Climate Science Glossary

Term Lookup

Enter a term in the search box to find its definition.

Settings

Use the controls in the far right panel to increase or decrease the number of terms automatically displayed (or to completely turn that feature off).

Term Lookup

Settings


All IPCC definitions taken from Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Working Group I Contribution to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Annex I, Glossary, pp. 941-954. Cambridge University Press.

Home Arguments Software Resources Comments The Consensus Project Translations About Donate

Twitter Facebook YouTube Pinterest

RSS Posts RSS Comments Email Subscribe


Climate's changed before
It's the sun
It's not bad
There is no consensus
It's cooling
Models are unreliable
Temp record is unreliable
Animals and plants can adapt
It hasn't warmed since 1998
Antarctica is gaining ice
View All Arguments...



Username
Password
Keep me logged in
New? Register here
Forgot your password?

Latest Posts

Archives

Climate Hustle

Recent Comments

Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  Next

Comments 151 to 200:

  1. Comprehensive study: carbon taxes won't hamper the economy

    Scaddenp #84: No, I'm not insisting that decarbonizing will force a recession. I'm saying that if the GR remains true, it means that a long term recession, no matter how initiated, will carry with it a trend for energy efficiency to stop improving, but instead to get worse. And I'm saying that when you look at the Federal Reserve's papers on the political biases in the China data (and also I've found in Mongolia data - only ones I've tracked down so far) you indeed see a dramatic over-statement in official GDP growth vs the actual GDP evident from more reliable proxies (again, it's in the slides on my pdf), and this supports that achieving energy efficiencies is either not done, or can't be done, during recessions. This makes trying to halt CO2 growth via an engineered long term recession, as Kevin Anderson has suggested as what's needed, must also carry with it a determination for us to force ourselves to spend what GDP we still achieve towards continued energy efficiences, against our usual tendencies. My hypothesis is that the Garrett Relation is telling us something fundamental about how human nature, and if it is deeply embedded in human nature to behave this way, then simply telling happy stories about energy efficiencies being our salvation - is just not realistic. We grow faster when we get more efficient, and that fights against what's needed - lowering CO2 emissions.

  2. Comprehensive study: carbon taxes won't hamper the economy

    scaddenp: Your criticism only works if the exponential has the same constants in the exponent throughout the time of interest. But that is not the case here. The exponential power has varied greatly not only during the times before fossil fuels, but even during just the past century, and even just the past decades. The growth rate of Wealth (hence Power) was moribund until the late 1900's, took another slight hiatus during WWII, and then had a huge sharp change beginning in 1950, then shallowed again as the 21st century got going and continuing till now.

  3. Comprehensive study: carbon taxes won't hamper the economy

    Actually you dont need to take integral either to get convergance but it will converge much quicker if you do.

    Also, you seem to be insisting that decarbonizing will force a recession. I dont buy it.

  4. Comprehensive study: carbon taxes won't hamper the economy

    " Are you trying to say that we could choose ANY time integral and any non-integral which are both functions of time, and get a constant ratio to the extent seen in the GR?"


    Not quite. I am saying time integral of any exponential time series divided by time series that is positively proportional to that same series will converge to a constant.

    y1 = a.Exp(b.t)

    Int(y1) = a.Exp(b.t)/b

    y2 = c.y1 + d

    Int(y1)/y2 =  a.Exp(b.t)/(b.c.y1 + b.d) = a.Exp(b.t)/(b.c.Exp(b.t) + bd)

    as Exp(bt) get large, then approximates to a.Exp(b.t)/b.cExp(b.t) = a/bc

  5. Comprehensive study: carbon taxes won't hamper the economy

    Scaddenp at least gets the point that the GR has to do with TIME INTEGRATED GWP. Re-reading once again MA Rodgers, I see no appreciation of this, as he continually refers to power vs GDP(t) or some other GDP, not Integral(GDP) (t=0 to now)     apologies for the very awkward quick-o attempt to put an integral in this !

    Moderator Response:

    [DB] Please curtail your all-caps usage (shouting is unhelpful).

  6. Comprehensive study: carbon taxes won't hamper the economy

    The other important point, is that if you look at World Bank data on the efficiency of energy to generate GDP, you'll see Joules/$GWP steadily dropping. But not completely steadily (see my slide 253), it flattens during recessions. I don't have China data or articles going back to those past recessions, but just the near-recession of '15 in China shows the point - that GDP is significantly overstated, and so energy efficiency progress in fact reverses during recessions, as the GR says it must. In human terms - we abandon the luxury of further improving energy efficiency in favor of just trying to support what we already have with what energy we have. That paints a sobering prospect of what would happen in an engineered long term recession as Prof Kevin Anderson has called for. W/o a massive change in who we are as a responsible species, we won't get out of this as cavalierly as so many would like you to believe.  Of course, it doesn't have to be an engineered (graceful?) long term recession  - climate decay could force it on us unwillingly, as I think it probably will. Climate decay, and our exponentially rising debt finally becoming impossible to support.

  7. Comprehensive study: carbon taxes won't hamper the economy

    To scaddenp: "wealth" = time-integrated real GWP is growing at 2% / year in the 21st century, on average. That's the INTEGRAL growing at 2%/yr. Power consumption is not money. It's a totally different thing - it's the energy consumption rate to support that GDP. That Power/Wealth should be end up being so closely constant over most of the accumulated history of all GWP since pre-history, is making a worthwhile statement. Are you trying to say that we could choose ANY time integral and any non-integral which are both functions of time, and get a constant ratio to the extent seen in the GR? That makes no sense.

    On the SRES scenarios, maybe our conflict is in just how realistic are. Garrett makes the observation that population, for example, is not an independent variable, it is a dependent variable - we grow to the maximum extent that we can. Improve energy efficiency, and we can grow FASTER, including population, and that's exactly what we do. It's the very creation of energy efficiencies which ENABLE growth, and then FORCE us to spend more ongoing energy to support that new growth, and enable FASTER exploitation of energy we can find because now we're a bigger industrial entity. Which we must, to support all past growth too against the forces of decay, into the future.  It's what we do. It's how we're built. Now, how do you take a world which lives off FF's and convert it to renewables at the pace indicated, without generating far more CO2 than shown in the graphs? FF and CO2 IS our energy source right now, and we're stuck with it. All the efforts we've so far done have doubled power consumption rates and yet CO2 generating FF's comprise an unchanged 87% of primary energy supply since 1973.  Could we do better? If we became a different species, perhaps, that CARED enough about the future to lower our FF consumption at the same time that we poured every dollar we could into decarbonizing. If we actually SACRIFICED our current comforts for the sake of future generations. But we don't want to do that, nor will we tolerate a government that tries to tell us that. Instead we install the kind of governments we see around us. But the GR shows that power consumption is closely proportional to Wealth, so all this spending is going to produce a lot of CO2 in the near term. 

    And too, none of this includes the inadequate climate physics in the "carbon budgets" cobbled by the IPCC at the insistence of the U.N. political representatives, whereby we grow more than we should now, in favor of kicking the can down the road so that later generations have to deal with figuring out how to massively pull CO2 out of the atmosphere and permanently sequester it. What kind of species does that?  Listen to the work of Kevin Anderson, of Vaclav Smil, of many other scientists and energy experts and IPCC members complaining of the UN interference in the IPCC process and how the carbon budgets that emerged are just wrong. And the missing physics: The rising ECS with climate state. The permafrost melt from much more dramatic Arctic Ocean ice loss than early models predicted, and resulting CO2 and methane emissions, etc.

    Moderator Response:

    [DB] Sloganeering snipped.

  8. Trump’s Dirty Power Plan is much worse for kids’ health than for climate change

    Relevant article: Anti-Environmentalism/ Green Backlash
    Sharon Beder. 

    "Anti-environmentalism refers to the way that corporations and conservative groups in society have sought to counter the gains made by environmentalists, to redirect and diminish public concern about the environment, to attack environmentalists, and to persuade politicians against increased environmental regulation."

  9. Comprehensive study: carbon taxes won't hamper the economy

    to MA Rodger: your 1st para: Garrett (and I now too, several times) have addressed why the Cullenword criticism was invalid. Garrett was not allowed to respond (which is pretty outlandish, and against policy, and with no explanation), after those criticisms were sandwiched on either side of his paper, but he responded in the (peer-reviewed) "No Way Out..." paper.

    Again, GDP vs Power is only correlated, not a constant ratio. Nevertheless, there is  tendency for that curve you plotted to have a shallower slope after the first '70's decade, but it was nearly entirely done early on, and not in recent decades. I address this by looking closer at the data. See http://www.cabrillo.edu/~rnolthenius/Apowers/A7-K43-Garrett.pdf    slides 214 - 260. The slight down tilt in Power/Wealth disappears when you correct for: (1) under-estimated inflation (2) over-reported GDP (3) un-included "shadow economy", which makes up a continually smaller fraction of reported GDP and hence total spencing is not growing as fast as reported GDP....  all of which I document with good sources (not apocalypto bloggers, in case you're wondering). Look at the results for Power/Wealth in slide 241. The first point in the blue curve is identical to the most recent, and that is using only the most conservative and likely under-estimated correction to CPI inflation, from the MIT Business School. Instead considering the mid '90's Boskin Commission switchover to changing baskets, the estimate effect would be to remove the slight down tilt since ~'94 entirely.  In generating the atmospheric CO2 curves, Garrett does NOT assume GDP is proportional to Power, Improving energy efficiency is not in conflict, not a noise issue, with the GR. As long as GDP is growing faster than energy efficiency, it's quite possible to have Power/Wealth remain constant. Now, you argue about "constant", and neglect that economists don't provide any error bars on their numbers. How "constant" must it be before it is usable as a principle from which to consider the future? You provide no answer, appearing to look for tiny deviations which neglect the closer-look, in order to throw out the entire thesis. That the ratio remains so closely constant, even with the data quality what it is, in a range of only 13% total top to bottom, and much less than 3% in determining the value of the ratio, while oil prices have gyrated wildly by an order of magnitude, while inflation has gone from 0 to 18% and back down, and up and back etc in the U.S., and we've gone from a declining CO2 per joule of energy to a halt in 2001 and rise and stabilize since then, and population rise by more than double, etc etc.... I find that impressive.  

  10. Comprehensive study: carbon taxes won't hamper the economy

    Indy222, "However, this is not the case with global GDP. It is HEAVILY weighted towards the present."

    Rate of convergence to a constant more about the size proportionality of y2 to y1.

    If you have series that is exponential, and divide integral of series by a series that is positively proportional, then it will converge to a constant. As far as I can see the GR is nothing more than a statement of the mathematical structure. It adds no new information. It doesnt matter what errors there are in GDP or power, so long as exponentation and proportionality are maintained then ratio will be constant.

    There's no appreciation in the SRES scenarios of how Draconian must be the constraints on global freedoms and desires in order to actually make happen the curves they simply cobble together as "representative".


    Huh? Carbon tax or ETS  is a draconian contraint on global freedoms and desires? If renewables are cheaper (and take away FF subsidies and they are in many parts of the world), then that will wreck economies to decarbonize? Does China care about "global freedoms" -what exactly do you mean?

    In one breath, you are saying that climate change will damage economy, and next, they we will squander everything to maintain global economic growth and that is inevitable. I really dont get it. I dont think you get what SRES are for either. All the meeting minutes are online. I dont see any nefarious UN polical outcomes at play there. They are done to provide policy makers information on the climate that various forcing pathways will lead them to. Do you that there is a forcing pathway that is not within the range considered by SRES?

  11. Comprehensive study: carbon taxes won't hamper the economy

    Indy222 @76,
    Let me add to your puzzlement. It may assist your gaining a resolution.


    I am afraid I see no evident rebuttal of the criticisms levelled at Garrett (2011) in the two papers within Climate Change issue 104. You say you yourself provide such a rebuttal but you have have presented a lot in this thread and I have not forensically examined your commenting here, commenting which does need such examination as it is poorly set out. Yet given that, I would not recommend addressing Garrett (2011) in such a manner when it appears to have such basic errors elsewhere.


    So addressing what appear to be very basic errors:
    What relevant difference do you see between the World GDP data 1960-to-date presented by the World Bank and the GDP data used by Garrett (2011)? I see none. What technical issue have I managed to overlook?
    I did point to why CO2 was an important variable in Garrett (2011). Look no further than the title! And you reinforce that importance by criticising "Koomey and Cullenward" for not being "climate experts". The CO2 relationship is certainly is no straw man.
    As a sop to your criticism that Garrett (2011) solely considers energy use, I append to the graphic of CO2-rise v World GDP a graph of World primary energy v World GDP (two clicks to download, normally). The trace is evidently not straight but curving down towards the horizontal. The assertion in Garrett (2011) that the Garrett Relationship (Primary Energy = f[GDP]) is linear +/-3% is evidently wrong. Note that the final decade of data graphed slopes just 43% of the initial decade forty years before. That is rather a lot. (And note that within the first paragraph @26 your description of this Garrett Relationship and its employment is entirely garbled.)

    Turning to your second paragraph, any difficulties in the assessment of annual CO2 emissions is not an issue here. You will note that I have been graphing MLO CO2, the ESRL data which is indistinguishable from the Keeling curve you recommend.
    And while Garrett (2011) does not use CO2-rise in its Garrett Relationship, the whole relevance of that Relationship is set out in terms of rising atmospheric CO2 levels. The CO2/GDP ratio is is dipping down toward the hirizontal. And so too is your much-vaunted GR if it is analysed properly. I see no other conclusion.

  12. Comprehensive study: carbon taxes won't hamper the economy

    I'm continually puzzled why people insist on mis-representing what Garrett's work shows, despite his patient rebuttal to Cullenward, Koomey, and despite my doing the same here. The graph that MA Roger links to above is GDP vs CO2. The Garrett Relation does NOT make a statement about GDP, but instead the total integrated global GDP over all history. And it does NOT make a statement about CO2, it instead says the current POWER (from any source, renewable or not) is proportional to time-integrated GDP. Stop constructing a phony straw man in order to justify dismissing the work, it only shows a lack of objectivity. It is the GR as stated above which is included in the forward projections curves, and those curves have a wide range of possible civilization resiliance to climate change crippling, and decarbonization rates. The point is that all of them show rising CO2 because we cannot accomplish anything, and for a given assumed growth rate of "Wealth"(=time integrated global GDP), more reslient civilization means HIGHER atmospheric CO2. Those curves are including decarbonization. Note that FF's have remained 87% of our global energy mix since 1973 right up through 2015. You have failed to justify why economists (not thermodynamics experts and not climate experts) Koomey and Cullenward's wrong-headed and dismissive commentary should not itself be dismissed. I've not found any substantive criticism of Garrett's work - only straw-man snipe'ing such as I am now seeing here.

    As to Garrett's comment "It looks unlikely that there will be any substantial near-term departure from the recently observed aceleration in CO2 emission rates", there was a flattening in REPORTED emission rates in the '14/'15 area, but (1) China has been caught under-reporting their emissions (look it up!), (2) China goes through 5-year cycles of overbuilding (think "Ghost Cities") and then fallow periods, and you must average over those. (3) Look at the Keeling Curve, updated almost daily, at their website. It is as smooth an exponential as anyone could hope. (4) Even if CO2 emission rates take a meaningful turn downward and stay down as we more dramatically go towards renewables, that does not violate the work. The Garrett Relation is between ENERGY and TIME INTEGRATED GDP, it is not with FOSSIL FUEL ENERGY.  So yes, a log/log plot shows how closely atmospheric CO2 has followed GDP, but Garrett himself puts no importance on this, it's really just a statement that since virtually all of our energy has been FF energy, then there's not much surprise at the close correlation. If we make FF's a strongly diminishing part of the energy mix, neither he nor  I nor anyone else would be surpised to see that curve start to bend.

  13. Comprehensive study: carbon taxes won't hamper the economy

    This thread has seen a lot of blather on the subject of Garrett (2011) 'Are there basic physical constraints on future anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide?'   which has been seemingly shoddily treated by its publishers. Yet, if Garrett (2011) had merit, the author should simply have addressed the criticisms of Cullenward et al (2011) and Scher & Koomey (2011). I do not see evidence of such work. Indeed, the content of Garrett is very poor and should never have been published. In my view it is simple nonsense cloaked by scientific smoke & mirrors with no merit what ever.

    While the major conclusion of Garrett (2011) is the GDP/Energy-Use relationship, its title sets out an that it is examining projections of CO2 emissions and proclaims "it looks unlikely that there will be any substantial near-term departure from recently observed acceleration in CO2 emission rates" a message that is evidently wrong. The GDP/dCO2 relationship is far from linear. The level has halved 1985-2017 relative to 1960-85. See here a graph (usually 2 clicks to 'download your attachment') of MLO CO2 increases ploted against World Bank global GDP. And even the GDP/Energy-Use relationship is far less linear than Garrett (2011) asserts, the relationship seeing an 8% drop 1985-2017 relatibe to 1965-85. An 8% drop is way outside the findings of Garrett (2011). So how can Garrett (2011) be anything other than nonsense?

  14. Comprehensive study: carbon taxes won't hamper the economy

    To Scaddenp entry #68. Nowhere does Garrett or I adopt BAU as the inevitable. Again, the renewables fraction is a tunable parameter. So is the resiliance of civilization to the ravages of CO2-linked climate change. What is constrained, is that energy efficiencies permit and enable economic growth and that that growth WILL be engaged in. Neither as individuals nor as nations nor as a globe, do we take savings from our efficiencies and then burn those savings. And all spending results in encumbering future ongoing power consumption. Yes, I too once felt this must contradict the reality of improving energy efficiencies. But I was wrong. It does not. The details are in my .pdf already linked. The Garrett Relation's constancy is consistent with constantly improving energy efficiency as long as the rate of improved efficiency is less than the rate of economic growth. That indeed is what has happened. We put a portion of our economic growth into finding new efficiencies, but we prefer to enjoy a lot of our new-found efficiency-gained cash in other ways as well. And what about in recessions? The math says that improving energy efficiency will be scuttled in favor of just supporting against decay what we already have. And that too is what history shows. While individual country data doesn't really tell a true tale, so many people seem to want  to consider the US, that I'll relate the following anyway. Since 1960 the efficiency with which a joule of energy can generate a dollar of GDP has improved a stunning 63%. Has this resulted in a reduction in our power consumption rate? Not even close! Our power consumption has gone UP by 300%. What do we do when we are given new cash from our efficiencies? WE SPEND IT! It's as simple as that, and hard to see how that will change w/o repressive government intervention - which would seem quite unlikely to be tolerated, frankly.

  15. Comprehensive study: carbon taxes won't hamper the economy

    To Scaddenp; the point of Garrett's work vs the SRES scenarios, is that the SRES scenarios show fantasic economic growth and no consequences in CO2 harming the economy. No appreciation of what people do with savings, with efficiency gains. I call it "checkers thinking" vs "chess thinking" or "reflexivity" if you like George Soros' formulation of the concept. "Checkers thinking" assumes that if you improve the efficiency of some process, that the savings in energy is a pure gain and is not re-spent elsewhere. That's not what history shows. There's no appreciation in the SRES scenarios of how Draconian must be the constraints on global freedoms and desires in order to actually make happen the curves they simply cobble together as "representative". If we're to remain true to human civilization and human nature as it actually is, then realize that savings will be spent, or worse - leveraged with debt and THEN spent, so we're spending the present and future generations resources to fund what we spend it on. All spending makes "order" out of "disorder" which then must be continually supported with future energy to preserve against the 2nd law of Thermodynamics. Economic growth must be powered and that power must begin 87% as FF energy, and then try to decarbonize from there, but decarbonizing itself will take much energy to accomplish - FF energy. We're in a difficult place, to have to support 7.5 billion who have currently been supported by constantly increasing CO2 emissions, in some other non-CO2 generating way. It's not just me, now, that is recognizing the absurdity of these rosy scenarios. A new entry here is the work of Dunlop, Spratt, and Schellnhuber  https://www.commondreams.org/news/2018/08/20/we-are-climbing-rapidly-out-humankinds-safe-zone-new-report-warns-dire-climate

  16. Comprehensive study: carbon taxes won't hamper the economy

    To Michael Sweet's disparaging comment. Clearly you have no interest in actually reading the criticism. Otherwise you would notice that the criticism showed the reviewer hadn't even bothered to understand that the Power/Wealth=constant) relationship defines Wealth as an integral over all time, NOT current GDP! That changes everything. Your comment likewise shows no interest in actually understanding this issue, but only band-wagon hopping on invalid criticisms. I too started out thinking Garrett must be a dismissable "apocalypto" when I hadn't actually read and digested his work, given that I heard about it from Uber Apocalypto (of no credibility) Guy McPherson. With "friends" like McPherson, who needs enemies? I think McPherson's hyping (w/o understanding even what a "heat engine" is) Garrett's work simply because it sounds apocalyptic enough to "support" McPherson's agenda, is a real problem for having Garrett's work digested for what is actually says and shows.

  17. Comprehensive study: carbon taxes won't hamper the economy

    In your example, when the large majority of the integral has already been accumulated, then the ratio can't change much. However, this is not the case with global GDP. It is HEAVILY weighted towards the present. Most of the sum total of all civilizations GDP since cave-man days, has happened since 1970. So the argument above doesn't carry much weight. It is indeed still remarkable that the ratio is so constant during a period when there has been such radical changes in society, in oil prices, in population, in technology, in everything.... and during a time when most of the total GDP every generated was in fact generated.

  18. 2018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #34

    Just to note for some geographical accuracy that NSW is NOT in northern or western Australia. It is in south eastern Australia. Fire patterns are changing differently across different parts of Australia as one might expect in a continent that streches from the tropics to cold temperate environments. And despite our Federal Government (once again in unbelievable termoil and still dominated by climate change deniers), individuals, some State governments and commercial interests are very rapidly building billions of dollars worth of renewable power generators including solar, wind, solar thermal,  many linked to battery storage or pumped water systems. 

  19. Comprehensive study: carbon taxes won't hamper the economy

    Indy222, If I have understood your statement of the Garrett relationship, then I am still not certain it is saying very much.

    Take an exponential series. eg y1=a*EXP(b*t) (ie GDP)

    Take y2 as a linear relation of y1 eg y2 = c*y2 + d (Power)

    Divide the Integral of y1 wrt t by y2 and the result converges towards constant. Rate of convergence dependent on relative values of b and c.

    And no, I havent looked at this rigorously from mathematical viewpoint but it looks suspicious to me.

  20. 2018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #34

    Aus is such a disappointment.  If there is one country in the world that could rapidly and completely become carbon neutral it is Australia.  Their resources of wind and solar are unmatched anywhere in the world.  There is one ring that controls them all and if we don't get this one sorted, none of the rest will bear fruit.  We must get vested interest money out of politics.  "Who Pays the Piper Calls the Tune" was never as true as in politics.  As long as the coal industry and others are financing the politicians, why we surprised that they do their bidding.

  21. Sunshine Blogger Award

    There is no possible way that climate change denial will be gone by 2023. Humanity's refusal to accept inconvenient truths is very strong. Or as David K said, the ability to avoid reality is amazing. Just think about the fact that we're still debating evolution.

    I estimate that it will take until the mid 2030s before climate change denial is no longer significant.

  22. Sunshine Blogger Award

    Prior to the creation of SkS, there was no accessible resource explaining what the peer-reviewed scientific research says about the many popular climate myths.

    Well, prior to SkS there was Coby's Beck's blog, A FewThings I'll-Considered, which had a pretty big debunking list and quite a bit of reference to peer-reviewed lit for a layman. IIRC I found my way to SkS through Coby (or Realclimate, who referenced his old and new blog, too).

    Coby moved his debunk articles to here in 2008.

    Congrats on the nomination. And I'd second a nomination for Tamino.

  23. 2018 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #34

    A couple of your facebook articles have a message when connected together. The Democrats back down on refusing to accept campaign donations from the fossil fuel industry is indeed unfortunate. Perhaps they could learn a bitter lesson from Malcolm Turnball, who has abandoned climate change targets. Despite this compromise to try to please right wing factions, he has still lost the job of prime minister.

    This is what happens when politicians are weak, and give away their core positions. They get no respect for this. It looks to me like the Democrats are also trying to please everyone, and will end up pleasing nobody.

  24. citizenschallenge at 00:54 AM on 26 August 2018
    Climate change and wildfires – how do we know if there is a link?

    "I agree those of us talking about the dangers of climate change have to try to lead by example."  

    This argument is like being caught stealing and responding with the defense, well the president steals all the time.

    It's a cheap Republican rhetorical diversion.  

    How much of a hypocritical energy pig, or saint, you or I am - has absolutely nothing to do with recognizing and accepting the sober facts of manmade global warmer.  NOTHING!

    I just finished a pretty good (other's judgement) essay that explores this issue a bit more concretely

    The missing key to Stephen Gould’s “Nonoverlapping Magisteria.”

    “… missing was a much more fundamental division crying out for recognition.  Specifically, the magisteria of Physical Reality vs. the magisteria of our Human Mindscape. …”

    http://citizenschallenge.blogspot.com/2018/08/key-to-nonoverlapping-magisterium.html

    (@ 22, Santa Rosa, CA)

  25. citizenschallenge at 00:36 AM on 26 August 2018
    Climate change and wildfires – how do we know if there is a link?

    Having been close witness to the Durango, Colorado area fires, Missionary Ridge 2002, this summer the 416 Fire (witnessed initial fire on both, from a distance that is), also the Burro Fire and the slightly more distant The Plateau and West Guard Fires north of Dolores.

    One of the fire obvious observations is that the warmer it gets the greater the afternoon flare up and fire growth.  The colder the nights, the slower the next morning's fire's return to actively growing.

    The rapid ignitions are again aways related to heat, dryness, wind.  Think San Rosa fire, or the 416, where a home owner saw ignition within moments and they had a small fire appliance spraying water within 5-10minutes, but the hot wind and steep slope made this Steam Train (DSNGRR) Boiler klinker started fire different from the dozens of other similiar fire starts in that area (steep uphill pull, pouring on the coals) over the past decade.  

    Interestingly, three additional smaller fires within sight of our cabin that were contained within a couple days±, all started in the afternoon with cooling temps, and a night for initial ground attack and preparation for the next day's fire fighter assault.  (Those guys/gals do do incredibly good work) 

    Hmmm, how will a warming drying climate impact future wild fires?

  26. citizenschallenge at 23:59 PM on 25 August 2018
    New research, August 5-12, 2018

    Ari Jokimäki, used to be a trickle, now its torrent, yet somehow awareness (or is it interest) seems to be going down.

    Makes me think of the observation: "Buy 'em books and buy 'em books and all they do is eat the covers."

    Well if nothing else you continue creating a excellent one stop resource for the few who want to become informed. 

    Thank  you !

  27. Comprehensive study: carbon taxes won't hamper the economy

    Indy222,

    A blog post from Tim Garrott whining about how badly he was treated is hardly proof that he was poorly treated.  His paper was published.  The reviewers thought his work was crap and wrote opposing views.  That is how science works.

    Sounds to me like few experts thing Garrotts work is worth considering.

  28. Comprehensive study: carbon taxes won't hamper the economy

    Thanks for that clarification. However, I do not understand your point about the SRES scenarios. Climate models by nature evaluate "given forcing x, then is the climate you will get". The scenarios are to help evaluate the consequences of particular policy actions. If you do BAU, you get this - widely criticized as being too unlikely but you seem to believe the only one possible? - if we implement reductions on CO2, then we get this. With regard to the GR, nowhere do I see a suggestion that power consumption is reduced in the scenarios- only that we change from FF to other means of generation.

    Of course, if want to argue that shouldnt attempt change because history suggests we cant, then that would be a perfectly self-fulfilling prophesy. In 1700, couldnt you make the same argument about the need for horses?

  29. Welcome to the Pliocene

    "is there a simple elevator answer to a question why was the mid-holocene 0.6 to 0.9 degrees warmer than the pre-industrial...when the CO2 was a bit lower"


    Orbital forcing peaked in the early Holocene and has declined since.  Less energy went into melting ice, and into warming the oceans, slowing the rate of ice sheet mass losses and slowing the rising of sea levels.

    Orbital Forcings

    Larger Image

     


    "the mid-holocene sea level vs now is shown as N/A which I understand to mean not-applicable probably (I'm guessing) meaning the difference was < 1 metre, but do we have any more precise idea what it was? — I'm guessing lower than now because it wasn't quite as warm, but by an amount < 1 metre , or by an amount within the range of error so we don't really know more than it was about the same"


    Typically, when climate scientists try to understand some of the expected future effects of global warming and climate change, they first look to the past. And in looking to the past, we can use the example of the climate transition from the icy depths of the Last Glacial Maximum into our current Holocene Interglacial to guide us. From about 21,000 years Before Present (BP) to about 11,700 years BP, the Earth warmed about 4 degrees C and the oceans rose (with a slight lag after the onset of the warming) about 85 meters.

    However, the sea level response continued to rise another 45 meters, to a total of 130 meters (from its initial level before warming began), reaching its modern level about 3,000 BP.

    This means that, even after temperatures reached their maximum and leveled off, the ice sheets continued to melt for another 7,000-8,000 years until they reached an equilibrium with temperatures.

    Stated another way, the ice sheet response to warming continued for 7,000-8,000 years after warming had already leveled off, with the meltwater contribution to global sea levels totaling 45 additional meters of SLR.

    Which brings us to our modern era of today: over the past 100 years, global temperatures have risen about 1 degree C…with sea level response to that warming totaling about 150 mm.

    Recently, accelerations in SLR and in ice sheet mass losses have been detected, which is what you’d expect to happen when the globe warms, based on our understanding of the previous history of the Earth and our understanding of the physics of climate.

    Shakun12-Marcott13-Shakun15-Clark16

    Bigger Image

    Sources for my SLR commentary:


    1. Shakun et al 2012 - Global warming preceded by increasing carbon dioxide concentrations during the last deglaciation


    2. Marcott et al 2013 - A Reconstruction of Regional and Global Temperature for the Past 11,300 Years


    3. Shakun et al 2015 - Regional and global forcing of glacier retreat during the last deglaciation


    4. Clark et al 2016 - Consequences of twenty-first-century policy for multi-millennial climate and sea-level change

  30. Welcome to the Pliocene

    is there a simple elevator answer to a question why was the mid-holocene 0.6 to 0.9 degrees warmer than the pre-industrial (if I'm reading the chart right) when the CO2 was a bit lower (260 ppm vs 280 ppm)? ... less volcanoes?

    as a supplementary the mid-holocene sea level vs now is shown as N/A which I understand to mean not-applicable probably (I'm guessing) meaning the difference was < 1 metre, but do we have any more precise idea what it was? — I'm guessing lower than now because it wasn't quite as warm, but by an amount < 1 metre , or by an amount within the range of error so we don't really know more than it was about the same (I recall somone'e lecture about Roman fish tanks implying sea level about the same as now)

  31. Comprehensive study: carbon taxes won't hamper the economy

    Michael Sweet, here's a link to the rather outrageous (and unfair to an author) treatment he's received on his work on Civilization as a thermodynamic system,

    LINK

    Moderator Response:

    [DB] Shortened URL and activated hyperlink.  You can do this too, using the insert/edit link tool, to avoid long links breaking page formatting.

  32. Comprehensive study: carbon taxes won't hamper the economy

    scaddenp, Understand what the Garrett Relation says.

    the GR is not: Current GDP is proportional to Current power consumption rate

    the GR is not: total summed GDP is proportional to total summed past power consumption

    Both of the above are completely false....

    The GR is: Today's global power consumption rate (about 18 TW) is directly proportional to the summed total inflation-adjusted Gross World Product over the entire history of civilization.

    What my work shows, (so far, only published in my powerpoint I show to my students, linked previously, and includes a linear graph of the GR and components of it) is that this proportionality is even closer if you add back in the "shadow economy" that is missing from GDP figures, and if you attempt to correct for the bias in CPI inflation which, while not numerically well-agreed upon in studies, is at least well-argued and calculated to be higher than official figures (it saves governments COLA money to those massive unfunded liabilities). I've been conservative in using only the MIT Business School's "Billion Prices Project" correction.  Garrett's original figures use officially reported GDP deflator values from the World Bank. Pretty safe, but may not do justice to the constancy of the (Current Power)/(total time-integrated GWP + shadow economy spending) ratio's constancy and how well it agrees with theoretical thermodynamic reasoning.Frankly, these corrections to the original ratio are both very small compared to the large changes in civilization wealth, power, FF use, oil prices...    And the original GR as plotted by Garrett is still quite flat over time, within data errors.

    Again, constantly improving energy efficiency is not inconsistent with the GR constancy. But if the GR is a true property of the human + physics nature of things, and can be relied upon to remain true in the future, it really points to a glaring inconsistency in the (UN politically directed) IPCC SRES scenarios, which basically invent, (whole-cloth!),  economic and power trends cobbled simply to get a total specified climate forcing, without any appreciation of the connections between population, energy consumption rates, and GWP. And compound those flaws by then adding in massive atmospheric CO2 removal later in the century in order to produce the UN politically desired "carbon budgets" which clearly make no sense. Economic growth at the rates the IPCC SRES scenarios show are only consistent with MUCH higher atmospheric CO2 concentrations, unrealistic in that such high CO2 will cause such crippling climate change as to (in the words of James Hansen) make the world "ungovernable", and that is NOT an environment of economic growth, but instead rapid decay. 

  33. Comprehensive study: carbon taxes won't hamper the economy

    indy222, I will defer happily to you on any matter of economics, but the plot that I dont understand the power to weath relation, where my graph showed decreasing trends not a flat line. I am not reproducing the Garrett plot.

  34. Comprehensive study: carbon taxes won't hamper the economy

    I don't know which plot you're referring to. The CO2/GDP plot that JevonsRevenge put in, but which is not fundamental nor relevant for the Garrett Relation? The Garrett Relation plot from my grab of original data from the sources given in my pdf linked earlier, shows it to be quite similar to Garrett's for the data range he had then, and which is even flatter when biases are corrected for, as I describe in my pdf.   You might check to see if the worldindata source is using MER (market exchange rates) or PPP (purchasing power parity) accounting to combine countries and get a global GDP. As I argue, Garrett correctly used MER accounting. Some sources may use PPP accounting, but that doesn't properly reflect the value of future civilization network building, key to understanding the energy implications contained in the Garrett Relation. You must use PRIMARY energy (different than some measures, e.g. electricity, other forms of processed energy) and you must use MER accounting. These are the measures which reflect the true cost and the true GDP relevant for energy consumption.

  35. Comprehensive study: carbon taxes won't hamper the economy

    indy222, you insert links and images via the toolbar in the "Insert" tab of the comments editor.

    My problem is reconciling the graph I constructed from worldindata (which at its base is not too different in source from that used by Garrett) with Garrett's plot.

    Also important from the climate perspective, is that while increasing wealth requires increasing energy use, the energy does not have to come from FF.

  36. Comprehensive study: carbon taxes won't hamper the economy

    scaddenp Thank you for taking this seriously, and setting me straight in a calm, professional manner, despite my unabashed arrogance. I feel a freedom I have not felt since I first stumbled upon Garrett's work years ago.

  37. Comprehensive study: carbon taxes won't hamper the economy

    And note that my graph is linear, not log.

  38. Comprehensive study: carbon taxes won't hamper the economy

    scaddenp, it doesn't look like you even noted how flat the ratio is on the log plot. Over a time when GDP more than doubled and Power more than doubled, and we went through big oil price spikes, plunges, recessions, transformations from a US/Europe dominated world to an Asian one... the Power/Wealth ratio stays within a band only 16% wide and that is easily within the (unstated - what's wrong with economists anyway??) error confidence of the World Bank data. Yours is just not a valid complaint here. You want to see the graph with full spending, including the "shadow economy", and a conservative correction for the under-stated inflation? It's all within a band of only 13%, and the first and last year's data is on top of each other. See slide 238 from LINK      Sorry, but I don't see how to insert a .jpg into these responses, only URL's.

    Moderator Response:

    [DB] Shortened link and activated hyperlink.

  39. Comprehensive study: carbon taxes won't hamper the economy

    The graph trick applies to the ratio of power to GDP. Use Log to make numbers small and then use axis range much large than range of value to claim something is constant.

  40. Comprehensive study: carbon taxes won't hamper the economy

    Here's my last comment for now. Even people who sort of accept that improving efficiency may help us grow, don't quite appreciate exactly how close the relationship is. Realize that it is the actual putting into practice the new energy efficiency that CAUSES the spurt in growth and hence the spurt in total energy consumption. We're like the not-too-bright donkey who's owner on his back is dangling a carrot on a stick and string a foot in front of his nose. Every gallop forward only carries the carrot farther in front to make a mockery of his efforts. Every instance of growth encumbers ongoing new power to support that negative entropy growth in the ordered system called Civilization, AND, it also makes us bigger, badder, better at accessing NEW energy reserves and we take full advantage of that. CO2 emissions grew 2% last year, and are expected to grow another 2% this year, and again in '19. Hence accelerates our energy consumption in total. That's what history shows, right up to the present. And for decades now, the fraction of that energy consumed which must be carbon emitting, has not improved. A constant fraction of an exponentially rising total primary energy consumption, is an exponentially rising CO2 emission rate, and an upward arcing atmospheric CO2 - which is exactly what we see right up through the present moment. We're not decarbonizing anywhere near fast enough to change this. And, if we tried, we'd have to work HARDER, and that means spending MORE energy to accomplish that mission, and that means MORE CO2 emissions to get to a day of smaller fraction of CO2 energy sometime in the future. We're between a rock and a very hard place.

         I'm not arguing against trying to improve energy efficiency. But it's not our salvation. We've done it forever, and it's only gotten us to this very frightening place. We need improving energy efficiency AND Tibetan-monk level belt-tightening in our consumption at the same time. BOTH. Channeling every dollar not essential for survival, into decarbonizing.

  41. Comprehensive study: carbon taxes won't hamper the economy

    Equally vital to understand, is that this "Garrett Relation" is ONLY applicable to GLOBAL power and global spending. California is meaningless. So is the U.S., So is Europe. Only the total globe is relevant. Trade in materials, energy, money across borders render looking at individual countries or continents meaningless. They are not "closed systems" and don't obey simple thermodynamics. But then, ths same is true of CO2, which is well-mixed and climate too is a completely GLOBAL phenomenon. We NEED to consider both CO2 and economics only in a global context. You'll fool yourself if you try to make generalizations based on regional data. There's a perfect correlation between the fraction amount of our manufacturing which we've outsourced to China and the apparent improvements in our efficiency of GDP per unit of power. Very convenient - China gets the bad rap and the CO2 guilt, and we get the rosy-looking energy graphs as their goods come back to the U.S.    See....  LINK

    Next, realize that achieving energy efficiency is not new. We've been continually and strongly and consistently improving the efficiency with which energy produces wealth. It is not in conflict with the Garrett Relation (GR). As long as global GDP is growing faster than energy efficiency, there need be no conflict between constantly improving energy efficiency and Power/Wealth=Constant. What's really interesting is that if you look at recessions, when d(GDP/dt is negative, then to be consistent with the GR then energy efficiency trends must reverse and get worse. What's interesting is that the "fake data" from China during their economic contractions shows exactly this. Overstated GDP (for political reasons) makes their local Power/Wealth look better than it is. Even taking the official World Bank figures at face value shows that energy efficiency improvements halt during each of the recessions of the past 30 years over which they give data. Again, those figures are in the pdf of the powerpoints presentation I have on this subject       LINK

    Moderator Response:

    [DB] Shortened URL and activated hyperlink.

  42. Comprehensive study: carbon taxes won't hamper the economy

    Let me clear up the misunderstanding. Cullenward's bogus criticism only betrays that he didn't pay attention while reading Garrett's paper(s). The "Garrett Relation" that "Power/Wealth= Constant" means the following: "The global Current Power Consumption rate is directly proportional to the sum total of all GWP spending over all time (==Wealth)". Cullenward assumed he was saying that GWP is proportional to power. But that's false, it's the SUM TOTAL of ALL GWP over ALL TIME, that is proportional to current power. I am writing a paper with Tim Garrett as co-author which shows that this relation is even better obeyed than Garrett's original paper showed, as there are sublties to how inflation is corrected, how different currencies are calibrated, about the "shadow economy", and a bias in GDP reporting from big countries like China which skew official figures as well. Don't confuse the fundamental "Garrett Relation" with the much less significant CO2 vs GDP graph. That graph Garrett himself down-plays,  but it's interesting as a visual proof at how badly we're doing in de-carbonizing. Back to the Garrett Relation; Jevons' Revenge (my term, I hope it catches on, to distinguish from the original "Jevons' Paradox" by Jevons himself, which is more restricted and so not relevant here) says that all improvements in energy efficiency result in MORE total energy being consumed. Because human civilization is driven (genetically?) by the goal to achieve the most rapid, efficient growth possible, and improving energy efficiency aids the expansion of civilization. The point of Jevons' Revenge is that any savings resulting from energy efficiency WILL BE SPENT, and it doesn't matter where, because the Garrett Relation shows that ALL spending sum totalled over all time, remains proportional to current energy consumption rates.  It is explicitly in the mathematics of the CThERM model which includes the Garrett Relation and which is very well verified in historical data right up to the present. Now, the carbonization of energy is a parameter in the model which you can tune any way you feel is realistic, but Garrett has made a few projections under the assumption of (A) no decarbonization (that has been the history of the 21st century so far) and (B) decarbonize exponentially with a halving time of 50 years; meaning the CO2 emissions per joule of energy expended, is cut in half every 50 years. Both result, with a wide range of assumptions of the resiliencey of civilizataion to the decays caused by climate change, to increasing CO2 at different rates. If we REALLY got serious, we could do better than t(1/2)=50yrs, but so far, we're doing nothing remotely like this. FF's are still growing at an absolute rate that is about equal to that of renewables, so that the % of global energy from FF's has remained about 83% the entire 21st century so far.

  43. Comprehensive study: carbon taxes won't hamper the economy

    scaddenp This, he claims to be a linear plot of the same data. Is the same trick present here?

    LINK

    Moderator Response:

    [DB] Shortened URL and activated link.  Reduced image width.

  44. Comprehensive study: carbon taxes won't hamper the economy

    Jevons, the energy production has increased and it mostly comes from FF, then CO2 of course continues to rise. The ratio of power to wealth however is about how efficiently we generate wealth from that power. Those graphs show we are getting much more efficient at generating wealth from power. Also, the longer time interval gives a better perpective.

    Looking at Garret's graph, I havent tried to reproduce from his sources, but I note that he is plotting power/wealth on a log axis which covers a much larger range than the actual data. In short, a well-known graphing trick.

    Frankly, I think my plot is better.

  45. Comprehensive study: carbon taxes won't hamper the economy

    @michael sweet Thank you for sharing Cullenward et al's criticism! The last time I tried accessing it, all but the abstract was hidden behind a paywall. I look forward to reviewing these criticisms.

  46. Comprehensive study: carbon taxes won't hamper the economy

    Jevons Revenge,

    Perhaps the extra CO2 is coming from thawing permafrost, methane clathrate decompositon or released by forest fires.  There is no reason to believe that nature will continue to absorb all we emit at the same rate.

    This SkS article indicates that we may be near, or already past, a point where the climate tips against us and natural releases of CO2 control the temprature no matter what we do.

  47. Comprehensive study: carbon taxes won't hamper the economy

    Jevon's revenge,

    Tim Garrett, the author of the blog you cite, has had a lot of criticsm of his work.  Since he also claims that humans cannot affect the climate, in contradiction to what anyone who reads the newspaper can currently see, perhaps his data is off.  I note that your graph at 43 is truncated at the year 2000.  Where I live it is 2018.  A lot of progress has been made in producing more GDP per unit energy since 2000.  Scaddenp's graph appears closer to what I would expect to see.

    Since he is not mentioned at Desmog Blog he must be a minor character in the Climate Debate.

  48. Comprehensive study: carbon taxes won't hamper the economy

    @scaddenp this is Garrett's original paper on the subject, detailing how the relation is derived: link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10584-009-9717-9

    Offhand, I know it used inflation-adjusted 1990 US dollars to calculate global wealth. It's also worth noting that China and several other developing nations have over-reported their respective GDPs and under-reported their energy usage. After all, the continued increases in atmospheric CO2 have to be coming from somewhere, right?

  49. Comprehensive study: carbon taxes won't hamper the economy

    Jevons Revenge,

    Since California only generates 1% of global CO2 source, how big of a dent do you expect to see?  Even if California completely stopped using fossil fuels it would be impossible to see on a graph of world emissions.   Is your question serious??

    In order to solve the CO2 problem everyone has to contribute.  Each countries emissions by itself does not make muc hdifference.  When the US refuses to control emissions it delays other countries emission reductions.  A classic tragedy of the commons.

  50. Comprehensive study: carbon taxes won't hamper the economy

    Trying a very quick Excel plot and using data from ourworldindata.org/ I do not reproduce your constant relationship between wealth and power. World GDP in 2011 international dollars, Energy is primary energy production. I get:

    Power to wealth

    I would say world is getting more efficient at using energy to create wealth and that ratio to fossil fuel is dropping more steeply than that of total energy use. What is the source of your data?

Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  Next



The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)

Smartphone Apps

iPhone
Android
Nokia

© Copyright 2018 John Cook
Home | Links | Translations | About Us | Contact Us