequences.
The significance of the long persistence of a fraction of CO2 is problematic in at least two ways. One concerns the size of the fraction of very long persistence. From, what I have read, the estimates depends heavily on understanding the role of deep ocean. The total amount of carbon in deep ocean is significantly larger than the amount of all fossil fuels. At least the text of AR4 gives strongly the impression that the role of that huge reservoir is not well understood and may influence the persistence of carbon very significantly.
The other question is, how much additional damage will accrue after the CO2 concentration has turned to significant decline. Over the preceding period the humanity has had much time to adjust to new circumstances and modest additional warming before later cooling may be of little significance.
All this is of course dependent on the climate sensitivity and the damage that the climate change will bring with it. If these effects are severe over a shorter period they may remain severe longer, if they are not severe earlier, they are not likely to become severe much later. Based on this argument I think that the fraction of additional CO2 that remains in atmosphere for very long time doesn’t bring anything worthwhile to the discussion of risks of climate change, it’s just another distraction that makes reasoned discussion only more difficult as long as our understanding of climate change and it’s consequences is not very much better than it’s now.
I do really think that the arguments must be found from what is going to happen much faster. 100 years is already too long for reasoned argumentation and 200 years totally out of everybody’s capabilities of making judgments. Think back 100 years or 200 years and think, how people of those periods could have justified their decisions on, what’s going on now.
I agree that the multimillennial “tail” of the CO2 decay trajectory is relatively unimportant in its own right, but it is not trivial, because it affects the overall rate of decay that includes processes that occur over many decades or a few centuries involving CO2 mixing into the deep ocean and carbonate buffering, and makes them slower than they would be otherwise. For this reason, even a total cessation of anthropogenic emissions would result in almost no significant temperature reduction for centuries, which is why I used the term “irreversible on human timescales” to describe the effect. An illustration was described in the RC discussion of the Nature Geoscience paper by Matthews and Weaver – see Climate Commitment.
I understand, and I admit that there may be some additional damage from temperature that remains high longer. That’s at least likely to raise the sea level continuously, while many other detrimental changes from present are detrimental only once.
My main point is, however, only that those consequences of the climate change should be emphasized, whose significance can most easily be analyzed and for which strongest and least controversial evidence can be presented. The whole argument fails of succeeds based on these considerations. Adding to that something that is unavoidably more speculative or whose real significance for human well-being is difficult to judge for whatever reason, is not helpful for rational decision making.
If the issues cannot be made more concrete and shown to be important enough in 100 years or so, then the argument is almost certain to fail, and it’s also certain that with best effort the data cannot be used to support rational decision making.
It’s necessary to have long foresight, but trying to make it too long makes it invalid. Every good decision materializes in action with little delay by present actors. It must lead the world to a good direction, but it must allow for the fact that future decisions will modify its significance and that after a long enough time, it’s likely to have almost no influence.
This is a few sentences illustrates a serious problem in climate communications.
Look at what happened when the IPCC neglected ice loss and threw up an estimate for sea level rise base on heat expansion. First it was mocked as insignificant. Then, when ice dynamics were factored in, scientists were accused of changing their stories.
In the current state of the discourse, any risk that is not clearly explained will be treated as if it doesn’t exist. Scientists know that there are a number of terrible things that could happen that are not much talked about because we cannot clearly quantify the risk. The public at large does not understand that.
I think that Pekka’s principle describes perfectly the cautious way in which scientific research should proceed; but scientific communication to the public is really part of the decision-making process, and in the decision-making process different principles apply. Risks that are poor quantified have to be factored in. In war, in medicine, in antiterrorism efforts, and even in business, important, disruptive events occur without our being able to precisely gauge their probability. There are rational ways to cope with that uncertainty.
Robert,
I agree on what you say, or at least most of it.
Scientists must look at the issues without prejudices in order to study also issues considered erroneously too insignificant to matter. There may be significant additional threats for the Earth that build up over very long periods. The continuing sea level rise is straightforward enough to consider as an essentially certain consequence of persistently high temperatures, and thus a phenomenon that gets more certain with higher estimates for the persistence of CO2.
As a general observation my claim is, however, that every scenario that leads through scientifically justifiable arguments to very severe consequences over very long periods does that also over a period of about 100 years. Conversely, if we cannot argue for severe risks to be present in 100 years, we cannot do that either for a longer period. Making the arguments based on very long periods, like the Stern Review did for its economic comparisons, is actually an admission that we cannot justify our views, but try to mislead the audience to believe that we can.
Fred Moolten
You write:
Fred, this is not “my concept”, but rather the premise cited by IPCC and the data presented by Zeke Hausfather (see graph).
http://www.yaleclimatemediaforum.org/pics/1210_ZHfig5.jpg
Of course, we are not talking about the simple half-life of a single radioactive element, but rather an approximation using the same general relationship.
No one knows what the residence time of CO2 in our climate system really is, because there are no empirical measurements to substantiate this. The data you cited by Archer are simply model simulations, so do not provide this empirical evidence.
Furthermore, the natural carbon cycle is so much greater than the human emissions and there are so many parallel processes working at the same time, that “finding” the “missing” CO2 is like looking for a needle in a haystack.
Yet the Archer study appears to give results quite similar to those cited by Hausfather.
Archer states :
The ZH curves show that the removal starts at a fairly rapid rate initially, but then flattens out, so that a half-life is reached within 50 to 120 years and it would take hundreds to thousands of years for 75% to be removed.
This agrees fairly well with Archer’s model results:
But, Fred, we are not discussing the “long tail” of the curve. We are discussing the instantaneous rate at the “start” of the curve. This can be seen from the ZH data to be related to the concentration at that point and quite rapid at first (geologically speaking, of course).
An annual rate of 0.58% of the concentration at that point (the theoretical annual decay at a half-life of 120 years) seems quite compatible with ZH curves, and not out-of-line with the Archer model estimates.
Since you have been unable to refute this instantaneous rate with any studies based on empirical data, I have to assume that you are no more knowledgeable on this subject that I am (and most likely less so).
Max
Fred Moolten
I just read Pekka’s post on the significance of the “long tail” on CO2 concentration in our climate system. This makes a lot of sense.
A key uncertainty Pekka mentions is the exchange rate between the upper ocean and the immense CO2 reservoir of the deep ocean.
But again, I am not so interested in the “long tail”, but more in the instantaneous rate at which a given concentration diminishes, i.e. the current removal rate in ppmv per year. At a half life of 120 years, this would represent 0.58% of the concentration or around 2.3 ppmv per year, which happens (by coincidence) to be that amount of “missing” CO2 today.
As I wrote, “where” this is going is another question, which will be much harder to answer.
As we have seen from the studies I cited to ChE, some may be going to increased plant photosynthesis resulting from the higher atmospheric concentration, but I have seen no overall quantification of how much this might be.
Extrapolating the observed C3/C4 crop data cited above one would arrive at an increase in terrestrial plant photosynthesis of 11 to 14% over the 20th century resulting from the increased concentration. Since plant photosynthesis absorbs around 15 times as much CO2 as is emitted by humans, once can see that a slight increase in photosynthesis resulting from higher concentrations could well absorb a significant portion of the human emission.
On the other hand, we know that there is a good deal of deforestation going on, which works in the opposite direction (and which is included in the estimates of anthropogenic CO2 emissions).
So many questions + so little real data = so much uncertainty.
Max
Max – My point that one can’t assign a single half life to excess atmospheric CO2 was made earlier, at Comment 72214, and nothing has surfaced to change that. Regarding your claims about our respective levels of knowledge, I will let readers judge. However, because points of yours that have already been addressed are frequently repeated by you, often multiple times, it’s my perception that you may have too much free time on your hands, and that your considerable knowledge skills might be better spent on something useful.
My family has owned a cornfield since 1918. In the age of mules, the yields climbed from ~35 bushels to ~43 bushels an acre. They bought a tractor in 1951. Yields stayed about the same until the 1960s, when they shot above 70, and they even saw above 80 bushels an acre. This was when the Green Revolution started. Obviously, CO2 had been rising the entire time.
Seed varieties have continued to improve. In 2010 the county averaged 145 bushels. Our field is the 2nd-best soil type in the state, and is flood plain, so it’s generally very rich ground. We usually beat the county average by a bit.
In 1918 they may have still been using kernels from their ears for seed. Don’t know, but a few fields of 1920’s seed might tell the tale. My money is on the Green Revolution.
For a table, see:
http://solarcycle24com.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=globalwarming&thread=776&page=1#26348
For a discussion, see:
Segalstad, Tom V. 1998. Carbon cycle modelling and the residence time of natural and anthropogenic atmospheric CO2: on the construction of the “Greenhouse Effect Global Warming” dogma. In Global Warming: The Continuing Debate, ed. R. Bate, 184-219. European Science and Environment Forum (ESEF). Cambridge, England. http://folk.uio.no/tomvs/esef/ESEF3VO2.htm
tonto52
Yes.
Strange as this may seem, it appears that we may all agree (see above exchange with Fred).
He is “hung up” on “assigning a single half-life time to CO2” (not really a “hang up” of mine). I just applied the data cited by Zeke Hausfather (which appears to be confirmed pretty well by the Archer model studies cited by Fred).
As Fred has been unable to come up with anything specific that contradicts this, despite “all the excess free time he appears to have on his hands” based on his voluminous contributions here, it appears we all agree.
Let’s move on.
Max
To the “pre-industrial 280 ppm” around 1850? The Irish Potato Famine ended around 1849. Death toll 700,000 to 800,000? Between 500,000 and 2 million dead? No one knows (wikipedia),
Back to the Future? :-)
Seriously, it takes energy to support a large population.
Pooh Dixie
Yeah.
And the good news is that all the (serious) studies by botanists show that:
– Higher CO2 concentrations will increase crop yields significantly
– Warmer temperatures will increase growing season, plus add to overall arable surface area
Max
@ Fred Moolten
Mitigation cost/benefit analysis,
“John – There has been a 110 ppm rise in CO2 to 390 ppm, so that anthropogenic CO2 probably accounts for about 110/390 or 28% of the total. According to the CDIAC, fossil fuel combustion plus cement manufacture have accounted for about 8.4 PgC/year, with Cement Manufacture representing about 4.5% of that total, and recent land use changes have accounted for about 0.9 PgC/year. With the probable exception of cement manufacture, all of these sources are subject to mitigation – i.e., about 96% of the anthropogenic sources, with what appear to be encouraging recent results on the land use data.”
If we want to use 96% of the anthropogenic sources as mitigation targets, we need to break them down individually in order to assign economic factors. So by your numbers we agree that;
Fossil fuel: 8.4PgC/yr rate
Land use changes: 0.9PgC/yr rate
Cement Mfg: 0.38PgC/yr rate
Total anthropogenic: 9.7 Pg/C
This would correspond to 4.5 ppm/yr rate (2.13Pg = 1 ppm)
Seems a little high (3x) doesn’t it? We were using a 1.5ppm/yr anthropogenic rate increase based on a 50% mitigation strategy to 2050.
Can I suggset we use the following rates?
Fossil Fuel: 2.8 PgC/yr
Land Use: 0.3 PgC/yr
Cement Mfg: 0.13 PgC/yr
Total Anthropogenic: 3.23 Pg/yr corresponding to 1.5ppm/yr
These rates would represent a 50% mitigation by 2050 strategy. Are we agreed to this point?
The most worrying is that it seems that more and more people don’t trust the media and environmental agencies anymore, all the more since the failure of the Copenhagen summit. I am currently working in carbon management company in South Africa (http://www.climateafrica.co.za/ , http://www.climatestandard.org/) and more and more people come up with stuff like “Why should we reduce our ghg emissions when volcanoes are responsible for more CO2 emissions than human activities?”. I don’t know where people hear that but i suspect anti-ecologist to be behind such statements. I did some research and volcanoes are responsible for 200 million tons of emissions whereas human activities represent 30 billion tons. I hope that the media will cover such questions more accurately, so that people become really aware of the problem.
That volcanos are responsible for 200 million tons of CO2 is an estimate, but since we know so little about it (especially deep-sea volcanos), it is more of a wild speculation.
As far as I know, the sceptical argument is not about volcanos alone, but about all natural atmospheric CO2 inputs/outputs, which are indeed much bigger than the anthropogenic input.
Maxime
Personally I have never used the volcano argument although it would be interestings to speculate their contribution vis a a vis man if Co2 does stick around for a thousand years…
However it is surely more accurate to put mans contribution into context against total emissions, in which case that of man is some 4% of the annual output, but is said to be the straw that broke the camels back.
I also agree with Edim about deep sea volcanoes which I suspect will add somewhat to the total. But as I say it is not an argument I make but you need to see the broader natural vs man context and that our knowledge is still imperfect.
tonyb
Maxine
On checking your web site it seems you could hardly be called a disinterested party could you :)
tonyb
tonyb
Tony
I call it climate profiteering. Not better than war profiteering.
Really nice…..