This month’s open thread. It’s coming to the end of the year and that means updates to the annual time series of observations and models relatively soon. Suggestions for what you’d like to see assessed are welcome… or any other climate science related topic.
Kevin McKinney says
#298–“I find it interesting that the thing you can least imagine happening is a commitment to degrowth, even though that essentially is just a commitment to words (rather than massive infrastructure buildouts required for a major ramp up of alternatives); and to imagining an economy that can actually be potentially sustained long term on a finite planet.”
The problem with a ‘commitment to degrowth’–as a side note, spell-check wanted that to be ‘regrowth!’–is that such a path heightens the political obstacles to the nth degree. That, after all, is the nub of what’s rendering the COPP process so tortuously slow: developing nations are not willing to be locked into a position of perpetual economic inferiority. And developed nations are not willing to do more than see the developing ones catch up through relatively faster growth.
And the problem exists internationally, as well. One of the notable aspects of the last couple of decades has been a global trend toward labor contributing a smaller percentage of economic productivity, with wages following the trend. That has meant that the poor have been losing ground, and the middle has been barely keeping up, at best, even as the economic elite has been getting much bigger slices of the economic pie. That’s been part of the divisiveness in American politics, IMO, and probably in other jurisdictions as well, albeit played out in a complicated fashion due to concentrating ownership of media.
In a shrinking economy, inter-group strife will tend to grow dramatically–or so one would presume, based upon history. Such a presumption will discourage many from trying the experiment.
But we certainly need to be looking at the issue of growth and working our way toward a ZEG economy; there’s nothing more certain than that we’ll have to cap human energy use at the planetary scale *sometime.* Just when isn’t really known yet, but the reductio ad absurdum is itself absurdly simple, as the “Galactic-Scale Energy” post shows.
Yes, please cite/link my Lynas review. Page views are a good thing, from my perspective… and thanks for the kind word.
Steve Fish says
Re- Comment by wili — 23 Dec 2013 @ 12:46 PM
You say- “I don’t like what you’re saying, so shut up.” This is a childish response. I think you should follow your own advice- “I would advise focusing on something other than climate science” because this is a science forum and your manufactured dire predictions are not appropriate. Your list of- “Does anyone anywhere think that” questions are a good example. There have been references here to quite a few analyses that suggest that solar and wind can be upscaled fast enough to avert catastrophe, many provided by SecularAnimist, and my suggestion to check out Jigar Shaw is regarding how renewables can not only accomplish the task but revitalize the economy. Shaw says that solar and wind can’t do it all, just most.
My confidence in renewables is informed by my own experience. I obtain the electricity for two households on solar power (1.8KW rated panels) and about one automobile tank measure of gasoline (15 gal. last year) for a 1KW Honda generator. I would have thought this impossible 10 years ago but all it took was expert advice, planning, and paying attention day to day. I am finally moving into my new house and it will be the lap of luxury with more PV, energy star appliances, a very efficient wood boiler, and a solar water heater. There will be no air conditioning required. Hear that Ed? I brewed beer in the insulated but unfinished house during a heat wave this summer and it stayed below 70 degrees inside on days up to 107 degrees.
Steve
prokaryotes says
The Climate Champions Of 2013 http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/12/23/3073901/climate-champs-2013/
Kevin McKinney says
#289–Steve, I think you mean “Jigar Shah.”
This looks like the book you mean:
http://www.amazon.com/Creating-Climate-Wealth-Unlocking-Economy/dp/0989353109/ref=sr_1_fkmr1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1387828096&sr=1-1-fkmr1&keywords=jigar+shaw
Thanks for the pointer; I’ll check it out.
Tony Weddle says
Kevin,
I have a different interpretation of “can”. It is almost the same as “will” because “can” is being applied to humans and you have to accept that humans simply don’t act in a rational way (most of the time). So many of the things you say “can” happen, simply can’t happen on this planet. Now, hypothetically, some of those things might be possible (though please remember that there are always limits), but they neither can nor will happen on this planet with this mix of species.
DIOGENES says
Tony Weddle #288, Wili #282,
Your two posts are excellent, insightful, complementary, and reflect the seriousness of the situation. No need to apologize to any of the critics.
Tony, I will take issue with your paraphrasing of what McPherson said about positive feedbacks. The easiest way is to quote him verbatim. He lists 29 positive feedbacks, the last two of which are human behaviors (fast-track Arctic drilling; supertanker use of ice-cleared waters). He states:
“As nearly as I can distinguish, only the latter two feedback processes are reversible at a temporal scale relevant to our species. Once you pull the tab on the can of beer, there’s no keeping the carbon dioxide from bubbling up and out. These feedbacks are not additive, they are multiplicative. Now that we’ve entered the era of expensive oil, I can’t imagine we’ll voluntarily terminate the process of drilling for oil and gas in the Arctic (or anywhere else). Nor will we willingly forgo a few dollars by failing to take advantage of the long-sought Northwest Passage.”
That’s pretty clear to me; they are irreversible on times scales of interest to our survival. How one proves or disproves these assertions is another story, but it seems to me that as temperature increases, the existing feedback mechanisms accelerate and new ones seem to be getting uncovered. The top handful of feedbacks have enough reserves behind them to lead to his prediction of extinction (especially if we keep on the path of BAU, which all but guarantees temperature increases on the order of 5 C by century’s end even without the positive feedbacks), and he would do well by focusing on the key feedback mechanisms.
Steve Fish says
Re- Comment by Kevin McKinney — 23 Dec 2013 @ 2:53 PM
Thanks for the correction. My head knows Shah’s name but the communication to my fingers is faulty. Steve
Hank Roberts says
http://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/1s6410/subreddit_announcement_nature_partnership_with/
See also:
http://grist.org/climate-energy/reddits-science-forum-banned-climate-deniers-why-dont-all-newspapers-do-the-same/
Hank Roberts says
Detailed summary with charts from the study on who’s funding climate denial, by physicist John Baez at his site:
https://johncarlosbaez.wordpress.com/2013/12/23/who-is-bankrolling-climate-change-countermovement/
hat tip to John Galkowski at
https://hypergeometric.wordpress.com/2013/12/24/who-is-bankrolling-the-climate-change-counter-movement/
Lawrence Coleman says
MERRY CHRISTMAS TO EVERYONE AT REAL CLIMATE AND ALL IT’S CONTRIBUTERS.
Kevin McKinney says
#310–+1
Tony (#305), don’t underestimate the capacity of humans to fool you. It’s tough enough to predict what Arctic sea ice will do in a particular season, but humans are orders of magnitude more unpredictable.
Case in point: South Africa. I remember the 60s, 70s, and 80s; no-one could have rationally predicted things would turn out half as well there as in fact they did. So be cautious about mentally foreclosing the human capacity to surprise. Sometimes the surprises will even be good ones…
;-/
prokaryotes says
Actually the predictions of the overall sea ice trend have been accurate. The trend of sea ice decline, where it lacked was the time span involved, which we know today has been underestimated, in part because of conservative estimates. Prediction adjustment are in control by humans, depending primarily on CO2e emissions. Single human interactions are noise in the system, when accounting for collective behavior it becomes more predictable.
The human societies have in addition more complex decision making involved through the political processes.
Groups and types of systems interact with each other through positive and negative feedback processes, which can trigger a threshold behavior in humans.
For instance certain behavior will rule under special circumstances, which could result in collective behavior change. The general assumption here is an expected behavior change in the human population, which rises and gains with more pronounced climate change.
Climate change is the strongest force on species, which means that it dominates human behavior. Though this only becomes visible for society under non-equilibrium conditions when things change radically and force a dynamic state.
prokaryotes says
What Does the New IPCC Report Say About Climate Change?
prokaryotes says
Ecological conversations and systems thinking
prokaryotes says
Amazing Photos of the Ontario Ice Storm
Mal Adapted says
And a resolutely secular Dies Natalis Solis Invicti to you, Lawrence Coleman, and to the entire RC community ;^)!
Mal
prokaryotes says
Australia records its warmest spring
SecularAnimist says
The Ghost Of Climate Change Yet To Come
By Joe Romm
December 24, 2013
http://www.ClimateProgress.org
Excerpt:
Merry Christmas, folks.
Hank Roberts says
+1 for <a href="excellence in excerpting — you got the core of it. Thanks.
——
A reminder — the “carbon sink” is, for the human time scale, done by living organisms. Life on Earth _is_ the “carbon sink” we rely on.
And we’re chewing up or burning that life on Earth that has been taking care of collecting half the CO2 we’ve been adding.
We’re trashing what gave us our best protection against our own mistakes so far.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v486/n7401/full/nature11118.html
hat tip to
http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2013/12/gw-news-december-22-2013/#AWOGN20131222_HaHa
Edward Greisch says
302 Steve Fish, 297 232 Kevin McKinney, 273 274 275 213 155 100 Hank Roberts, 277 221 153 199 prokaryotes, 288 167 Tony Weddle, 289 148 Steve Fish, 156 Thomas Lee Elifritz 161 Mal Adapted, 124 [edit – please stop this]
I am not advertising anything. I have nothing to sell. I only correct the false advertising.
[edit – enough of the attacks against commentators. Stick to issues, not personalities]
Lawrence Coleman says
320: Edward Greisch. I’m Buddhist by nature and I still gladly get into the Christmas spirit. I might not be as closed minded as some?
Tony Weddle says
Edward,
I’ve no idea why you could mistake any of my posts as a sales pitch for solar or wind. I would never do such a thing on any forum, as I don’t believe either of them are an answer to the predicament we face.
Diogenes,
The problems I see with McPherson’s feedbacks is that he sometimes misrepresents the information he links to, sometimes separates out feedbacks that are really the same feedback process and assumes that the effects of the feedbacks are virtually immediately (a few decades) catastrophic. What he hasn’t done is show that his assumption is valid. Having said, that, there are probably enough serious feedbaxcks in there to give anyone alive today concern for both themselves and their descendents.
Kevin,
Oh, I don’t thnink humans are out to fool me. Whilst there may be a few surprises in store (though I’m not sure that the SA situation has turned out that well), I don’t expect humans, collectively, to act in any way that could be regarded as rational. As Dave Cohen has written, “Homo sapiens is a species, so what you see is what you get”. If anyone expects “us” to get “us” out of this mess, he or she is likely to be sorely disappointed.
Steve Fish says
Re- Comment by Edward Greisch — 25 Dec 2013 @ 6:44 PM
Ha!
Steve
SecularAnimist says
[edit – I am fed up policing the comment threads on this. Both you and Greisch are respectfully requested to stop reading each others posts. Do not rise to whatever bait you perceive.]
wili says
” enough of the attacks against commentators. Stick to issues, not personalities”
“I am fed up policing the comment threads on this. Both you and Greisch are respectfully requested to stop reading each others posts. Do not rise to whatever bait you perceive”
Amen, amen, amen.
We all have to mellow out a bit. Here’s something that might help some with a certain personal history to do so: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hzEd_FCtHN4
Back on something like the topic: http://www.skepticalscience.com/sea-ice-volume-not-recovering.html
Sea Ice Volume is Not Recovering
“…for total area of ice, we are at a low that is historic over not just the satellite era, but at least 1450 years into the past.”
Hank Roberts says
Just noticed this retraction on the ‘methane emergency’ story
( thanks to a pointer found at http://www.reddit.com/r/climate)
http://planet3.org/2013/09/05/nafeez-ahmed-responds/#comment-40721
wili says
“Geoengineering Cannot Undo Climate Change
Reducing Sunlight Won’t Cool Earth”
“Two German scientists have just confirmed that you can’t balance the Earth’s rising temperatures by simply toning down the sunlight. It may do something disconcerting to the patterns of global rainfall…
The argument for geoengineering goes like this: the world is getting inexorably warmer; governments show no sign of drastically reducing greenhouse gas emissions, so why not control the planetary thermostat by finding a way to filter, block, absorb or reflect some of the sunlight hitting the Earth?
…the two biogeochemists at Jena report in the journal Earth System Dynamics that they used a simple energy balance model to show that the world doesn’t work like that. Water simply doesn’t respond to atmospheric heat and solar radiation in the same way…
…the traffic of water vapor around the planet, plays a powerful role in the making of climate. To change the pattern and degree of evaporation would inevitably disturb weather systems and disrupt agriculture, with unpredictable and potentially catastrophic consequences.
The authors say: ‘An immediate consequence of this notion is that climate geoengineering cannot simply be used to undo global warming.'”
http://www.climatecentral.org/news/reducing-sunlight-by-geoengineering-will-not-cool-earth-16861
http://www.bgc-jena.mpg.de/pmwiki.php/PublicRelations/Single?userlang=en&id=1386254929
Steve Fish says
Re- Comment by wili — 27 Dec 2013 @ 2:34 PM
Not to mention ocean acidification.
Steve
wili says
Good point, Steve. And on the topic of attacks on oceans: http://peakoil.com/enviroment/jeremy-jackson-ocean-apocalypse
Hank Roberts says
Have a look at this climate blog (new to me; it’s been around since 2010, but I don’t find mention of it previously at RC).
Written by a science journalist and, having skimmed through it, he seems to be delivering what he hoped: serious information in plain language.
The familiars from the denier crowd found him long ago; he’s good at answering them.
http://simpleclimate.wordpress.com/
Hank Roberts says
and to all a good night
http://www.trbimg.com/img-52bb24c7/turbine/la-na-tt-christmas-break-20131225-002/600
Raul M. says
Thinking of use of solar electric in the northern latitudes seems seasonal.
For thinking of using it in the winter dark season is probably more the issue
Than having it to use. So if I move way north expecting the weather to warm
Wind and natural gas from methane hydrates could be captured more easily
Than distant solar radiation. But then there is the ozone hole and how to protect
Self from exposure. So if I end up hanging out in a abandened mine way up north
What if a group takes off with my windmill whilst I’m not paying attention. So
A way to gain natural gas for fuel cell use seems the most discrete.
How many months are the dark winter months way up north?
Pete Dunkelberg says
Who are and have been the CO2 producers? The question is answered here:
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-013-0986-y/fulltext.html
Tracing anthropogenic carbon dioxide and methane emissions to fossil fuel and cement producers, 1854–2010
Richard Heede1
(1)
Climate Accountability Institute, 1626 Gateway Road, Snowmass, CO 81654, USA
========
This may be useful practical information to help do something about it. Maybe.
John Atkeison says
I have not found disagreements about the “climate departure” paper. If it is sound, I think it provides valuable communication tools.
Is it sound?
The projected timing of climate departure from recent variability.
Camilo Mora, Abby G. Frazier, et al
University of Hawaii.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v502/n7470/full/nature12540.html
prokaryotes says
Re Energy discussion
The Mind Boggling Promise of Energy Storage
Hank Roberts says
A question for the modelers — how is primary productivity handled?
Here’s one page on that: http://www.biogeosciences-discuss.net/10/3627/2013/bgd-10-3627-2013.html
Hank Roberts says
A review for policymakers:
http://www.imber.info/index.php/News/IMBER-news/Ocean-Acidification-Summary-for-Policymakers-2013
This summary for policymakers reports on the state of scientific knowledge on ocean acidification, based on the latest research presented at The Third Symposium on the Ocean in a High-CO2 World, held in Monterey, California, in September 2012. Experts present the projected changes from ocean acidification for ecosystems and the people who rely on them, according to levels of confidence for these outcomes.
More information HERE
Relevant link:Third Symposium on The Ocean in a High-CO2 World (24-27 September 2012, Monterey, California, USA)
————
The following should also be of interest.
Do you know where most of the oxygen you breathe comes from?
Do you know when that was discovered?
Primary productivity — production of oxygen and carbohydrate, using sunlight and carbon dioxide and water — for this planet is barely partially understood, and changing fast due to climate change.
Do we feel lucky? Really, really lucky?
When you start reading the very recent history of science, you’ll likely realize that much of what people set out to study in the past few decades turns out to already be changing very fast due to climate change. “You don’t know what you’ve got ’til it’s gone” applies.
This will tell you that among much else. There are surprises:
Nov 26, 2013 – Ocean Carbon and Biogeochemistry.
the link is to:
www.us-ocb.org/publications/OCB_NEWS_FALL13.pdf
Hank Roberts says
Time for the annual award stories. Here’s one:
Climate Change Misinformer Of The Year: The Daily Mail
The list of bogus stories — and of the many, many times they were reported as fact by US media and US politicians — is at the link.
Awesome.
Hank Roberts says
Useful summary from Cliff Maas weather blog:
Lawrence Coleman says
Assuming that the current slowing of the global surface temperature is due to the ocean taking up more CO2 at the higher latitudes, at what point does the ocean begin to get ‘saturated’..relatively speaking and the CO2 uptake starts showing signs of plateauing? Given the current concentration of CO2 and it’s upward march, how many years do we have of this temporary reprieve do you guess/estimate/forecast? I’m not sure which is worse the global temp taking a brief hiatus or the ocean’s acidification accelerating? We really can’t afford to pass the threshold that there is wholesale die off of diatoms and plankton and a subsequent collapse of the ocean’s food chains.
[Response: There is no obvious decrease in the rate of atmospheric growth of CO2. CO2 is taken up in higher latitudes, mostly in the Southern Ocean, but while the uptake rate is a non-linear function of the chemistry, ocean biology and circulation, it isn’t going to ‘saturate’ any time soon (though it may slow over the next few decades). Ocean acidification is a continuing problem that will get worse though. The IPCC report had a good discussion on this section 6.4.4. – gavin]
pete best says
We have all been duped say German scientists.
http://notrickszone.com/2013/12/03/german-scientists-show-climate-driven-by-natural-cycles-global-temperature-to-drop-to-1870-levels-by-2100/
Lawrence Coleman says
340: Thanks Gavin, I’ll read that report. Cheers! Happy New Year to you and again all at Real Climate!
MARodger says
pete best @341.
The actual paper from the two “scientists” (apologies to genuine scientists for misuse of the term) is available here. You will note the perils of curve-fitting a 250-year data series with a 254-year cycle. Or is it the talking to stalagmites in caves for too long. Note that these guys may be suggesting from their grand formula that temperatures as cool as 1880s will return by the early 2100s but strangely they ran out of ink for that part of their little graph.
Hank Roberts says
> Pete Best … says German scientists
You say these are German scientists — what’s your reason for believing that?
a Google Scholar search for
– “Prof. H. Luedecke” “C.O. Weiss” –
did not match any articles.
Why do you trust this enough to repost it?
Meow says
New paper finds cloud feedback is strongly positive, projects that climate sensitivity is > 3 degrees C per CO2 doubling. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v505/n7481/full/nature12829.html (pop news summary at http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/dec/31/planet-will-warm-4c-2100-climate ).
That “uncertainty monster”, it has mouths on both ends.
prokaryotes says
The Availability of Research Data Declines Rapidly with Article Age
Hank Roberts says
https://github.com/fizbin/killfile-extension
We are in the very early days of a better killfile (v 0.24 as of now)
prokaryotes says
I wonder what percentage of the online publications related to climate science is buried behind paywall’s? 90%? Does it make any sense to prevent reading science to improve our understanding of climate change?
Happy New Year
prokaryotes says
Planet likely to warm by 4C by 2100, scientists warn
prokaryotes says
A Warning From Carl Sagan on Scientific Ignorance