Please support this Forum and Neven's Blog

Author Topic: Money and Politics: The Drive for Climate Change Action  (Read 144942 times)

jai mitchell

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1735
    • View Profile
Re: Money and Politics: The Drive for Climate Change Action
« Reply #100 on: December 29, 2014, 12:58:47 AM »
Continued fossil fuel use and increasing wealth disparity are symptoms of the same cause

Wealth distribution and greenhouse gas emission are separate issues.  Let's make an attempt to understand the actual causes and not muddle things up by trying to create grand causes.

If you really look at what it will take to reduce GHG emissions globally by 80% you will find that it cannot happen unless massive wealth redistribution is also included.  (as your reference to lighting distributions/emissions implicates).

It also won't happen without massive governmental interventions in the function of markets, even to the point of nationalization and control of key GHG emission sectors (and associated price controls) along with rationing (beyond even the implementation of a carbon tax-a form of market-based rationing).

It is this reality that became apparent in the mid 2000's in the U.S. which then immediately marshalled the forces of entrenched corporate oligarchic institutions (think tanks, industry trade groups, PR firms and the media) to attack the science of climate change, culminating in the university of east anglica climate change email hack and media blitz that effectively killed (intentionally!) the larger discussion around climate change. 

If you are ideologically opposed to wealth redistribution and heavily regulated industries/markets, you have an almost 100% likelihood to disbelieve the science of climate change.
Haiku of Past Futures
My "burning embers"
are not tri-color bar graphs
+3C today

Sigmetnow

  • ASIF Royalty
  • Posts: 9112
    • View Profile
Re: Money and Politics: The Drive for Climate Change Action
« Reply #101 on: December 29, 2014, 01:53:57 AM »
Exactly how are burning fossil fuel and capitalism "symptoms of the same cause"?

Continued fossil fuel use and increasing wealth disparity are symptoms of the same cause, ie the complete domination and adherence to the neoclassical economic theory of endless growth. Capitalism is just the most efficient way to attain that. Communism tried the same, but wasn't efficient enough.

That mythical society in which each person is treated equally and no one makes any money from anything they own would still have burned coal and oil for energy until they learned that it was screwing them.

Exactly.
...

I have to go with Neven on this one.  Fossil fuels (industrialization) made immense wealth possible, and with it, towering inequality.  Raising up the poor by distributing solar lights has facilitated better education for children and enabled women to be come independent by starting their own small businesses.  Cleaner cook stoves improved the health of multiple generations of family members who spend much time at home.

Empowering women not only builds equality, but supports population control (when women can choose when/if to have children), and sustains personal wealth and health.  Healthy adults who know they will have an income in old age do not need to have many children to assure some survive to adulthood to take care of them.

So, non-capitalistic equality -- as in, for example, a guaranteed income for all citizens -- would improve population control, increase the market for clean energy over cheap carbon-intensive fuel, and thus provide climate action.  I forget which Scandinavian country, and which U.S. advisor, has talked seriously about providing every citizen with a guaranteed monthly income, but the idea is not as unheard-of as you might think.

And valuing everyone equally means no more dumping waste in the poor's back yard just because you can, or fracking anywhere you want because your company can buy off anyone you need to.  If it hurts one community, it hurts all.  Everyone would rise up against it and demand clean energy and clean industry.  Unlike capitalism....
People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.

Bob Wallace

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 2111
    • View Profile
Re: Money and Politics: The Drive for Climate Change Action
« Reply #102 on: December 29, 2014, 02:02:03 AM »
If you really look at what it will take to reduce GHG emissions globally by 80% you will find that it cannot happen unless massive wealth redistribution is also included.

I simply don't accept that claim.

The people who are now contributing CO2 and soot can replace their kero lanterns with solar lanterns/micro-solar for less than they now spend on kero.

The people who now use grid power can have their power supplied by renewables rather than fossil fuels and pay nothing more for electricity.  In fact, they will likely save money because they will have lower health costs.

We can all drive EVs and ride electric powered public transportation.

It also won't happen without massive governmental interventions in the function of markets, even to the point of nationalization and control of key GHG emission sectors (and associated price controls) along with rationing (beyond even the implementation of a carbon tax-a form of market-based rationing).

I don't buy that claim.  We are right now seeing renewable energy pricing dropping below the cost of new fossil fuel generation.  As coal plants wear out the market will pick the least expensive replacement.

Efficiency is happening simply because efficiency saves money and increases profits.

Whether the market will operate fast enough to avoid extreme climate change is a separate issue.

It is this reality that became apparent in the mid 2000's in the U.S. ....

Yes, a few years back the fossil fuel industry realized that their future was endangered by emerging renewable energy and they mounted a strong defense of their profits.

If you are ideologically opposed to wealth redistribution and heavily regulated industries/markets, you have an almost 100% likelihood to disbelieve the science of climate change.

You could be heavily invested in renewable energy and be opposed wealth redistribution.  Lots of people are greedy.

I would suggest that there are many wealthy people who understand climate change ("believe") but still fight to maintain their profits from dirty energy.  Just because one understands that their behavior harms others does not mean that they automatically change their behavior.

Lots of people are greedy.

 

jai mitchell

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1735
    • View Profile
Re: Money and Politics: The Drive for Climate Change Action
« Reply #103 on: December 29, 2014, 03:50:06 AM »
Bob,

You are right, we don't need market controls and nationalization of GHG emitting sources.  we can let the free market drive all transitions to a carbon free economy.  In fact, we already know that at current projections, solar and wind will likely generation almost 1/2 of all U.S. energy by 2040.

Electric vehicles are becoming more cost effective, the prices are going down radically.  It is likely that by 2020 there will be between 350,000 and 500,000 plug-in electric vehicles in California alone.  (there are 13.2 million cars in the state right now)  California is an early adopter state. 

I guess then that, in the United States alone, we could move to an effective transition of total GHG reductions within the next 50 or so years. Probably reducing our total footprint of GHGs by almost 50% by 2070.

Under this scenario we will also achieve total societal collapse sometime around then as well due to massive heat waves, sea level rise, floods, droughts and catastrophic storms, the collapse of agriculture and wars cause by regional destabilization all over the globe.
Haiku of Past Futures
My "burning embers"
are not tri-color bar graphs
+3C today

Bob Wallace

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 2111
    • View Profile
Re: Money and Politics: The Drive for Climate Change Action
« Reply #104 on: December 29, 2014, 04:32:33 AM »
Bob,

You are right, we don't need market controls and nationalization of GHG emitting sources.  we can let the free market drive all transitions to a carbon free economy.  In fact, we already know that at current projections, solar and wind will likely generation almost 1/2 of all U.S. energy by 2040.

Electric vehicles are becoming more cost effective, the prices are going down radically.  It is likely that by 2020 there will be between 350,000 and 500,000 plug-in electric vehicles in California alone.  (there are 13.2 million cars in the state right now)  California is an early adopter state. 

I guess then that, in the United States alone, we could move to an effective transition of total GHG reductions within the next 50 or so years. Probably reducing our total footprint of GHGs by almost 50% by 2070.

Under this scenario we will also achieve total societal collapse sometime around then as well due to massive heat waves, sea level rise, floods, droughts and catastrophic storms, the collapse of agriculture and wars cause by regional destabilization all over the globe.


You may or may not be right.  There's this opinion...

“A leaked draft of the (IPCC) report sent to governments in December suggests that in order to keep global temperature increases below 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 F) by the end of the century — the stated goal of international climate talks — emissions need to fall by 40-70 percent by 2050.”

http://www.evwind.es/2014/04/05/what-is-the-future-of-fossil-fuel/44609


The IPCC seems to not agree with you that hitting a 50% reduction by 2070 would the end of the world as we know it.  It would put us at greater risk but the probability is something less than 1.00.

It would be, IMHO, foolish to aim at only a 40% reduction by 2050.  Never aim low when in danger.

Perhaps you noticed what I wrote...

Whether the market will operate fast enough to avoid extreme climate change is a separate issue.


I can't tell you whether we would hit 40% by 2050 with market forces alone.  I suspect we would.  That would be 35 years of replacing worn out coal plants with renewables and 35 years of wind and solar taking market share away from more expensive natural gas.  It's also fairly likely that ICEVs will be a niche market 35 years from now.

To be safe we probably will need more than market forces alone.

Where I find myself in high disagreement with you is in your "statements of fact".

If you really look at what it will take to reduce GHG emissions globally by 80% you will find that it cannot happen unless massive wealth redistribution is also included.


It also won't happen without massive governmental interventions in the function of markets, even to the point of nationalization and control of key GHG emission sectors (and associated price controls) along with rationing (beyond even the implementation of a carbon tax-a form of market-based rationing).

Under this scenario we will also achieve total societal collapse sometime around then as well due to massive heat waves, sea level rise, floods, droughts and catastrophic storms, the collapse of agriculture and wars cause by regional destabilization all over the globe.



What is it likely to take is continued improvements in renewable energy which will lead to further cost reductions and faster uptake.  It may also take a modest governmental thumb on the scale in the form of a price on carbon or cap and trade system to accelerate the changeover.

We have a task ahead of ourselves.  We aren't well served by over-claims and hyperbole.

jai mitchell

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1735
    • View Profile
Re: Money and Politics: The Drive for Climate Change Action
« Reply #105 on: December 29, 2014, 05:40:58 AM »
We have a task ahead of ourselves.  We aren't well served by over-claims and hyperbole.

The "conservative scientist" and the "IPCC as Suicide Pact" threads contain significant information that shows the IPCC claims are severely understated.

for instance, the IPCC does not include carbon cycle feedbacks, expect a summer sea ice loss to not occur this century, instead of 2035 which is likely (leading to a radiative forcing equal to a doubling of CO2) and it doesn't include carbon produced by decomposing permafrost.  If you include these and other factors (acidification of oceans reducing aerosols, loss of boreal and amazon forests. . .etc) you will find that AT CURRENT LEVELS we have locked in over 2.3C of warming by 2100.

------------

As I said, you have obviously not given this too much thought.  please describe to me the out of pocket costs necessary to produce the 80% emissions reductions by 2040 that must be performed while also accommodating mass migrations, total reformation of food production and distribution infrastructure as well as a 25% increase in water capture and distribution capacity AND a wholescale residential housing stock building envelope refurbishment program to compensate for heatwaves in much of the U.S.

Also include infrastructure developments to adapt to rising sea levels and the costs associated with dealing with regional climate driven destabilization/conflicts throughout the globe

Haiku of Past Futures
My "burning embers"
are not tri-color bar graphs
+3C today

Bob Wallace

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 2111
    • View Profile
Re: Money and Politics: The Drive for Climate Change Action
« Reply #106 on: December 29, 2014, 05:51:21 AM »
please describe to me the out of pocket costs necessary to produce the 80% emissions reductions by 2040 that must be performed while also accommodating mass migrations, total reformation of food production and distribution infrastructure as well as a 25% increase in water capture and distribution capacity AND a wholescale residential housing stock building envelope refurbishment program to compensate for heatwaves in much of the U.S.

Also include infrastructure developments to adapt to rising sea levels and the costs associated with dealing with regional climate driven destabilization/conflicts throughout the globe

No, because that would mean buying into your doomer bullshit.

The movement to renewable energy will pay for itself via 1) necessary replacement of thermal plants reaching the end of their lifespan, 2) decreased electricity costs, 3) decreased pollution-related health costs, and 3) decreased vehicle operating costs.

That's all I'm dealing with.  I'm not interested in hair-on-fire discussions.

We will have some costs associated with the climate change we have already put in place.  Those will serve as motivators for increased transitions off fossil fuels.

jai mitchell

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1735
    • View Profile
Re: Money and Politics: The Drive for Climate Change Action
« Reply #107 on: December 29, 2014, 06:17:39 AM »
You don't seem to understand the current makeup of CO2 emissions by source.  If we continue with current emissions due to land-use and meat production alone we will exceed the CO2 emissions targets defined by the underestimated IPCC projections by 2065 (to keep temperatures below 2C)

to have any reasonable hope of preventing the catastrophic heat waves and other effects that I spoke of earlier we will have to do a whole hell of a lot more than sit back and pray for the "invisible hand" of market transformation to meet our mitigation and adaptation needs.

but ok if you want to limit the discussion to your comfort zone, explain to me then the projected decreases in emissions that your three points will produce: 

The movement to renewable energy will pay for itself via 1) necessary replacement of thermal plants reaching the end of their lifespan, 2) decreased electricity costs, 3) decreased pollution-related health costs, and 3) decreased vehicle operating costs.


by the way, your "40-70%" quote is off by a wide margin.

This is regarding a bill mckibben article from 2012 (2 years ago)

The second scary number is 565 gigatons—or 565 thousand million tons. That’s humanity’s carbon “budget”—how much carbon dioxide we can pour into the atmosphere with a reasonable chance of keeping global temperatures to a 2 degrees Celsius increase. That 565 gigatons sounds like a lot until we hear that global carbon dioxide emissions rose by 31.6 gigatons in 2011, and that projections call for humanity to blast through our 565-gigaton quota in less than 16 years.

Read more: http://www.utne.com/environment/scary-numbers-global-warming-zm0z14jfzros.aspx#ixzz3NGO3w4d1

« Last Edit: December 29, 2014, 06:52:12 AM by jai mitchell »
Haiku of Past Futures
My "burning embers"
are not tri-color bar graphs
+3C today

viddaloo

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1302
  • Hardanger Sometimes
    • View Profile
Re: Money and Politics: The Drive for Climate Change Action
« Reply #108 on: December 29, 2014, 06:38:59 AM »
No, because that would mean buying into your doomer bullshit.

Bob, I agree with you and don't think anyone should be forced to buy into anyone's doomer bullshit (or, for that matter, watch doomer porn).

The key question is rather where you will draw the line. If one assumes that every different view or every summary, analysis or piece of news that does not fall in the Yes, We Can! basket belongs in the Doomer Bullshit (or Doomer Porn) bin, then there is at least a teeny–weeny possibility that important perspective is being unfairly dismissed.

In fact, I think you could say that in such a case, missed perspective is almost certain.

The IPCC has, after all, for twenty–six years failed to include the 2nd biggest GHG in its estimates in any meaningful way, meaning the very way that needs to be considered because of the role that GHG has played several times before in the geological record, a role that put an extra contribution to the planet's biggest extinction events of all time.

On the other hand, I can see the argument that since IPCC didn't choose to include these worries, or to include the potential of just this 2nd biggest (currently) GHG, then the same IPCC had very good reasons for not including them, thus making everyone else on the planet even chatting about these worries, some sort of bat–sh@t crazy doomer porn addicted apocalyptic moron–alarmists.

I believe, however, that upon closer scrutiny, you will find many of the points of criticism of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change are well founded, and that for a number of mundane and perfectly understandable human–nature reasons, the Panel has failed us.
[]

Bob Wallace

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 2111
    • View Profile
Re: Money and Politics: The Drive for Climate Change Action
« Reply #109 on: December 29, 2014, 07:55:53 AM »
The IPCC has, after all, for twenty–six years failed to include the 2nd biggest GHG in its estimates in any meaningful way, meaning the very way that needs to be considered because of the role that GHG has played several times before in the geological record, a role that put an extra contribution to the planet's biggest extinction events of all time.


What makes you think the IPCC ignored methane?

From the 2007 report...

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch7s7-4-1.html

From 2013...

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/10/02/2708911/fracking-ipcc-methane/

You can download the entire report here -

http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/uploads/WGIAR5_WGI-12Doc2b_FinalDraft_All.pdf

Or you can read a summary here -

Summary:  Methane is a powerful greenhouse gas, and a favorite hobbyhorse of alarmists. It’s also an example of how they’ve abandoned the IPCC — the “gold standard” of climate science consensus. The IPCC’s most recent report, AR5’s Working Group I, is quite clear that methane levels in the atmosphere have grown more slowly than projected by their models — and that the risk posed by methane is real but not yet extreme. This is a follow-up to Some good news about our changing climate. Enjoy it, for it might not last long.

.

The report of Working Group I of the IPCC’s AR5 is quite explicit about the risk of methane emissions.

Models’ projections of the growth in methane levels range from small to large.
These projections have come down in each IPCC report.
Methane levels have increased more slowly than in any of their projections.
You can read a hundred alarmist articles about methane and global warming — and never see this information from the IPCC.


http://fabiusmaximus.com/2014/09/14/climate-change-ipcc-methane-71848/

Do you not consider what the IPCC has said about methane "meaningful" because it doesn't fit with your OMG The Sky Is Falling!!! version?

Are you sure you aren't seeking out outlier opinions because they feed your fantasy?

 

Bob Wallace

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 2111
    • View Profile
Re: Money and Politics: The Drive for Climate Change Action
« Reply #110 on: December 29, 2014, 08:19:19 AM »
This is the takeaway one sentence summary from the mitigation section of the 2014 IPCC report on climate change.

To achieve climate protection, fossil power generation without CCS has to be phased out almost entirely by the end of the century.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2014/04/mitigation-of-climate-change-part-3-of-the-new-ipcc-report/?wpmp_tp=1#sthash.bcFhlKf9.dpuf


If you will recall Jacobson and Delucchi calculated that we could do that in on 20 years - with major effort.  Hard to do, but doable.  What we're talking about is stretching that effort over 85 years.

Now, if we're smart, we'll aim at getting close to zero fossil fuel use much sooner.  IMHO.

Doing so will give us a wider safety margin as well as save us money on energy costs, damage recovery, and health costs.  It would also mean significant quality of life improvements for hundreds of millions of people.

Here's what I think is going to happen...

Over the next five years (2015 - 2020) we are going  to further decrease the cost of wind, solar, and storage (grid and EV).  We are going to firm up installation infrastructure in most countries.  (Some countries don't need it and a few will be knuckleheads.)  We'll also cut our coal use significantly as Europe, the US and China are currently working on that problem.

The next ten years will see an amazing growth in renewable installations.  I expect we'll convert at least 2% of our energy from fossil fuels to renewables and at the same time lower the amount of energy used in high use countries via efficiency.

And for the following 20 years we'll average 3% a year movement off fossil fuels. 

By 2050 we will have reduced fossil fuel use by more than 80%.  We will be able to coast into 2100. 




viddaloo

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1302
  • Hardanger Sometimes
    • View Profile
Re: Money and Politics: The Drive for Climate Change Action
« Reply #111 on: December 29, 2014, 10:40:27 AM »
The IPCC has, after all, for twenty–six years failed to include the 2nd biggest GHG in its estimates in any meaningful way, meaning the very way that needs to be considered because of the role that GHG has played several times before in the geological record, a role that put an extra contribution to the planet's biggest extinction events of all time.

What makes you think the IPCC ignored methane?

I said in any meaningful way, and you left out in any meaningful way. Here's Dr Wadhams on the IPCC reports:

: Wadhams
It is amazing, for instance, that there is no mention at all of Arctic offshore methane emission as a climatic threat, and very little mention of methane emission from tundra. The really serious things are left out or played down, including rapid retreat of sea ice.
[]

jai mitchell

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1735
    • View Profile
Re: Money and Politics: The Drive for Climate Change Action
« Reply #112 on: December 29, 2014, 01:28:24 PM »
This is the takeaway one sentence summary from the mitigation section of the 2014 IPCC report on climate change.

To achieve climate protection, fossil power generation without CCS has to be phased out almost entirely by the end of the century.

By 2050 we will have reduced fossil fuel use by more than 80%.  We will be able to coast into 2100.


How do you reconcile the innocuous term "climate protection" with the stark warning by Bill Mckibben, written in 2012 that at present emission rates we will surpass the 565 gigatonnes of CO2 emissions necessary to allow us a 50% chance to stay below 2 degrees C of warming under the pathetically underestimated IPCC median projections, within the next 16 years (14 years from today)?
Haiku of Past Futures
My "burning embers"
are not tri-color bar graphs
+3C today

jai mitchell

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1735
    • View Profile
Re: Money and Politics: The Drive for Climate Change Action
« Reply #113 on: December 29, 2014, 01:33:54 PM »
how does your assertions compare with this graphic representation of the current risks associated with BAU provided by Michael Mann in Scientific American?

It seems clear that you are either pretending that things are going to be a lot easier than they are because you WANT to believe that they will be or that you are simply grasping onto the little bits that give you hope (that we can accomplish climate change mitigation reforms under relatively free market scenarios)

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/may/21/economists-climate-change-market-failure

Why do economists describe climate change as a 'market failure'?
Haiku of Past Futures
My "burning embers"
are not tri-color bar graphs
+3C today

Bob Wallace

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 2111
    • View Profile
Re: Money and Politics: The Drive for Climate Change Action
« Reply #114 on: December 29, 2014, 09:34:32 PM »
jai - when I see a large - significant group of climate scientists warning that the IPCC report may be badly flawed then I'll get concerned.

In the meantime I'm not going to be alarmed by someone outside the field taking one paper out of context and trying to tell an story that I'm not hearing from the experts.

As for your economics question -

In the case of innovation, markets currently fail to offer sufficient incentives for the development of low-carbon technologies.

Don't you realize that is entirely incorrect?  Wind is now our cheapest way to bring new capacity on line.  Solar is very close to being the second cheapest and likely on track to becoming the cheapest.  The market is pouring billions into lower the cost of renewable energy, storage and EVs.

I'm am not pretending anything.  I'm looking at what is happening and reporting those facts.  I'm looking at current prices, price curves, and likely changes over the short term.  The paper you linked clearly did not look at what was happening as they wrote.

Lennart van der Linde

  • ASIF Middle Class
  • Posts: 697
    • View Profile
Re: Money and Politics: The Drive for Climate Change Action
« Reply #115 on: December 29, 2014, 10:08:57 PM »
Bob,
There are plenty of scientists arguing IPCC is probably underestimating things. Have a look in the folder on conservative scientists:
http://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,1053.0.html

For sea level rise this expert survey among 90 of the most publishing experts shows that as a group they think IPCC is substantially underestimating the risks of SLR:
https://marine.rutgers.edu/pubs/private/HortonQSR_2013.pdf

It seems unwise to quickly dismiss such indications.

Bob Wallace

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 2111
    • View Profile
Re: Money and Politics: The Drive for Climate Change Action
« Reply #116 on: December 29, 2014, 10:50:13 PM »
Lennart - I read your link down to this point -

Unfortunately, it seems most mainstream Scientists are beholden to the bourgeois upper-class academic environment. They often open their mouth to show their loyalty to the current conservative corporate culture, and then arrogantly proclaim that this conservatism is inherent to Science.

When I encounter claptrap like that I walk, no, run away. 

I spent enough years as a research scientist to recognize that as winger political foolishness.

I'd suggest you give up your apparent search for an outlier who supports your beliefs and spend time on a site such as Real Climate where active climate scientists discuss their field.

jai mitchell

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1735
    • View Profile
Re: Money and Politics: The Drive for Climate Change Action
« Reply #117 on: December 29, 2014, 11:02:35 PM »
Bob,

so, from your link you suggest (actually the summary for policymakers) here:  http://report.mitigation2014.org/spm/ipcc_wg3_ar5_summary-for-policymakers_approved.pdf that, on a global scale, and in the developing world, in the face of massive increases in the consumption of coal, that we will be able to use free-market forces to achieve a 50% increase in global share of CO2 emission reductions in the power sector by 2050.

while at the same time, again, by 2050 (see figure SPM.8 )

  • achieve a 30% reduction in transportation energy consumption, while increasing the share of low-carbon energy share by 35%
  • achieve a 23% reduction in global building energy consumption, while increasing the share of low-carbon energy share by 55% 
  • achieve a 30% reduction in global industry energy consumption, while increasing the share of low-carbon energy share by 50% 

and this on a global scale?

--please also note that this scenario allows for a high-end stabilization level of 530 ppmv, which under any reasonable analysis of todays climate effects (currently operating at 300 ppmv equalization levels if Aerosol and Cloud effects are taken into account) would be catastrophic at best.

Again, I suggest that you really haven't thought this one through.

Haiku of Past Futures
My "burning embers"
are not tri-color bar graphs
+3C today

jai mitchell

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1735
    • View Profile
Re: Money and Politics: The Drive for Climate Change Action
« Reply #118 on: December 29, 2014, 11:08:29 PM »
Lennart - I read your link down to this point -

Unfortunately, it seems most mainstream Scientists are beholden to the bourgeois upper-class academic environment. They often open their mouth to show their loyalty to the current conservative corporate culture, and then arrogantly proclaim that this conservatism is inherent to Science.

When I encounter claptrap like that I walk, no, run away. 

I spent enough years as a research scientist to recognize that as winger political foolishness.


--have you considered the possibility that you might be the one who, in fact, is heavily indoctrinated into a captured system of beliefs that cowtows to the status-quo?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-vv1z25c2p8
« Last Edit: December 29, 2014, 11:32:10 PM by jai mitchell »
Haiku of Past Futures
My "burning embers"
are not tri-color bar graphs
+3C today

Lennart van der Linde

  • ASIF Middle Class
  • Posts: 697
    • View Profile
Re: Money and Politics: The Drive for Climate Change Action
« Reply #119 on: December 29, 2014, 11:53:28 PM »
Lennart - I read your link down to this point -

Unfortunately, it seems most mainstream Scientists are beholden to the bourgeois upper-class academic environment. They often open their mouth to show their loyalty to the current conservative corporate culture, and then arrogantly proclaim that this conservatism is inherent to Science.

When I encounter claptrap like that I walk, no, run away. 

I spent enough years as a research scientist to recognize that as winger political foolishness.

I'd suggest you give up your apparent search for an outlier who supports your beliefs and spend time on a site such as Real Climate where active climate scientists discuss their field.

You can run, of course, if you want. But you didn't comment on Horton, Rahmstorf et al 2014 on SLR being underestimated by the IPCC according to their survey among 90 of the most publishing experts.

How's that an outlier? Rahmstorf is very active on RealClimate, but maybe he's an outlier too?

Chomsky too is an outlier, 'arguably being the most important intellectual alive', according to the NYT and others. We can learn a lot from him, about 'brainwashing under freedom', for example.

Bob Wallace

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 2111
    • View Profile
Re: Money and Politics: The Drive for Climate Change Action
« Reply #120 on: December 30, 2014, 12:04:41 AM »
, in the face of massive increases in the consumption of coal, that we will be able to use free-market forces to achieve a 50% increase in global share of CO2 emission reductions in the power sector by 2050.

No.  I said that is is possible.  You read in a probability statement.
 

Bob Wallace

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 2111
    • View Profile
Re: Money and Politics: The Drive for Climate Change Action
« Reply #121 on: December 30, 2014, 12:05:55 AM »
--have you considered the possibility that you might be the one who, in fact, is heavily indoctrinated into a captured system of beliefs that cowtows to the status-quo?

Yes.  That is why I take time to fact-check myself from time to time and attempt to stay away from outlier positions.

jai mitchell

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1735
    • View Profile
Re: Money and Politics: The Drive for Climate Change Action
« Reply #122 on: December 30, 2014, 12:09:43 AM »
--have you considered the possibility that you might be the one who, in fact, is heavily indoctrinated into a captured system of beliefs that cowtows to the status-quo?

Yes.  That is why I take time to fact-check myself from time to time and attempt to stay away from outlier positions.

how do you determine what positions are "outliers"?
Haiku of Past Futures
My "burning embers"
are not tri-color bar graphs
+3C today

Lennart van der Linde

  • ASIF Middle Class
  • Posts: 697
    • View Profile
Re: Money and Politics: The Drive for Climate Change Action
« Reply #123 on: December 30, 2014, 12:18:02 AM »
--have you considered the possibility that you might be the one who, in fact, is heavily indoctrinated into a captured system of beliefs that cowtows to the status-quo?

Yes.  That is why I take time to fact-check myself from time to time and attempt to stay away from outlier positions.

And why shouldn't we take outlier positions as seriously as mainstream positions? They may be the mainstream position of tomorrow. It's about risks, not certainty.

Bob Wallace

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 2111
    • View Profile
Re: Money and Politics: The Drive for Climate Change Action
« Reply #124 on: December 30, 2014, 12:19:22 AM »
But you didn't comment on Horton, Rahmstorf et al 2014 on SLR being underestimated by the IPCC according to their survey among 90 of the most publishing experts.

I hesitate to comment on individual papers as climate science is not my field.  There are many papers in all fields that can be badly misread if one does not know the context, the authors and the journal.

But, just to satisfy you I took a look.  Here's what I found.


. Most experts estimate a larger sea-level rise by AD 2100 than the IPCC AR5 projects. The body of expert opinion is more in line with the recent
NOAA sea-level scenarios. We expect on average about 0.5 m of sea level
rise for the low and 1.0 m for the upper temperature scenario.

Thirteen experts estimated a 17% probability of exceeding 2.0 m of
sea-level rise by AD 2100 under the upper temperature scenario.


The IPCC AR5 model spread for the high emission scenario (includes
RCP 8.5) is 0.92 me3.59 m by AD 2300

The IPCC projects between 0.92 and 3.49 meters by 2300.

The authors found that " The body of expert opinion" calls for between 0.5 and 1.0 meter by 2100.

I'm not seeing "impending doom" or "scientific malfeasance" on the part of the IPCC in a set of predictions that highly overlap.

13 out of 90, 14%, predict something higher.  But they apparently haven't convinced their peers.  86% of their peers disagree.

Do you know what "outlier" means?

Lennart van der Linde

  • ASIF Middle Class
  • Posts: 697
    • View Profile
Re: Money and Politics: The Drive for Climate Change Action
« Reply #125 on: December 30, 2014, 12:22:15 AM »
BTW, Michael Mann was very active on RealClimate as well, until shortly. Why do you call him an outlier?

Bob Wallace

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 2111
    • View Profile
Re: Money and Politics: The Drive for Climate Change Action
« Reply #126 on: December 30, 2014, 12:28:17 AM »
--have you considered the possibility that you might be the one who, in fact, is heavily indoctrinated into a captured system of beliefs that cowtows to the status-quo?

Yes.  That is why I take time to fact-check myself from time to time and attempt to stay away from outlier positions.

And why shouldn't we take outlier positions as seriously as mainstream positions? They may be the mainstream position of tomorrow. It's about risks, not certainty.

Why?  Because sometimes outliers are batshit crazy.

The cost of an extreme climate change would be extremely high.  That is not in question.  If we don't do something about our GHG emissions we will cause ourselves a world of hurt.  That is not disputed among climate scientists.

What is argued is how fast we need to quit the use of fossil fuels.  Since the cost of failure is so extreme it would be exceptionally wise to take a conservative approach and quit fossil fuels as quickly as we reasonably can.  It takes only common sense to realize that.

But we should be careful about those who go far over the line of reasonable thought.  Let's let the people who spend their lives studying climate change sort through all the facts and give us a knowledgeable summary.  Let's not let some isolated economist, biologist, physicist who worked for the tobacco  industry, airplane engineer, creationist, or any other individual send us screaming for the exit.

Bob Wallace

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 2111
    • View Profile
Re: Money and Politics: The Drive for Climate Change Action
« Reply #127 on: December 30, 2014, 12:30:10 AM »
BTW, Michael Mann was very active on RealClimate as well, until shortly. Why do you call him an outlier?

I'd have to spend time looking into what he's said and what his peers have said about his position. 

Lennart van der Linde

  • ASIF Middle Class
  • Posts: 697
    • View Profile
Re: Money and Politics: The Drive for Climate Change Action
« Reply #128 on: December 30, 2014, 12:38:39 AM »
But you didn't comment on Horton, Rahmstorf et al 2014 on SLR being underestimated by the IPCC according to their survey among 90 of the most publishing experts.

The IPCC projects between 0.92 and 3.49 meters by 2300.

The authors found that " The body of expert opinion" calls for between 0.5 and 1.0 meter by 2100.

I'm not seeing "impending doom" or "scientific malfeasance" on the part of the IPCC in a set of predictions that highly overlap.

13 out of 90, 14%, predict something higher.  But they apparently haven't convinced their peers.  86% of their peers disagree.

Do you know what "outlier" means?

Take a look at their table 1:
https://marine.rutgers.edu/pubs/private/HortonQSR_2013.pdf

They find a 17% chance of 1.2m or more by 2100, where IPCC finds a chance of 17% of 1m. So it seems IPCC underestimates substantially according to these 90 most publishing experts.

For 2300 IPCC finds 3.59m as an upper limit, but it also says this is probably an under-estimate. Horton et al find a 5% chance of 4m or more. Kopp et al 2014 even find a 5% chance of 3.7m or more by 2200, not 2300. Jevrejeva et al 2014 find a 5% chance of 1.8m by 2100, even more than the 5% chance of 1.5m by 2100 that Horton et al find.

These don't seem isolated outliers anymore. We better pay attention.

jai mitchell

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1735
    • View Profile
Re: Money and Politics: The Drive for Climate Change Action
« Reply #129 on: December 30, 2014, 12:52:22 AM »
I think, in review that it is clear that you not only haven't looked at the total cost associated with societal transformation needed to implement the shifts in industrial, building, transportation AND electrical power generation.  Instead you ONLY look at renewable energy, and then retreat to a "party-line" of "the free market will provide" without understanding that energy production in the world doesn't even operate under a free market, anywhere.

When I bring up the total costs you say, renewable energy and efficiencies pay for themselves

-which implies some kind of cost recovery mechanism, one that can only be provided under regulatory policy - which is predominately run by the utility sector, don't believe me?  what happened to the renewable energy portfolios of the states of Ohio, Indiana and Florida?

in summary, EVEN if we use your "outlier" exclusion criteria and only adhere to the IPCC report statistics which rely on published information that is, on average 4-7 years old, the low-emission target of 530 PPMV transformation would require changes that in your estimation go from

"will happen" to "possible".

And I can tell you, with no uncertainty that the collapse of the arctic in the next decade (or two) coupled with extreme weather and heatwave/precipitation events will drive global destabilization to such a degree that, even if it were "possible" under a free market scenario

the additional systemic requirements of adaptation and disaster mitigation/recovery makes your "possible" untenable.
Haiku of Past Futures
My "burning embers"
are not tri-color bar graphs
+3C today

wili

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1988
    • View Profile
Re: Money and Politics: The Drive for Climate Change Action
« Reply #130 on: December 30, 2014, 12:53:48 AM »
"we should be careful about those who go far over the line of reasonable thought"

LOL.
"A force de chercher de bonnes raisons, on en trouve; on les dit; et après on y tient, non pas tant parce qu'elles sont bonnes que pour ne pas se démentir." Choderlos de Laclos "You struggle to come up with some valid reasons, then cling to them, not because they're good, but just to not back down."

Bob Wallace

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 2111
    • View Profile
Re: Money and Politics: The Drive for Climate Change Action
« Reply #131 on: December 30, 2014, 01:11:06 AM »
But you didn't comment on Horton, Rahmstorf et al 2014 on SLR being underestimated by the IPCC according to their survey among 90 of the most publishing experts.

The IPCC projects between 0.92 and 3.49 meters by 2300.

The authors found that " The body of expert opinion" calls for between 0.5 and 1.0 meter by 2100.

I'm not seeing "impending doom" or "scientific malfeasance" on the part of the IPCC in a set of predictions that highly overlap.

13 out of 90, 14%, predict something higher.  But they apparently haven't convinced their peers.  86% of their peers disagree.

Do you know what "outlier" means?

Take a look at their table 1:
https://marine.rutgers.edu/pubs/private/HortonQSR_2013.pdf

They find a 17% chance of 1.2m or more by 2100, where IPCC finds a chance of 17% of 1m. So it seems IPCC underestimates substantially according to these 90 most publishing experts.

For 2300 IPCC finds 3.59m as an upper limit, but it also says this is probably an under-estimate. Horton et al find a 5% chance of 4m or more. Kopp et al 2014 even find a 5% chance of 3.7m or more by 2200, not 2300. Jevrejeva et al 2014 find a 5% chance of 1.8m by 2100, even more than the 5% chance of 1.5m by 2100 that Horton et al find.

These don't seem isolated outliers anymore. We better pay attention.

IMO you are trying to make up a problem where one does not exist.  There's really not that much difference between a 1.0 and 1.2 meter estimate.  Both are significant and we need to do what we can to minimize them.

Then you go on to list the outliers....

Bob Wallace

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 2111
    • View Profile
Re: Money and Politics: The Drive for Climate Change Action
« Reply #132 on: December 30, 2014, 01:12:51 AM »
"we should be careful about those who go far over the line of reasonable thought"

LOL.

That's right, Wili.  Be careful to keep your thoughts reasonable.  Don't allow yourself to be mislead by either the alarmists or deniers. 

Csnavywx

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 417
    • View Profile
Re: Money and Politics: The Drive for Climate Change Action
« Reply #133 on: December 30, 2014, 01:14:31 AM »
The thing is, if you actually read the report and in particular, RCP 2.6, you get a real sense of what it will now take to stay below 2C. I think I've brought this up in the past, but it requires CO2 emissions to go net negative by ~2055 and stay there for a long period of time. It also assumes a sharp decline in emissions in the near term. This optimistic scenario does not include PCF or a myriad of other lesser feedback processes (the largest of which tend to be carbon cycle feedbacks via sink degradation). The IPCC does not include them primarily because of difficulties in quantification and uncertainty, but based on the research I've seen on the PCF in particular, it might finally make it into the next report.

Keep in mind, all of 2.6's implicit (and downright heroic) effort is just for a reasonable chance of staying below 2C. If ECS is even slightly higher, the chances decrease quite fast. We need to be good and lucky at this point. The longer we wait, the luckier we need to be on the ECS front.

Any overshoot and stabilization scenario implies that no non-linear responses will get triggered and significantly undermine our efforts to bring down CO2 concentrations. There's some science behind the 2C target, because beyond that marker, the risks increase quite quickly.

A great little article that expresses this statistically:

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2012/08/23/risk/

The bottom line: Risk of extreme events increases exponentially with temperature. We can't afford whatever lies on the other side of the 2C curve. We already see what +3-4SD anomalies can do (a lot), we can't afford +5, +6, +7SD events. It will be a couple orders of magnitude worse in terms of damage and suffering.

Csnavywx

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 417
    • View Profile
Re: Money and Politics: The Drive for Climate Change Action
« Reply #134 on: December 30, 2014, 01:26:43 AM »
But you didn't comment on Horton, Rahmstorf et al 2014 on SLR being underestimated by the IPCC according to their survey among 90 of the most publishing experts.

The IPCC projects between 0.92 and 3.49 meters by 2300.

The authors found that " The body of expert opinion" calls for between 0.5 and 1.0 meter by 2100.

I'm not seeing "impending doom" or "scientific malfeasance" on the part of the IPCC in a set of predictions that highly overlap.

13 out of 90, 14%, predict something higher.  But they apparently haven't convinced their peers.  86% of their peers disagree.

Do you know what "outlier" means?

Take a look at their table 1:
https://marine.rutgers.edu/pubs/private/HortonQSR_2013.pdf

They find a 17% chance of 1.2m or more by 2100, where IPCC finds a chance of 17% of 1m. So it seems IPCC underestimates substantially according to these 90 most publishing experts.

For 2300 IPCC finds 3.59m as an upper limit, but it also says this is probably an under-estimate. Horton et al find a 5% chance of 4m or more. Kopp et al 2014 even find a 5% chance of 3.7m or more by 2200, not 2300. Jevrejeva et al 2014 find a 5% chance of 1.8m by 2100, even more than the 5% chance of 1.5m by 2100 that Horton et al find.

These don't seem isolated outliers anymore. We better pay attention.

IMO you are trying to make up a problem where one does not exist.  There's really not that much difference between a 1.0 and 1.2 meter estimate.  Both are significant and we need to do what we can to minimize them.

Then you go on to list the outliers....

West Antarctica is really the lynchpin here. There's some uncertainty with Greenland too, but not to the same magnitude. There's a LOT of uncertainty with the WAIS, which translates into a LOT of uncertainty in SLR estimates, hence the huge spread. As I mentioned in the last post, if there's quantification or significant uncertainty issues, the IPCC will not include it in their official estimates. Rapid changes in forecasts do not lend credibility to their forecasts, so from their standpoint, I understand (and empathize, since I'm a meteorologist myself) with their decision making process.

jai mitchell

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1735
    • View Profile
Re: Money and Politics: The Drive for Climate Change Action
« Reply #135 on: December 30, 2014, 01:38:18 AM »
speaking of uncertainty,

Haiku of Past Futures
My "burning embers"
are not tri-color bar graphs
+3C today

Bob Wallace

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 2111
    • View Profile
Re: Money and Politics: The Drive for Climate Change Action
« Reply #136 on: December 30, 2014, 02:55:16 AM »
The thing is, if you actually read the report and in particular, RCP 2.6, you get a real sense of what it will now take to stay below 2C.


This?



I see a need to stop the increase in CO2 emissions by sometime after 2050 and then a gradual decrease.

I do not see anything that sounds like -

I guess then that, in the United States alone, we could move to an effective transition of total GHG reductions within the next 50 or so years. Probably reducing our total footprint of GHGs by almost 50% by 2070.

Under this scenario we will also achieve total societal collapse sometime around then as well due to massive heat waves, sea level rise, floods, droughts and catastrophic storms, the collapse of agriculture and wars cause by regional destabilization all over the globe.

jai mitchell

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1735
    • View Profile
Re: Money and Politics: The Drive for Climate Change Action
« Reply #137 on: December 30, 2014, 03:24:22 AM »
um no,

actually what you are seeing is a graph of CUMULATIVE emissions.  This means that, for the RCP 4.5 scenario there is a reduction in emissions but after 2080 or so, CO2 is being actively removed from the atmosphere to keep CO2 levels from going over 540 or so.

however, no I was actually talking about the reality of the goals you described before from the IPCC.

1.  all of the reductions in emissions from buildings, transportation, industry AND energy on a global scale with the scope of reductions described here:


(see figure SPM.8 )

  • achieve a 30% reduction in transportation energy consumption, while increasing the share of low-carbon energy share by 35%
  • achieve a 23% reduction in global building energy consumption, while increasing the share of low-carbon energy share by 55% 
  • achieve a 30% reduction in global industry energy consumption, while increasing the share of low-carbon energy share by 50% 
concurrent with an increase in co2-free emission from 30% to 80% by 2050 in the electric power sector.
.

2.  The implementations above have to happen as the effects of climate change on our environment continue to grow in scale and costs

and

3.  Without regard to the carbon cycle, arctic and methane releases from permafrost which are discussed in the IPCC report but not included.
« Last Edit: December 30, 2014, 03:42:14 AM by jai mitchell »
Haiku of Past Futures
My "burning embers"
are not tri-color bar graphs
+3C today

viddaloo

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1302
  • Hardanger Sometimes
    • View Profile
Re: Money and Politics: The Drive for Climate Change Action
« Reply #138 on: December 30, 2014, 03:27:45 AM »
Thanks to ExxonMobil's little fax memo to Dubya, "urgent action" has now become something like

... a need to stop the increase in CO2 emissions by sometime after 2050 and then a gradual decrease.

Oh, the magic world of Money & Politics!  ;D
[]

jai mitchell

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1735
    • View Profile
Re: Money and Politics: The Drive for Climate Change Action
« Reply #139 on: December 30, 2014, 03:48:26 AM »
the graphic you are looking for is this one.

please note the emissions (light blue) and how they compare with the other graphic above that shows carbon cycle feedbacks.  The lower level indicates that by 2070 the equivalent emissions to a real world scenario (with feedbacks) is possibly 33% less than the ones shown below.  Please note that they only show 1 sigma of standard deviation in the graphic above.

Well, I got some bad news for you sunshine.  It is called arctic amplification and the disassociation of permafrost is going to be much worse than even this pale comparison shows.

We truly need to work on the issue of the times, not "if we can" but "if we can - in time".
« Last Edit: December 30, 2014, 03:53:41 AM by jai mitchell »
Haiku of Past Futures
My "burning embers"
are not tri-color bar graphs
+3C today

Bob Wallace

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 2111
    • View Profile
Re: Money and Politics: The Drive for Climate Change Action
« Reply #140 on: December 30, 2014, 04:22:45 AM »
the graphic you are looking for is this one.



OK, check me out here.  What I'm seeing in the case of the RCP2.6 is that we need to peak CO2 per year by about 2025 and drop it to about 0 by 2100.

That right?

If so, then RCP4.5 says peak about 2050 and get back to ~1975 levels by 2100.

Here's a table that tells us what those numbers mean, prediction-wise...



Now, I'd suggest we don't take 4.5 route but take the safer 2.6 route.  Get our CO2 emissions all peaked out by 2025 (hopefully sooner) and get rid of fossil fuels by 2100 (hopefully sooner).

This is what I've been saying that we probably need to do from the get-go.  Get our CO2 emissions down 40% to 70% from 2005 levels by 2050.  And then take our fossil fuel use to very close to zero by 2100.

BTW, I see nothing at all in the report that we're going to die by 2050.

Well, I got some bad news for you sunshine.  It is called arctic amplification and the disassociation of permafrost is going to be much worse than even this pale comparison shows.


My goodness!  How did thousands of climate scientists miss that while the latest ICPP report was being put together? 

Perhaps you should bring it to their attention. 

Or perhaps you should read some climate science first.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2012/01/much-ado-about-methane/

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 12769
    • View Profile
Re: Money and Politics: The Drive for Climate Change Action
« Reply #141 on: December 30, 2014, 04:34:51 AM »
the graphic you are looking for is this one.



OK, check me out here.  What I'm seeing in the case of the RCP2.6 is that we need to peak CO2 per year by about 2025 and drop it to about 0 by 2100.

That right?



Per Fuss et al (2014) for RCP2.6 the net emissions need to go negative by 2070 (see attached image), which confirms jai's image.

Sabine Fuss, Josep G. Canadell, Glen P. Peters, Massimo Tavoni, Robbie M. Andrew, Philippe Ciais, Robert B. Jackson, Chris D. Jones, Florian Kraxner, Nebosja Nakicenovic, Corinne Le Quéré, Michael R. Raupach, Ayyoob Sharifi, Pete Smith & Yoshiki Yamagata, (2014), "Betting on negative emissions", Nature Climate Change, doi:10.1038/nclimate2392

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate2392.html
See the following link for free copy of the Fuss et. al. (2014) paper

http://sites.biology.duke.edu/jackson/ncc2014.pdf

Edit:

I attach the second Fuss et al (2014) image for clarity.
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

jai mitchell

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1735
    • View Profile
Re: Money and Politics: The Drive for Climate Change Action
« Reply #142 on: December 30, 2014, 04:38:45 AM »
no Bob, you are reading the wrong graph, your quote on "climate protection" from the following quote from the summary for policymakers.

Decarbonizing (i. e. reducing the carbon intensity of) electricity generation is a key component of cos teffective mitigation strategies in achieving low-stabilization levels (430 – 530 ppm CO2eq); in most integrated modelling scenarios, decarbonization happens more rapidly in electricity generation than in the industry, buildings, and transport sectors (medium evidence, high agreement) (Figure SPM.7). In the majority of low-stabilization scenarios, the share of low-carbon electricity supply (comprising renewable energy (RE), nuclear and CCS) increases from the current share of approximately 30 % to more than 80 % by 2050, and fossil fuel power generation without CCS is phased out almost entirely by 2100 (Figure SPM. 7). [6.8, 7.11, Figures 7.14, TS.18]

this is RCP 4.5 not 2.6

no one takes RCP 2.6 as even remotely possible now (though it really is our only last hope.  This is why I am saying that free market implementation and high wealth inequality regimes are contrary to societal survival, in the near term.

Haiku of Past Futures
My "burning embers"
are not tri-color bar graphs
+3C today

jai mitchell

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1735
    • View Profile
Re: Money and Politics: The Drive for Climate Change Action
« Reply #143 on: December 30, 2014, 04:43:47 AM »
My goodness!  How did thousands of climate scientists miss that while the latest ICPP report was being put together? 

Perhaps you should bring it to their attention. 

Or perhaps you should read some climate science first.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2012/01/much-ado-about-methane/


I have not brought up methane in this thread.  You, however need to seriously recalibrate your understanding of how the IPCC report is generated.  you act as though the process allows the scientists to place into the document the information that they wish.

Did you forget this part that was vetoed by Saudi Arabia?

This is some of the writing that was dropped from the report under political pressure as Teapotty posted about above.
-------------------
http://cryptome.org/2014/04/ipcc-draft-14-0421.pdf


Risks for warming between about 2°C and 4°C above pre-industrial

Risks increase with temperature and become high for all Reasons for Concern by 4°C warming above preindustrial levels (Figure 3.4).

-Many species and systems with limited adaptive capacity are subject to very high risks with
additional warming of 2°C, particularly Arctic sea-ice and coral-reef systems (RFC 1).
-Many species will be unable to track suitable climates under mid- and high-range rates of change
(RCP 4.5 and higher) and those that cannot adapt sufficiently fast will decrease in abundance or go extinct in part or all of their ranges. For medium- to high-emission scenarios (RCP 4.5 and higher), ocean acidification, together with decreasing oxygen levels and other drivers, poses substantial risks to marine ecosystems. A large fraction of terrestrial, freshwater, and marine species face increasing extinctions risk under projected climate change during and beyond the 21st century (RFC 1, 4).{WGII SPM.B1}

Extensive biodiversity loss with associated loss of ecosystem goods and services results in aggregate risks becoming high by 4°C warming (RFC 1, 4)

-Climate change is projected to reduce renewable surface water and groundwater resources significantly in most dry subtropical regions (Topic 2.5.2).
-Aggregate economic damages accelerate with increasing temperature but few quantitative estimates have been completed for additional warming around 3°C or above (RFC 4).
-Risks from large-scale singular events increase disproportionately around ~2°C and become high
above 3°C, due to the potential for a large and irreversible sea-level rise from ice sheet loss. {RFC 5,WGII SPM B-1}

 Global surface temperature change for the end of the 21st century is more likely than not to exceed 2°C for RCP4.5, and likely to exceed 2°C for RCP6.0 and RCP8.5. It is about as likely as not to exceed 4°C for RCP8.5. Such scenarios require slower emission cuts than the scenarios likely to avoid a warming above 2°C, but all scenarios that limit climate change require substantial and sustained reductions in greenhouse gas emissions (Topic 3.2). {WGI SPM}

Risks from warming above 4°C compared to pre-industrial

Above 4°C warming compared to preindustrial levels, as projected by RCP8.5, risks from climate
change are high to very high in all reasons for concerns and include substantial species extinction,
large risks to global and regional food security, and the combination of high temperature and
humidity compromising normal human activities in some areas for parts of the year
(Figure 3.4) All

aspects of food security are potentially affected by climate change including food access, utilization, and price stability (RFC 3). {WGII SPM B2}

----------------
I am sure that this isn't really important information to include in the report. . .
Haiku of Past Futures
My "burning embers"
are not tri-color bar graphs
+3C today

Csnavywx

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 417
    • View Profile
Re: Money and Politics: The Drive for Climate Change Action
« Reply #144 on: December 30, 2014, 05:10:17 AM »
The thing is, if you actually read the report and in particular, RCP 2.6, you get a real sense of what it will now take to stay below 2C.



I see a need to stop the increase in CO2 emissions by sometime after 2050 and then a gradual decrease.




Jai is basically correct here. CO2 concentrations in that graph represent cumulative emissions that aren't absorbed by land and ocean sinks. The problem is, if we wait too long (even another 10 years is too late), CF/PCF/land carbon emissions will take over and cancel out the ocean sinks, locking us in to that concentration barring strong net negative carbon sequestration by us.

McDougall et al. and several other studies have papers about this issue. SkS did a nice write-up about it a couple of years ago. It is definitely worth perusing: http://www.skepticalscience.com/Macdougall.html

Please note that I don't think this means that we should give up by any means. 500-600 ppm will be plenty bad enough, but it's still a hell of a lot better than the alternative.

jai mitchell

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1735
    • View Profile
Re: Money and Politics: The Drive for Climate Change Action
« Reply #145 on: December 30, 2014, 05:13:54 AM »
Bob,

I hope that this has helped you to grasp a few new concepts and increased your understanding.  we have looked at the reductions needed to meet the RCP 4.5 scenario across multiple sectors on a global scale.  We have also looked at the inconsistencies between IPCC projections and the lack of inclusion of carbon cycle feedbacks, though they included the graphic in the actual WGI report.

In addition I have shared with you the type of language that gets left out of the summary for policymakers and hope that this has helped you to grasp the immense task ahead of us in attempting to meet even the RCP 4.5 scenario (with carbon feedbacks).

I understand that you have a very limited understanding of these actual sciences and even the basic economic solutions that you suggest.  What has been missing, up to now, is a sense of scale.  You have indeed engaged in significant "magical thinking" on this one.

stick around.  There is so much valuable information (and some not so!) here!  I suggest you follow closely all the stuff by Werther, A-team and Abrupt SLR (as well as Neven of course!).

In parting I want you to consider the following post, probably the best summary of information not included in the most recent IPCC report.

realize that all of our discussions since you posted your link to the summary quote of 40-70% by 2050 has NOT included any of the following.

Cheers!
Jai.

As Laurent can handle more feedback factors not fully accounted for in AR5, I offer the following partial listing ;):

1. The following linked reference indicates that the addition of forcings are generally non-linear resulting in larger radiative forcing than most models assume that are used to advise policymakers:

http://www.earth-syst-dynam.net/4/253/2013/esd-4-253-2013.html

The sensitivity of the modeled energy budget and hydrological cycle to CO2 and solar forcing by: N. Schaller, J. Cermak, M. Wild, and R. Knutti; Earth Syst. Dynam., 4, 253–266, 2013; www.earth-syst-dynam.net/4/253/2013/; doi:10.5194/esd-4-253-2013

2. The following linked two references discuss the positive feedback caused by the acidification of the oceans reducing sulfur flux from the ocean which then results in more radiative forcing than considered in AR5:

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate1981.html

Global warming amplified by reduced sulphur fluxes as a result of ocean acidification; Katharina D. Six, Silvia Kloster, Tatiana Ilyina, Stephen D. Archer, Kai Zhang & Ernst Maier-Reimer; Nature Climate Change;  (2013); doi:10.1038/nclimate1981


http://www.mpimet.mpg.de/nc/en/communication/news/single-news/article/climate-change-ocean-acidification-amplifies-global-warming.html


3. The following linked reference discusses the risk of decades-old carbon being emitted into the atmosphere due to global warming.  This could be a significant positive feedback factor (that has not been included in most models yet) if the world stays on the BAU path that it is currently following:

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/06/07/1120603109.abstract


Warming accelerates decomposition of decades-old carbon in forest soils;
by: Francesca M. Hopkins, Margaret S. Torn, and Susan E. Trumbore; PNAS June 11, 2012; doi: 10.1073/pnas.1120603109


4. The linked reference indicates that there is considerable uncertainty in the amount of potential CO₂ contribution to the atmosphere from Soil Organic Carbon (SOC) particularly under RCP 8.5, and greater uncertainty means greater risk:

http://www.earth-syst-dynam-discuss.net/4/1035/2013/esdd-4-1035-2013.html


Nishina, K., Ito, A., Beerling, D. J., Cadule, P., Ciais, P., Clark, D. B., Falloon, P., Friend, A. D., Kahana, R., Kato, E., Keribin, R., Lucht, W., Lomas, M., Rademacher, T. T., Pavlick, R., Schaphoff, S., Vuichard, N., Warszawaski, L., and Yokohata, T.: Global soil organic carbon stock projection uncertainties relevant to sensitivity of global mean temperature and precipitation changes, Earth Syst. Dynam. Discuss., 4, 1035-1064, doi:10.5194/esdd-4-1035-2013, 2013


5. The linked reference indicates that terrestrial vegetation will stop acting as a carbon sink after a 4 degree C mean global surface temperature rise, while this high degree of climate sensitivity is not captured by most GCMs:

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2013/12/12/1222477110

Andrew D. Friend, Wolfgang Lucht, Tim T. Rademacher, Rozenn Keribin, Richard Betts, Patricia Cadule, Philippe Ciais, Douglas B. Clark, Rutger Dankers, Pete D. Falloon, Akihiko Ito, Ron Kahana, Axel Kleidon, Mark R. Lomas, Kazuya Nishina, Sebastian Ostberg, Ryan Pavlick, Philippe Peylin, Sibyll Schaphoff, Nicolas Vuichard, Lila Warszawski, Andy Wiltshire, and F. Ian Woodward, 2013, "Carbon residence time dominates uncertainty in terrestrial vegetation responses to future climate and atmospheric CO₂", PNAS December 16, 2013, doi: 10.1073/pnas.1222477110

6. The linked reference provides the first evidence that as water vapor invades the stratosphere it is serving as source of a significant positive feedback mechanism (which in not fully modelled by most GCMs):

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2013/09/26/1310344110.abstract?sid=8069b689-eb9f-44f1-8e4e-13e764b3d5fc

A. E. Dessler, M. R. Schoeberl, T. Wang, S. M. Davis, and K. H. Rosenlof, (2013), "Stratospheric water vapor feedback", PNAS, doi: 10.1073/pnas.1310344110

7. The linked reference (with a free access pdf) indicates that the albedo of both melting snow and ice are affected at least two times more adversely than non-melting snow and ice by black carbon.  Therefore, as the polar areas continue warm-up the positive feedback from black carbon will likely increase:

Marks, A. A. and King, M. D.: The effect of snow/sea ice type on the response of albedo and light penetration depth (e-folding depth) to increasing black carbon, The Cryosphere Discuss., 8, 1023-1056, doi:10.5194/tcd-8-1023-2014, 2014.

http://www.the-cryosphere-discuss.net/8/1023/2014/tcd-8-1023-2014.html

8. The following linked research indicates that emissions of methane of biological origins increase rapidly with increasing warming, even on a seasonal, or ENSO, basis:

Gabriel Yvon-Durocher, Andrew P. Allen, David Bastviken, Ralf Conrad, Cristian Gudasz, Annick St-Pierre, Nguyen Thanh-Duc & Paul A. del Giorgio, (2014), "Methane fluxes show consistent temperature dependence across microbial to ecosystem scales", Nature, Volume: 507, pp: 488–491, doi:10.1038/nature13164

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v507/n7493/full/nature13164.html

9. The linked reference makes it clear that the boreal forests (in the taiga, see the attached image for the extent) are at greater risk of destruction than previously realized, most significantly due to the thawing of the permafrost, which promotes fires, droughts and insect attack.  Not only would this destruction turn a large CO₂ sink into a CO₂ source, but would also eliminate a major source of aerosols emitted by the boreal forests which facilitate cloud formation (which reflects sunlight and reduces global warming):

Moen, J., Rist, L., Bishop, K., Chapin, F. S., Ellison, D., Kuuluvainen, T., Bradshaw, C. J. (2014), "Eye on the taiga: removing global policy impediments to safeguard the boreal forest", Conservation Letters, DOI: 10.1111/conl.12098

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/conl.12098/abstract

10. The linked reference indicates that methane emissions from livestock is greater than previously thought, and with meat consumption in Asia increasing rapidly, the coming increases livestock will contribute to increasing atmospheric methane concentrations:

Wecht, K. J., D. J. Jacob, C. Frankenberg, Z. Jiang, and D. R. Blake (2014), Mapping of North American methane emissions with high spatial resolution by inversion of SCIAMACHY satellite data, J. Geophys. Res. Atmos., 119, doi:10.1002/2014JD021551.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2014JD021551/abstract

11. The linked article about current Canadian wildfires indicate that the current weather pattern contributing to the wildfires were not predicted by the GCMs to occur for another 40-yrs:

http://www.adn.com/article/20140717/worst-wildfire-season-decades-canada-s-northwest-territories

12. The linked article (with a free access pdf) indicates that as global temperatures increase, methane emissions from peat bogs will also increase:

van Winden JF, Reichart G-J, McNamara NP, Benthien A, Damsté JSS (2012) Temperature-Induced Increase in Methane Release from Peat Bogs: A Mesocosm Experiment. PLoS ONE 7(6): e39614. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0039614

http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0039614

13. The linked reference indicates that the Earth System Sensitivity, ESS, may be bigger than previously thought; however, it does not indicate how quickly the positive feedback from the synchronization of the North Pacific and North Atlantic climates:

Summer K. Praetorius, Alan C. Mix, (2014), "Synchronization of North Pacific and Greenland climates preceded abrupt deglacial warming", Science 25 July 2014: Vol. 345 no. 6195 pp. 444-448 DOI: 10.1126/science.1252000

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/345/6195/444

14. The linked reference found that aerosol-cloud associated changes in the amount of the clouds and changes of their internal properties are both equally important in their contribution to cooling our planet. Moreover, they found that the total impact from the influence of aerosols on this type of cloud is almost double that estimated in the latest report of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.  These finding could lead to an increase in the observed global warming as China begins to clean-up its air pollution:

Yi-Chun Chen, Matthew W. Christensen, Graeme L. Stephens & John H. Seinfeld, (2014), "Satellite-based estimate of global aerosol–cloud radiative forcing by marine warm clouds", Nature Geoscience, doi:10.1038/ngeo2214

http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo2214.html

15. The linked reference (with a free access pdf) provides evidence that the main source of uncertainty for Arctic climate variability, and its predictability, is the North Pacific.  As we know that the North Pacific is projected to warm-up over the next 25 years in order to synchronize with the North Atlantic, it seems likely that we can expect the Arctic to warm rapidly as the North Pacific warms:

Dmitry V. Sein, Nikolay V. Koldunov, Joaquim G. Pinto, William Cabos, (2014), "Sensitivity of simulated regional Arctic climate to the choice of coupled model domain", Tellus A, 66, 23966, http://dx.doi.org/10.3402/tellusa.v66.23966

http://www.tellusa.net/index.php/tellusa/article/view/23966

16. The linked 2013 article focuses on changes in the Arctic Ocean, and indicates that changes in the plankton there could result in a positive feedback (that will likely become more important with time) associated both with lower dimethyl sulphide production and lower CO2 absorption: 

http://www.egu.eu/news/76/tiny-plankton-could-have-big-impact-on-climate/

17. The reference cited below indicates that atmospheric hydroxyl-radical concentrations are about the same in the Northern and Southern Hemispheres.  This is bad news as it implies that methane emissions in the Northern Hemisphere are likely higher than researchers have previously assumed (as it was expected that the Northern Hemisphere would have more hydroxyl-radicals than the Southern Hemisphere, and it appears likely that greenhouse gases such as methane are consuming part of store of atmospheric hydroxyl-radicals in the Northern Hemisphere).

P. K. Patra, M.C. Krol, S. A. Montzka, T. Arnold, E. L. Atlas, B.R. Lintner, B.B. Stephens, B. Xiang, J. W. Elkins, P. J. Fraser, A. Ghosh, E. J. Hintsa, D. F. Hurst, K. Ishijima, P. B. Krummel, B.R. Miller, K. Miyazaki, F.L. Moore, J. Mühle, S. O’Doherty, R.G. Prinn, L.P. Steele, M. Takigawa, . J. Wang, R.F. Weiss, S.C. Wofsy, and D. Young, (2014), "Observational evidence for interhemispheric hydroxyl-radical parity", Nature, doi:10.1038/nature13721


http://www2.ucar.edu/atmosnews/just-published/12346/wheres-atmospheres-self-cleaning-power
Haiku of Past Futures
My "burning embers"
are not tri-color bar graphs
+3C today

Bob Wallace

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 2111
    • View Profile
Re: Money and Politics: The Drive for Climate Change Action
« Reply #146 on: December 30, 2014, 05:32:49 AM »
no one takes RCP 2.6 as even remotely possible now

RCP2.6 says peak by about 2025 and drop to about zero net CO2 by 2100.  Possibly go somewhat CO2 negative.

I take that as very possible.  I think somewhere between 2025 and 2030 is where peak is most likely to occur.  And I think we can drop faster than the curve.  If we want, if we get adequately concerned, we can drop to zero by 2050. 

We have technology.  The transition is affordable.  Every year our technology improves and costs drop.


Csnavywx

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 417
    • View Profile
Re: Money and Politics: The Drive for Climate Change Action
« Reply #147 on: December 30, 2014, 05:45:19 AM »

My goodness!  How did thousands of climate scientists miss that while the latest ICPP report was being put together? 

Perhaps you should bring it to their attention. 

Or perhaps you should read some climate science first.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2012/01/much-ado-about-methane/


They didn't miss it, actually. As the United Nations Environmental Program states in their report:

http://www.unep.org/pdf/permafrost.pdf

On page 21:

The IPCC will release the AR5 in stages between September 2013 and October 2014, but to meet deadlines, participating model teams froze new model development in 2009, before the scientific community fully realized the potential effects of the permafrost carbon feedback on global climate. The modeling teams simply did not have time to incorporate the permafrost
carbon feedback into their models.


There's been a lot of advancement on the topic in just the last few years. The long process of putting together an IPCC report naturally excludes the latest research. It's a known issue inside the climate community. UNEP actually proposes a special commission on the issue in their report.

Csnavywx

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 417
    • View Profile
Re: Money and Politics: The Drive for Climate Change Action
« Reply #148 on: December 30, 2014, 05:55:20 AM »
no one takes RCP 2.6 as even remotely possible now

RCP2.6 says peak by about 2025 and drop to about zero net CO2 by 2100.  Possibly go somewhat CO2 negative.

I take that as very possible.  I think somewhere between 2025 and 2030 is where peak is most likely to occur.  And I think we can drop faster than the curve.  If we want, if we get adequately concerned, we can drop to zero by 2050. 

We have technology.  The transition is affordable.  Every year our technology improves and costs drop.

We are actually 3-5GT/yr above 2.6's mean peak emission rates for 2020 already. To "meet the blue line" so to speak, would require peak emissions basically this year. Another 6 years along the mean 8.5 path puts us solidly out of reach for the forseeable future, by any objective measure. It would also start throwing 4.5 into jeopardy. The area underneath the curves is ultimately what matters, as this determines the cumulative emission.

No doubt about it, time is a super-critical resource at this point.

jai mitchell

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1735
    • View Profile
Re: Money and Politics: The Drive for Climate Change Action
« Reply #149 on: December 30, 2014, 06:10:46 AM »
again, your statement, bob, indicates your lack of basic knowledge regarding co2 emissions.

you propose that we replace a significant majority of our transportation, industrial energy use and power generation infrastructure but neglect to consider that these activities actually demand more energy and hence, more emissions.

in addition, the production of Concrete and agriculture land use is going to be nearly impossible to reduce significantly.  therefore, your "slightly negative" values of emissions actually entail a significant global effort to actively geoengineer the climate.

and these are all without considering the feedbacks of arctic sea ice, melting permafrost and the other ASLR links I shared above.

if you bother (and I am starting to think that you won't or can't) to think seriously about this, you will realize that your assumptions and extrapolation of price per unit solar and wind into the larger frame of mitigation strategies is akin to magical thinking and even boarders on denialism.
Haiku of Past Futures
My "burning embers"
are not tri-color bar graphs
+3C today