Science/Environment The Carbon Debate, pt III

[Upton Sinclair]

CO2 levels are no cause for concern. And never will be. Human life and life on this planet has nothing to worry about when it comes to carbon dioxide.

Thanks for that, Professor

Yeah, i have been watching that the last 6 weeks or so - it looks like making record lows.

It will be interesting to see how much the methane measurements rose as a result of melting permafrost.

Yeah, still a full month of melt season, I can see us hitting 3 X 10^6km2 before things start to recover. It's staggering to witness.

 

[Upton Sinclair]

It will be interesting to see how much the methane measurements rose as a result of melting permafrost.

Will also be interesting to see how the polar amplification (e.g. more heat being absorbed by the ocean, less reflected by the ice) will effect extreme weather in the mid-latitudes. Expect to see more extreme events over Europe and North America.

 

[Upton Sinclair]

Is there a model with just the methane from the northern hemisphere tundra thawing?

Saw this, thought of this post:

The Antarctic Ice Sheet could be an overlooked but important source of methane, a potent greenhouse gas, according to research published today (Aug 29) in Nature and conducted by an international team led by Professor Jemma Wadham from the University of Bristol's School of Geographical Sciences

 

[Upton Sinclair]

Yeah, i have been watching that the last 6 weeks or so - it looks like making record lows.

It will be interesting to see how much the methane measurements rose as a result of melting permafrost.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Potential-methane-reservoirs-beneath-Antarctica_Bristol.html

Virtually every sea ice metric there is shows a record-breaking loss of the Arctic sea ice "cap" in 2012. With Arctic sea ice dropping off the bottom of existing sea ice graphs, the noted sage Chief Brody might put it this way:

"You're gonna need a bigger graph"​

​

​

​

​

​

 

[Upton Sinclair]

More recent research:

• Climate change mitigation experiments are going on in cities all over the world A survey of urban climate change experiments in 100 cities - Broto & Bulkeley (2012)
• Qinghai-Tibetan grassland net primary production has increased significantly since 1961 Impacts of climate and CO2 changes on the vegetation growth and carbon balance of Qinghai-Tibetan grasslands over the past five decades - Piao et al. (2012)
• Amazon is more vulnerable to climate change due to actions of mankind Amazon's vulnerability to climate change heightened by deforestation and man-made dispersal barriers - Feeley & Rehm (2012)
• Area of Hadley cell has increased and area of Polar cell has decreased Measurements of the movement of the jet streams at mid-latitudes, in the Northern and Southern Hemispheres, 1979 to 2010 - Hudson (2012)[FULL TEXT]
• Ocean acidification reduces induction of coral settlement by crustose coraline algae Ocean acidification reduces induction of coral settlement by crustose coraline algae - Webster et al. (2012)
• Belief in experiencing global warming significantly predicts local risk perception Do people “personally experience” global warming, and if so how, and does it matter? - Akerlof et al. (2012)
• Holocene climate variability in northern Italy was influenced by solar activity and NAO Holocene climate variability in north-eastern Italy: potential influence of the NAO and solar activity recorded by speleothem data - Scholz et al. (2012)[FULL TEXT]
• Sea surface has warmed and upper-layer circulation has weakened during winters in South China Sea Trends of upper-layer circulation in the South China Sea during 1959–2008 - Yang & Wu (2012)
• Spring damage risk for woody plants is increasing due to climate change in Illinois, USA Reconstructing patterns of temperature, phenology, and frost damage over 124 years - spring damage risk is increasing - Augspurger (2012)
• Siberian High makes temperature of arid region of northwest China rise faster Why does the temperature rise faster in the arid region of northwest China? - Li et al.(2012)
• Indirect aerosol forcing - mankind affects climate also through clouds Anthropogenic radiative forcing of marine stratocumulus clouds under different thermodynamic conditions—An LES model study - Song & Yum (2012)
• Deep Arctic Ocean was warmer than today during the last glacial cycle due to ocean circulation conditions Deep Arctic Ocean warming during the last glacial cycle - Cronin et al. (2012)

 

[Pie eyed]

I thought it was pretty clear: that warming over Greenland has accelerated dramatically since 2000. And considering the unprecedented melt events that have occurred over this years Arctic summer it's a pertinent point to make. Also it highlights once again the hollowness of Dan's claims that "real life data from satellites, 28 million weather balloon, 6000 boreholes and 3000 Ocean Buoys" support his "sceptical" worldview. Because, despite his claims to the contrary, the "sceptical" POV is overwhelmingly not represented in the peer review literature.

So basically, since Government has begun talking incessantly about the need for carbon reduction warming over Greenland has accelerated?

Gag the Governments.

 

[Windhover]

So basically, since Government has begun talking incessantly about the need for carbon reduction warming over Greenland has accelerated?

Gag the Governments.

Although you are not being in the slightest bit serious, you old fence-sitter you, I point out to the more impressionable reader who might think there was some clever "truth" to your remark that the problem with the "logic" of your statement is that it equates "correlation" with "causation". This is a common and easily made error. Because of the borderline idiocy of those on the other side of this "debate" I do not find your example of the error amusing. My problem, I know.

 

[Upton Sinclair]

A thought provoking article from Stephen Lewandowsky from UWA highlighting the parallels between science denial and other conspiracy theories, in particular the political mindset of people who share such CT views. Enjoy:

http://websites.psychology.uwa.edu....yetalPsychScienceinPressClimateConspiracy.pdf

Abstract
Although nearly all domain experts agree that human CO2 emissions are altering the world's climate, segments of the public remain unconvinced by the scientific evidence. Internet blogs have become a vocal platform for climate denial, and bloggers have taken a prominent and influential role in questioning climate science. We report a survey (N > 1100) of climate blog users to identify the variables underlying acceptance and rejection of climate science. Paralleling previous work, we found that endorsement of a laissez-faire conception of free-market economics predicts rejection of climate science (r:80 between latent constructs). Endorsement of the free market also predicted the rejection of other established scientic ndings, such as the facts that HIV causes AIDS and that smoking causes lung cancer. We additionally show that endorsement of a cluster of conspiracy theories (e.g., that the CIA killed Martin-Luther King or that NASA faked the moon landing) predicts rejection of climate science as well as the rejection of other scientific findings, above and beyond endorsement of laissez-faire free markets. This provides empirical conrmation of previous suggestions that conspiracist ideation contributes to the rejection of science. Acceptance of science, by contrast, was strongly associated with the perception of a consensus among scientists.

 

[Upton Sinclair]

LOL. from DeSmogBlog

Lewandowsky’s researchers also emailed five popular skeptic blogs, but none of those approached posted the link to the questionnaire.

But had Lewandowsky actually fabricated the claim he had emailed five sceptic blogs, askedAnthony Watts, Jo Nova and others, smelling a consipracy.

Steve McIntyre, a long-time mining industry consultant and active climate sceptic, evenencouraged blog readers to email the ethics department at Lewandowsky’s university.

“If Lewandowky’s claim about five skeptic blogs was fabricated, it appears to me that it would be misconduct under university policies,” wrote McIntyre.

Once McIntyre had come down from the conclusion he had just jumped to, he later admitted that actually, he had been emailed by one of Lewandowsky’s researchers after all but offered a “dog ate my homework” excuse.

Meanwhile, Lewandowsky says he has been “inundated” with requests to release the names of the four remaining bloggers his team contacted.

But since the approaches to bloggers were conducted on the presumption of privacy, the academic has asked his university’s ethics committee and the Australian Psychological Societyif he is free to release their identities.

Not content to wait, Australian skeptic blogger Simon Turnill has sent a Freedom of Informationrequest to UWA asking for Lewandowsky’s emails. Lewandowsky told DeSmogBlog:

So now there’s a conspiracy theory going around that I didn’t contact them. It’s a perfect, perfect illustration of conspiratorial thinking. It’s illustrative of exactly the process I was analysing. People jump to conclusions on the basis of no evidence. I would love to be able to release those emails if given permission, because it means four more people will have egg on their faces. I’m anxiously waiting the permission to release this crucial information because it helps to identify people who engage in conspiratorial thinking rather than just searching their inboxes.​

​

Lewandowsky revealed that two of the five skeptic blogs approached even replied to the email they were sent.

One stated “Thanks. I will take a look” and another asked “Can you tell me a bit more about the study and the research design?”

Perhaps an inbox search for these phrases might help some bloggers to move on from their latest conspiracy theory.

Or maybe, just maybe, the real story is that the New World Order hacked their email accounts or a CIA operative secretly dropped a memory-lapse drug into their fake moon juice?

 

[skilts]

This must surely be the longest thread in BF history in which one poster talks almost exclusively to himself.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

Hardly any point debating it now.

When we have the government bringing in a tax, and threataning "hollowly" to shut down coal fired power stations, but then planning a huge export program for Brown Coal. Its just going to happen.
Yeah you can fly Jetstar and pay the optional carbon neutralisation fee if it makes you feel good.
But we are just burning the Carbon baby, and the Chinese are part of we.

Energy prices are going up, but its not the Carbon tax, its the cost of short term infrastructure.

 

[Windhover]

This must surely be the longest thread in BF history in which one poster talks almost exclusively to himself.

You are mistaken. Upton's posts are read by me, and I am sure by many others, with great interest. The silence of which you speak - the lack of a response to Upton's posts - is deafening. It is a silence that shouts louder than The Parrot there is no debate on the science that tells us that AGW will cause significant deleterious effects for everyone on this planet.

It is a silence that demands to be heard. It is a silence that needs to be acted upon at the personal level, the local level, the National level and globally.

But perhaps, behind your cynicism, you can post an explanation for your contrarian position and why you dismiss Upton's posts apparently without reading them. I would be happy to read it and, agree with you in silence, should I be convinced.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

If we need to act against climate change, then I fear the worst.
Any actions being undertaken are like holding out your arms to prevent yourself crashing to the ground quite as fast as if you fell with your arms tucked in.

The cost of power is not going up ( much ) because of Carbon tax.
Its going up because no-one is building large economical power stations. Why not?
Its not OK to burn coal , but it is OK to export it.
Luckily those people buying the coal live on another planet.

 

[Upton Sinclair]

The findings were also discussed at the Watts Up With That (WUWT) website. For anybody unfamiliar with the site, it endlessly trots out wild hostility to the notion that global warming, as a consequence of the reckless burning of fossil fuels, is a serious threat to mankind - despite what the science says. So, how went the discussion? Site host Anthony Watts commenced with:

"Regarding that rapid warming of 2C in the last 50 years, just remember that most weather stations in the Antarctic are near humanity, and humanity requires warmth to survive. For example [photo, annotated in purplish we assume by Watts]:​

​

....and finished with:

​

The Antarctic peninsula is the most populated place in Antarctica."​

​

That was it, verbatim. A bit short, but there we are, left to draw our own conclusions. So what arewe to make of it? Was Anthony Watts seriously trying to tell us that the West Antarctic Peninsula suffers from an Urban Heat Island effect because a few hundred scientists hang out down there? The photo he used appeared to show a temporary field camp, something akin to the Everest Base Camp and hardly urban in nature. Whereabouts was it? And what does it have to do with a long-term temperature reconstruction based upon hydrogen isotopes from an ice-core? All very mysterious.

However, following the usual stream of comments (general and unending theme = 'those darned warmistas are at it again'), an important clarification was posted, which we reproduce here in full:

Dear WUWT​

I guess I owe the world a humble apology for personally contributing so much to the urban heat island in Antarctica, and hence to misinterpreted climate records.​

The badly sited meteorological screen in your photo is at an Australian summer camp in the Northern Prince Charles Mountains, near Mt Jacklyn – in the background. Temperatures measured here were for local information of pilots and field parties only – it is useful to have an idea of how many layers of clothes to put on before exiting your Antarctic shelter. Temperatures here were only measured for less than 2 months over a couple of seasons and have NEVER been used for any climate record.​

This photo was taken in the 1988/89 austral summer when I, and a colleague Andy, lived in the UNHEATED shelter nearest to the meteorological station. I didn’t realise that I was so hot that my body heat could influence temperatures measured on the Antarctic Peninsula, thousands of kilometres away. It must have been Andy!!!​

Ian​

​

A little geographical research shows the location of this interesting area of East Antarctica:

Thanks to Ian for clearing that one up!

 

[Upton Sinclair]

If we need to act against climate change, then I fear the worst.
Any actions being undertaken are like holding out your arms to prevent yourself crashing to the ground quite as fast as if you fell with your arms tucked in.

The cost of power is not going up ( much ) because of Carbon tax.
Its going up because no-one is building large economical power stations. Why not?
Its not OK to burn coal , but it is OK to export it.
Luckily those people buying the coal live on another planet.

I agree.

But...

The over-cooked political rhetoric aside, the real aim of the policy isn't to single-handedly save the world, nor is the primary objective to meet the limp-dicked emissions reduction targets (we can't meet those targets anyway because Rudd and co. threw their lot in with "clean coal" and the notion that some untested, unproven and now apparently unworkable technological fix), it's real aim is to begin the process of decoupling emissions from economic growth. It's a process that is necessary and has to start somewhere, it's a small step forward but its a good step, it has achieved the desired result with virtually no shock to the economy. We can continue to take more small steps until we reach the point of making real gains. A much preferable outcome to waiting then having to cause very deep shocks in the economy at far greater cost

 

[Upton Sinclair]

Hardly any point debating it now.

When we have the government bringing in a tax, and threataning "hollowly" to shut down coal fired power stations, but then planning a huge export program for Brown Coal. Its just going to happen.
Yeah you can fly Jetstar and pay the optional carbon neutralisation fee if it makes you feel good.
But we are just burning the Carbon baby, and the Chinese are part of we.

Energy prices are going up, but its not the Carbon tax, its the cost of short term infrastructure.

Models for emission reduction scenarios all involve the developing word (read: China) increasing their emissions well into the future. The models are designed around a carbon 'budget', if the rich industrialised countries can decouple emissions from economic growth and develop an economic model for the rest of the world to follow then developing countries can continue to emit and not sacrifice their growth. That principle has been the basic framework for every international agreement ever reached on the issue.

I personally disagree with coal exports but there is a good argument that the coal industry can continue to exist for a few decades to come. It's definitely not a reason for us to begin the process of reform that will decouple emissions from economic growth.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

Models for emission reduction scenarios all involve the developing word (read: China) increasing their emissions well into the future. The models are designed around a carbon 'budget', if the rich industrialised countries can decouple emissions from economic growth and develop an economic model for the rest of the world to follow then developing countries can continue to emit and not sacrifice their growth. That principle has been the basic framework for every international agreement ever reached on the issue.

I personally disagree with coal exports but there is a good argument that the coal industry can continue to exist for a few decades to come. It's definitely not a reason for us to begin the process of reform that will decouple emissions from economic growth.

While individuals in Australia may be comparatively rich , I hardly see Australia as rich and Industrialised, and if we are we are de-industrialising. Not sure what our business plan for the future is.

 

[Upton Sinclair]

While individuals in Australia may be comparatively rich , I hardly see Australia as rich and Industrialised, and if we are we are de-industrialising. Not sure what our business plan for the future is.

Tell that to your average Indian or sub Saharan African

 

[SaintsSeptember]

Tell that to your average Indian or sub Saharan African

Fair enough, but they are keeping a lid on their emissions too.

 

[Upton Sinclair]

I hardly see Australia as rich and Industrialised, and if we are we are de-industrialising.

Upon reflection, 'developed economy' would have been a better turn of phrase than 'industrialised'

Fair enough, but they are keeping a lid on their emissions too.

Like I said, at this early stage of the game the goal is to decouple emissions from economic growth and India is taking steps in that direction, in fact they are one of the few economies to have a adopted a very progressive tax on coal, not just pricing the subsequent emissions. It's not going to actively reduce emissions in the short term but it IS going to begin the process of economic reform that will eventually put a lid on emissions.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

Upon reflection, 'developed economy' would have been a better turn of phrase than 'industrialised'



Like I said, at this early stage of the game the goal is to decouple emissions from economic growth and India is taking steps in that direction, in fact they are one of the few economies to have a adopted a very progressive tax on coal, not just pricing the subsequent emissions. It's not going to actively reduce emissions in the short term but it IS going to begin the process of economic reform required to start to actually put a lid on emissions.

Thats the tricky thing really. If you sell coal the buyer will probably burn it and produce emmissions.
So we tax it.
However that then provides not motivation for "acme coalburning company" to develop ways of reducing their emissions ( though it does motivate them to try to improve efficency which will also reduce their emissions). It also makes collatoral damage over "acme chemical" company, who may be using the coal for some weird chemical process which does not involve burning or emissions.

 

[Upton Sinclair]

Thats the tricky thing really. If you sell coal the buyer will probably burn it and produce emmissions.
So we tax it.
However that then provides not motivation for "acme coalburning company" to develop ways of reducing their emissions ( though it does motivate them to try to improve efficency which will also reduce their emissions). It also makes collatoral damage over "acme chemical" company, who may be using the coal for some weird chemical process which does not involve burning or emissions.

I'm not sure coal has any uses that don't involve burning the stuff

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal#Uses_today

 

[Donners]

If I have to delete or edit another post of sniping between posters in this thread, the poster will receive an infraction.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

I'm not sure coal has any uses that don't involve burning the stuff

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal#Uses_today

The reference you attached includes Coking. I'm sure the coking process includes plenty of emmissions, but in the end you are putting the carbon in steel, not burning it.
So you tax the coal used for coking, and the steel industry of the country taxing it becomes less competative than one that doesn't tax it.

 

[Upton Sinclair]

The reference you attached includes Coking. I'm sure the coking process includes plenty of emmissions, but in the end you are putting the carbon in steel, not burning it.
So you tax the coal used for coking, and the steel industry of the country taxing it becomes less competative than one that doesn't tax it.

Take it up with India!

But, yeah, don't really have an answer for you on that one. I'm sure there'd be a logical solution but I certainly can't think of one right now.