Science/Environment The Carbon Debate, pt III

[Upton Sinclair]

Had a look at the photos yet? Impressive vegetation increase Hey.

Looks more to me like they used to have livestock or it has recovered from some other land management issue. Whatever the case may be, the pictures no more prove my contention that they prove yours. They say nothing about the effect of enhanced atmospheric CO2 levels. Yet you seem quite prepared to discount everything CSIRO has to say on the issue based solely on a few old photos of your local area? I think we're getting closer to the reason why you give so much credence to nobodies like David Evans

 

[Ripper]

Looks more to me like they used to have livestock or it has recovered from some other land management issue. Whatever the case may be, the pictures no more prove my contention that they prove yours. They say nothing about the effect of enhanced atmospheric CO2 levels. Yet you seem quite prepared to discount everything CSIRO has to say on the issue based solely on a few old photos of your local area? I think we're getting closer to the reason why you give so much credence to nobodies like David Evans

Never any livestock in town. Should have the station photo's Sunday.

Speaking of CSIRO, here is a paper that says that Australia actually absorbs all the CO2 we emit. That of course is logical as it is extremely sparsely populated place.

The present modelled rate of net sequestration is of a similar magnitude to CO2 emissions from continental fossil fuel burning and land clearing combined. The rate of sequestration is predicted to continue to increase until 2050 AD and beyond if atmospheric CO2 concentration and temperature continue to increase.

 

[Upton Sinclair]

Never any livestock in town. Should have the station photo's Sunday.

It's not going to imbue them with any more meaning than what you've already posted.

Speaking of CSIRO, here is a paper that says that Australia actually absorbs all the CO2 we emit. That of course is logical as it is extremely sparsely populated place.

So I'm assuming your logical conclusion to posting this is that Australia should delay action until the continent becomes a net emitter? So you assume we don't need to act until after 2050, amirite? So can you tell us whether that will be any costlier to make a large scale shift then than it would be to start making incremental steps now?

 

[Ripper]

It's not going to imbue them with any more meaning than what you've already posted.



So I'm assuming your logical conclusion to posting this is that Australia should delay action until the continent becomes a net emitter? So you assume we don't need to act until after 2050, amirite? So can you tell us whether that will be any costlier to make a large scale shift then than it would be to start making incremental steps now?

Best left to the market. The US has had a dramatic reduction without cap and trade /CT simply because it is cheaper to generate electricity from shale gas than coal at the moment. When fossil supplies run down alternatives will become competitive naturally.

 

[Upton Sinclair]

Best left to the market.

Without getting balls deep in economic theory, carbon pricing corrects a market failure that doesn't account for external costs. But, assuming that there IS an international agreement that DOES require market based initiatives to reduce emissions, how long should Austraqlia wait and how much more expensive will making an 80% cut in forty years be compared to making a series of incremental cuts starting now?

The US has had a dramatic reduction without cap and trade /CT simply because it is cheaper to generate electricity from shale gas than coal at the moment. When fossil supplies run down alternatives will become competitive naturally.

Yeah, a few problems with that idea.

First, there is accumulating evidence (including a groundbreaking study released yesterday identifying a massive methane leak in CSG fields near Condamine) that the unconventional gas industry has downplayed the level of fugitive emissions coming from "frakking' practices and, the gas being CH4 which is a much more potent GHG than CO2, there is evidence to show that shale gas fugitive gas emissions are three times higher than for conventional gas, meaning that over twenty years shale gas has a carbon-footprint 100% higher than conventional sources. This dramatically narrows the gap in unconventional sources as a 'transitional' fuel source.

http://theconversation.edu.au/a-lot-of-hot-air-in-the-coal-to-gas-transition-10719

Second, the IEA noted the other day that if we are to contain warming within the 2 degrees C 'safe' limit identified by the UNFCCC then we need to leave two thirds of proven reserves in the ground

https://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/name,33339,en.html

So, like i said, correct a market failure. There is no way known we can afford to wait for fossil fuel reserves before acting to move to a post-carbon economy.

 

[Upton Sinclair]

The State of Climate Science

A Thorough Review of the Scientific Literature on Global Warming

By Dr. James Powell | Thursday, November 15th, 2012

Polls show that many members of the public believe that scientists substantially disagree about human-caused global warming. The gold standard of science is the peer-reviewed literature. If there is disagreement among scientists, based not on opinion but on hard evidence, it will be found in the peer-reviewed literature.

I searched the Web of Science, an online science publication tool, for peer-reviewed scientific articles published between January first 1991 and November 9th 2012 that have the keyword phrases “global warming” or “global climate change.” The search produced 13,950 articles. See methodology.

I read whatever combination of titles, abstracts, and entire articles was necessary to identify articles that “reject” human-caused global warming. To be classified as rejecting, an article had to clearly and explicitly state that the theory of global warming is false or, as happened in a few cases, that some other process better explains the observed warming. Articles that merely claimed to have found some discrepancy, some minor flaw, some reason for doubt, I did not classify as rejecting global warming.

Articles about methods, paleoclimatology, mitigation, adaptation, and effects at least implicitly accept human-caused global warming and were usually obvious from the title alone. John Cook and Dana Nuccitelli also reviewed and assigned some of these articles; John provided invaluable technical expertise.

This work follows that of Oreskes (Science, 2005) who searched for articles published between 1993 and 2003 with the keyword phrase “global climate change.” She found 928, read the abstracts of each and classified them. None rejected human-caused global warming. Using her criteria and time-span, I get the same result. Deniers attacked Oreskes and her findings, but they have held up.

Some articles on global warming may use other keywords, for example, “climate change” without the “global” prefix. But there is no reason to think that the proportion rejecting global warming would be any higher.

By my definition, 24 of the 13,950 articles, 0.17 percent or 1 in 581, clearly reject global warming or endorse a cause other than CO2 emissions for observed warming. The list of articles that reject global warming is here.

The 24 articles have been cited a total of 113 times over the nearly 21-year period, for an average of close to 5 citations each. That compares to an average of about 19 citations for articles answering to “global warming,” for example. Four of the rejecting articles have never been cited; four have citations in the double-digits. The most-cited has 17.

Of one thing we can be certain: had any of these articles presented the magic bullet that falsifies human-caused global warming, that article would be on its way to becoming one of the most-cited in the history of science.


The articles have a total of 33,690 individual authors. The top ten countries represented, in order, are USA, England, China, Germany, Japan, Canada, Australia, France, Spain, and Netherlands. (The chart shows results through November 9th, 2012.)

Global warming deniers often claim that bias prevents them from publishing in peer-reviewed journals. But 24 articles in 18 different journals, collectively making several different arguments against global warming, expose that claim as false. Articles rejecting global warming can be published, but those that have been have earned little support or notice, even from other deniers.

A few deniers have become well known from newspaper interviews, Congressional hearings, conferences of climate change critics, books, lectures, websites and the like. Their names are conspicuously rare among the authors of the rejecting articles. Like those authors, the prominent deniers must have no evidence that falsifies global warming.

Anyone can repeat this search and post their findings. Another reviewer would likely have slightly different standards than mine and get a different number of rejecting articles. But no one will be able to reach a different conclusion, for only one conclusion is possible: Within science, global warming denial has virtually no influence. Its influence is instead on a misguided media, politicians all-too-willing to deny science for their own gain, and a gullible public.

Scientists do not disagree about human-caused global warming. It is the ruling paradigm of climate science, in the same way that plate tectonics is the ruling paradigm of geology. We know that continents move. We know that the earth is warming and that human emissions of greenhouse gases are the primary cause. These are known facts about which virtually all publishing scientists agree.

James Lawrence Powell is the author of The Inquisition of Climate Science. Powell is also the executive director of the National Physical Science Consortium, a partnership among government agencies and laboratories, industry, and higher education dedicated to increasing the number of American citizens with graduate degrees in the physical sciences and related engineering fields. This article is cross-posted with permission with the Columbia University Press blog.

http://scienceprogress.org/2012/11/27479/

 

[Ripper]

I wouldn't go there, BP. we know about the gate keeping and redefining peer review and "They never asked for it"

 

[Upton Sinclair]

I wouldn't go there, BP. we know about the gate keeping and redefining peer review and "They never asked for it"

Suuure we do! It's a biiig conspiracy!

 

[Ripper]

Suuure we do! It's a biiig conspiracy!

And we know now how intertwined they are.

To: Tom Wigley <???@ucar.edu>, Phil Jones <???@uea.ac.uk>, Mike Hulme <???@uea.ac.uk>, Keith Briffa <???@uea.ac.uk>, James Hansen <???@giss.nasa.gov>, Danny Harvey <???@cirque.geog.utoronto.ca>, Ben Santer <???@llnl.gov>, Kevin Trenberth <???@ucar.edu>, Robert wilby <???@kcl.ac.uk>, "Michael E. Mann" <???@virginia.edu>, Tom Karl <???@noaa.gov>, Steve Schneider <???@stanford.edu>, Tom Crowley <???@duke.edu>, jto <???@u.arizona.edu>, "simon.shackley" <???@umist.ac.uk>, "tim.carter" <???@vyh.fi>, "p.martens" <???@icis.unimaas.nl>, "peter.whetton" <???@dar.csiro.au>, "c.goodess" <???@uea.ucar.edu>, "a.minns" <???@uea.ac.uk>, Wolfgang Cramer <???@pik-potsdam.de>, "j.salinger" <???@niwa.co.nz>, "simon.torok" <???@csiro.au>, Mark Eakin <???@noaa.gov>, Scott Rutherford <???@deschutes.geo.uri.edu>, Neville Nicholls <???@bom.gov.au>, Ray Bradley <???@geo.umass.edu>, Mike MacCracken <???@comcast.net>, Barrie Pittock <???@csiro.au>, Ellen Mosley-Thompson <???@osu.edu>, "???@teri.res.in" <???@teri.res.in>, "Greg.Ayers" <???@csiro.au>

I think Barrie Pittock has the right idea -- although there are some
unique things about this situation. Barrie says ....

(1) There are lots of bad papers out there
(2) The best response is probably to write a 'rebuttal'

to which I add ....

(3) A published rebuttal will help IPCC authors in the 4AR.

This is the what happened with the rebuttal paper

Bradley’s complaint about the loose treatment of warm and wet in Yang had particular resonance because that was the criticism that the Team was leveling against Soon and Baliunas.
Mann replied immediately assuring Bradley and the inside Team that the Yang composite got “moderately low” weight in Mann and Jones 2003 (note- I don’t think that this is true. My notes indicate that it received more weight than any series other than the Mann PC1.) Mann tried to fob off further discussion until he met with Jones in Sapporo (by which time the article would have appeared):

 

[Upton Sinclair]

And we know now how intertwined they are.







This is the what happened with the rebuttal paper

Yup. Can't win an argument on the physical science, so instead revert to the conspiracy theory. Classic denial techniques. I'd be much more interested in you going back to the other thread and explaining what you know about the concept of a carbon flux and why you think that measurements of the net flux show that excess anthropogenic emissions don't disrupt that cycle. But I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for you, I'm assuming that we're just going to do what you've done here, and segue seamlessly into the next denier canard, expecting me to debunk that too without any acknowledgement of all the other times you've been debunked.

 

[fishardansin]

 

[Upton Sinclair]

The World Bank has warned global temperatures could rise by four degrees Celsius this century without immediate action, with potentially devastating consequences for coastal cities and the poor.

Issuing a call for action, the World Bank tied the future wealth of the planet - and especially developing regions - to immediate efforts to cut greenhouse gas emissions from sources such as energy production.

"The time is very, very short. The world has to tackle the problem of climate change more aggressively," World Bank president Jim Yong Kim said on a conference call as he launched a report conducted for the global lender.

"We will never end poverty if we don't tackle climate change.

"It is one of the single biggest challenges to social justice today."

The study said the planet could warm four degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels as early as the 2060s if government promises to fight climate change are not met.

Even if nations fulfil current pledges, the study gave a 20 per cent likelihood of a four-degree rise by 2100 and said that a three-degree rise appeared likely.

UN-led climate negotiations have vowed to limit the rise of temperatures to no more than two degrees.

"A four-degree warmer world can and must be avoided. We need to hold warming below two degrees," Mr Kim said.

"Lack of ambitious action on climate change threatens to put prosperity out of reach of millions and roll back decades of development."

UN secretary-general Ban Ki-moon said in a statement that the study showed the need to hold nations to their commitment, made last year in South Africa, to put in place a legally binding new climate agreement by 2015.

The more than 190 nations in the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change start their latest annual talks on November 26 in Qatar.[/I]

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-11-19/world-bank-issues-global-warming-warning/4379634

 

[SaintsSeptember]

No wonder the world economy is a mess, the Banks are not exactly paying attention to their core business.
I wonder if it will be sunny on the weekend, I'll ask my stockbroker.

 

[Upton Sinclair]

No wonder the world economy is a mess, the Banks are not exactly paying attention to their core business.
.

And just what us it that you assume the World Bank's core business is exactly?

 

[Upton Sinclair]

Actually, let me save you the bother:

The World Bank is an international financial institution that provides loans[3] to developing countries for capital programs.

The World Bank's official goal is the reduction of poverty. According to the World Bank's Articles of Agreement (as amended effective 16 February 1989), all of its decisions must be guided by a commitment to promote foreign investment, international trade, and facilitate capital investment.[4]

(...)

World Bank in accordance with its Six Strategic themes has taken more various policies into effect since 1989 up until today. It has taken various policies to preserve the environment while promoting development. In 1989, World Bank named an implementing agency in Montreal protocols to stop the ozone damage with the target of 95% phase-out of substances that deplete the ozone layer by 2015. Moreover, in order to prevent deforestation especially the Amazon, announced that it would not finance any commercial logging or infrastructure projects that do harm to the environment in 1991.

In order to promote global public goods, the World Bank tries to control communicable disease such as malaria, delivering vaccines to several parts of the world and joining combat forces. In 2000, the World Bank announced a “war on AIDS”, and in 2011, the Bank joined the Stop Tuberculosis Partnership.[15]

 

[SaintsSeptember]

Actually, let me save you the bother:

Oh well good luck to them.

If a rough measure of wealth is resources/population we will continue to go downhill.

 

[Upton Sinclair]

Oh well good luck to them.

If a rough measure of wealth is resources/population we will continue to go downhill.

So do you have any thoughts on the economic impacts that 4°C of warming within 50 years might have on the world?

 

[SaintsSeptember]

So do you have any thoughts on the economic impacts that 4°C of warming within 50 years might have on the world?

More jobs , mainly in construction, or should that be re-construction. Not sure what will happen if its somewhere like Greece though, and how many other Countries will go down that road.

 

[Upton Sinclair]

Lol, when even the oil companies are demanding a carbon price that the deniers have well and truly lost!

Royal Dutch Shell Plc (RDSA) joined Electricite de France SA and more than 100 companies calling for lawmakers worldwide to put a “clear” price on carbon emissions in order to contain global warming.
Companies invest trillions of dollars in energy and infrastructure projects, and, in most cases, don’t consider goals to cut greenhouse gases, the companies said today in a statement that’s due to be presented to European Commissioner for Climate Action Connie Hedegaard in Brussels.
“A clear, stable, ambitious and cost-effective policy framework is essential to underpin the investment needed to deliver substantial greenhouse gas emissions reductions by mid- century,” the companies said in the e-mailed statement. “Putting a clear, transparent and unambiguous price on carbon emissions must be a core policy objective.”

http://mobile.businessweek.com/news/2012-11-18/shell-edf-lead-100-companies-calling-for-carbon-price

 

[evo]

Second, the IEA noted the other day that if we are to contain warming within the 2 degrees C 'safe' limit identified by the UNFCCC then we need to leave two thirds of proven reserves in the ground

.

It's not going to happen, so we may as well think of other ways to tackle AGW. Man is addicted to cheap energy, it is pretty much what drove the economy for the last 100 years.

 

[Upton Sinclair]

It's not going to happen, so we may as well think of other ways to tackle AGW. Man is addicted to cheap energy, it is pretty much what drove the economy for the last 100 years.

Such as?

Even if we had a magical alternative to prevent warming, you're still going to acidify the **** out of the oceans by releasing all of that carbon. Short of scrubbing the stuff out if the air the ONLY solution us to stop burning carbon at the date that we do.

 

[Upton Sinclair]

From the latest World Bank report:

The planet has charted a slew of record-breaking temperatures over the past decade and experienced frequent disasters some experts blame on climate change, most recently superstorm Sandy, which ravaged Haiti and the US east coast.

The report said that if temperatures rise by four degrees, regions will feel different effects - recent heatwaves in Russia could become an annual norm and July in the Mediterranean could be nine degrees higher than the area's warmest level now.

Under that scenario, the acidity of the oceans could rise at a rate unprecedented in world history, threatening coral reefs that protect shorelines and provide a habitat for fish species.

Rising sea levels could inundate coastal areas with the most vulnerable cities found in Bangladesh, India, Indonesia, Madagascar, Mexico, Mozambique, the Philippines, Venezuela and Vietnam, the study said.

"Many small islands may not be able to sustain the communities at all. There would be irreversible loss of biodiversity," Mr Kim said.

The study found that the most alarming impact may be on food production, with the world already expected to struggle to meet demand for a growing and increasingly wealthy population that is eating more meat.

Low-lying areas such as Bangladesh, Egypt, Vietnam and parts of Africa's coast could see major blows to food production, with drought severely hindering agriculture elsewhere, the study said.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-11-19/world-bank-issues-global-warming-warning/4379634

 

[SaintsSeptember]

Such as?

Even if we had a magical alternative to prevent warming, you're still going to acidify the **** out of the oceans by releasing all of that carbon. Short of scrubbing the stuff out if the air the ONLY solution us to stop burning carbon at the date that we do.

So who's going to provide an alternative.
Granted there is energy we NEED to use and energy we LIKE to use. No doubt the wealthier citizens will happily stomach rising energy prices for their automated homes, and no doubt the brownouts will occur in the poorer suberbs. By forcing the poorer people to sit in the dark without television we may be able to reduce demand slightly, but then the population continues to incrase.

Since no-one is even proposing new large scale base load generation, our old coal stations will continue on.

Solar Power grants for households is the governments way of prolonging a decision because they really dont know what to do.
No one knows what to do, because the only viable measure "right now" is apparently evil or something.

You may need to weigh up you four degree warming against the odd nuclear disaster.
Or just kick back confident that someone clever will invent something just in time.

 

[Upton Sinclair]

Its also worth reflecting on how a lot of that oil we burn formed, places like Saudi Arabia were covered by shallow seas that acidified due yo high CO2, algal blooms flourished, choking the oxygen out of the oceans until everything died and sank to the bottom depositing the biological carbon that was eventually turned to oil.

Now we're going to start the whole cycle again simply because we're too obstinate to not use fossil fuels

 

[SaintsSeptember]

Its also worth reflecting on how a lot of that oil we burn formed, places like Saudi Arabia were covered by shallow seas that acidified due yo high CO2, algal blooms flourished, choking the oxygen out of the oceans until everything died and sank to the bottom depositing the biological carbon that was eventually turned to oil.

Now we're going to start the whole cycle again simply because we're too obstinate to not use fossil fuels

Also proving that carbon storage can work, but pretty hard to do.