RealClimate

Comments

RSS feed for comments on this post.

  1. More Monckton Monkey Business:

    RSS … collaborating with Ben Santer at LLNL (along with numerous other investigators) ….

    quoting Monckton about the above:
    “Note the use of one of the usual suspects’ favorite weasel-phrases, “consistent with”: the spatial pattern of warming is also “consistent with” natural variability, and an honest scientist would have said so.”

    To whit, the referenced RSS author, Ben Santer at LLNL, and others are DISHONEST.

    Isn’t that just more “defamation and libel” and Untruthfulness, yet again?

    [edit - discussion not appropriate]

    If ‘god’ didn’t want people to use the Legal system, then he would never have created Lawyers, or the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund, would he?

    A valid form of ‘defense’ has always been ‘attack’, yes? [ smile ]

    Comment by Walter — 6 Apr 2014 @ 9:41 AM

  2. RE : [edit - discussion not appropriate]

    Hey, I agree, it’s totally inappropriate (made me think of the recent retracted paper Recursive Fury) and so extreme, which is why I mentioned it here, and not to offend anyone.

    However it is part of the same pub by M. re his RSS comments, and here’s the link which was also deleted (accidentally, I am not sure, leave it up to you Mod.)
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/04/05/no-global-warming-for-17-years-8-months/

    Comment by Walter — 6 Apr 2014 @ 10:49 AM

  3. “As a research scientist myself, I feel compelled to try to promote and defend both science and scientists, though arguably neither should really need such support. I simply cannot let allegations, such as those mentioned above, pass with only a whimper of a response or, worse still, no response at all, especially as they are all untrue and unfounded, and reflect the self-interests of those making them. They clearly need to be confronted head-on.”
    By Graham H. Pyke Apr 1, 2014
    http://mahb.stanford.edu/blog/promotion-and-defense/

    and please see personal endorsement opportunity at
    http://consensusforaction.stanford.edu/

    Comment by Walter — 6 Apr 2014 @ 11:23 AM

  4. Who needs recursion when there is plenty of fresh , first order fury afoot.

    Comment by Russell — 6 Apr 2014 @ 5:28 PM

  5. Results imply that global and regional warming rates depend sensitively on regional ocean processes setting the OHU pattern, and that equilibrium climate sensitivity cannot be reliably estimated from transient observations.

    Comment by JCH — 6 Apr 2014 @ 8:20 PM

  6. As a lukewarmer, I want to ask if realclimate community agrees that this statement is true. Whatever the magnitude of forcing due to CO2 and associated feedbacks, it is no match for other forcings which have repeatedly driven the earth into ice ages after periods of high CO2 and warmer temperatures

    [Response: It's mostly misleading nonsense. Orbital forcing is a big deal, but it is very slow (tens of thousands of years). Tectonic changes have enormous impacts over geological time (very likely via CO2 changes in any case). But on a century time scale, they are tiny, and the impact of human effects (CO2, CH4, aerosols, ozone deforestation etc.) are much larger. - gavin]

    Comment by Buck Smith — 6 Apr 2014 @ 10:33 PM

  7. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/books/non_fictionreviews/10748667/The-game-is-up-for-climate-change-believers.html

    Oh a book by a historian for climate scientists.

    Comment by pete best — 7 Apr 2014 @ 8:31 AM

  8. You have made a type in the title «varaitions»

    [Response: That's an unforced variation right there! thanks! - gavin]

    Comment by Yvan Dutil — 7 Apr 2014 @ 9:49 AM

  9. Gavin, will you be posting a model/obs update?

    [Response: Trying to find the time! - gavin]

    Comment by barry — 7 Apr 2014 @ 10:35 AM

  10. World Bank agrees with some commenters here abouts.

    Keep in mind, if you want to rant on this there is another thread for that, kept open from last month.

    Comment by Pete Dunkelberg — 7 Apr 2014 @ 12:46 PM

  11. Oops it looks like that other thread is closed. You had better read what the World bank president has to say.
    https://www.commondreams.org/headline/2014/04/04

    Comment by Pete Dunkelberg — 7 Apr 2014 @ 1:21 PM

  12. http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/rcatorbg18&div=31&id=&page=

    Looks like this guy has patented the way whale poop fertilizes oceans!

    the nutrients and iron are “encapsulated in buoyant, chemically protective containers that keep the nutrients in the “photic zone” longer and release them over time.”

    http://web.mit.edu/effects/www/zjinman/IronPro.htm

    Comment by Hank Roberts — 7 Apr 2014 @ 1:45 PM

  13. http://skepticalscience.com/episode1-years-of-living-dangerously.html

    Excellent viewing guys seriously! James Cameron on Climate Science documentary in 9 parts. First one free to watch here

    Comment by pete best — 7 Apr 2014 @ 1:58 PM

  14. From Pete’s link at #9:

    “[Jim Young Kim] the [World] Bank’s president – a doctor active in the campaign to develop drugs to treat HIV – said he had asked the climate change community:

    “Do we have a plan that’s as good as the plan we had for HIV?” The answer, unfortunately, was no.

    “Is there enough basic science research going into renewable energy? Not even close. Are there ways of taking discoveries made in universities and quickly moving them into industry? No. Are there ways of testing those innovations? Are there people thinking about scaling [up] those innovations?”

    Interviewed ahead of next week’s biannual World Bank meeting, Kim added: “They [the climate change community] kept saying, ‘What do you mean a plan?’ I said a plan that’s equal to the challenge. A plan that will convince anyone who asks us that we’re really serious about climate change, and that we have a plan that can actually keep us at less than 2°C warming. We still don’t have one.

    “We’re trying to help and we find ourselves being more involved then I think anyone at the bank had predicted even a couple of years ago. We’ve got to put the plan together.”"

    So is Diogenes really Jim Young Kim???!!!

    Comment by wili — 7 Apr 2014 @ 2:53 PM

  15. Various plans have been proposed. I wonder if Kim of the World Bank has looked at _any_ of them, and if so, which ones. Someone has probably blogged a list of them somewhere. Pointers welcomed.

    Comment by Hank Roberts — 7 Apr 2014 @ 5:14 PM

  16. In case anyone doesn’t know about Another Week of Global Warming News, you’ll invariably find, each week, links relevant to the discussion there.

    Comment by Hank Roberts — 7 Apr 2014 @ 6:47 PM

  17. Beginning to see ethical arguments.

    “Crimes against Humanity:The Genocidal Campaign of the Climate Change Contrarians”

    http://blogs.law.widener.edu/climate/2014/04/05/crimes-against-humanitythe-genocidal-campaign-of-the-climate-change-contrarians/

    Comment by richard pauli — 7 Apr 2014 @ 7:04 PM

  18. Seroussi(2014)

    http://www.the-cryosphere-discuss.net/8/1873/2014/

    doi:10.5194/tcd-8-1873-2014

    PIG may keep melting even if (ha!) melting from warm ocean is reduced. An oddity is that they find grounding line is not so sensitive, in contrast to Favier(2014) DOI: 10.1038/NCLIMATE2094 which they attribute to smaller rates of basal melt in their model.

    I am looking forward to coupled ocean ice models such as Goldberg(2012) doi:10.1029/2011JF002247 for detailed cases with PIG and Thwaites bathymetry and in situ validation.

    i fear that nature will outrun modelling

    sidd

    Comment by sidd — 7 Apr 2014 @ 9:52 PM

  19. CHINA

    Anyone interested in the “real” China, may like to take an hour and have look at this Q&A program from last night direct from China. Insights galore for the astute, open minded, viewer.

    Monday, 7 April 2014 – China: Evolution not Revolution
    http://www.abc.net.au/tv/qanda/

    Includes a Downloadable podcast, or use Tor if not able to view in your country. Yes, pollution and climate change and energy is discussed at length.

    Comment by Walter — 7 Apr 2014 @ 9:57 PM

  20. Hank “Various plans have been proposed.”

    Excluding Diogenes’ plan, and all other one-offs like that by individual talking heads, be they known high powered individuals, I have seen NO PLANS.

    I have searched now for months and can not find any. Anderson’s isn’t a real Plan .. but an articulation as to the size of the problem with his personal “suggestions’ for targets and a few methods. Hansen’s “plan” mentioned in his opinion piece i quoted ref’d here is also NOT a genuine “plan” either.

    The IPCC have none, the UNFCCC have none, the UN has none, the USA none, the EU marginally a plan for the EU and that’s it, but nobody – as in no valid Institutional based of “experts” with Political clout has any serious “plans” for the future – bar BAU with a few dances around the margins on some aspects of the problem.

    So keep searching Hank for a “Globally Comprehensive” articulated science and economics reality based Plan. I gave up. Good luck! ( smile )

    Comment by Walter — 7 Apr 2014 @ 10:14 PM

  21. #15 W Manny, I’m with you. Speaking as someone who has been in situations where ethics were critical and where I stood up for them at some personal cost despite eventually being vindicated. However that could be a negative impost on your position by me saying so. ( sorry if that undermines your position )

    Comment by Walter — 7 Apr 2014 @ 10:22 PM

  22. Walter Manny:

    “If the rights of subjects were not protected (in the opinion of the Journal) can someone please explain to me how that is not an ethical problem?”

    Yes. Their official statement on the matter, which is still available, says there were no ethical problems. In negotations with the authors of the paper, the journal said there were no ethical problems.

    This flip-flopping of position doesn’t do the journal’s reputation any good, that’s the only thing certain here.

    Well, one of two certain things – the other is that the denialsphere is pretending that the first, official statement was never issued. Just as you’re doing.

    Comment by dhogaza — 7 Apr 2014 @ 10:25 PM

  23. Walter Manny:

    It is also true that UWA is still hosting the paper, has backed the paper, has said there are no issues with the paper, and has more or less gone “neener-neener” to the denialists who are making such a fuss over the fact that some people actually read their public comments and research them.

    Comment by dhogaza — 7 Apr 2014 @ 10:28 PM

  24. RC – it would be a plus, imho, if one day some Chinese Climate & Environmental Scientists et al were invited to present their Papers and pov here. Maybe it could flow on to others.

    imho the language and (entrenched ideological barriers by the Western public) precludes what otherwise would be very insightful information and perspectives by the Chinese and the Russians as well.

    I know, I’m dreaming!
    [edit - no personal attacks on commenters]

    wili, re who is Diogenes, you may be right! lol But he could also be James Hansen et al too. ( smile )

    Comment by Walter — 7 Apr 2014 @ 10:33 PM

  25. Done!

    Comment by Walter — 7 Apr 2014 @ 10:35 PM

  26. #21 .. “the journal said there were no ethical problems.”

    People spin the whole truth every single day of the week… if they can get away with it. Or even when they cannot.

    They “said it” so it must be true? Oh please!

    Comment by Walter — 7 Apr 2014 @ 11:42 PM

  27. It’s weather, but once you have enough weather, then it’s climate:

    Is a Super El Nino Coming Next Winter?

    Cliff Maas on what we do and don’t know, including

    a well-known issue called the spring forecast barrier for El Nino/La Nina.

    Check back in a few months for better likelihood of successful forecast.

    Comment by Hank Roberts — 7 Apr 2014 @ 11:57 PM

  28. NEW Study
    “Melting permafrost in places like Sweden could result in even higher levels of carbon emissions than predicted, accelerating climate change.

    Researchers have found that as permafrost melts in polar regions, it changes the composition of vegetation in the area, resulting in the release of methane.

    They say they have known for some time that the permafrost is melting, but didn’t know it would result in even higher levels of methane being released, which will exacerbate the problem.

    The research is featured in the newest edition of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.”
    http://phys.org/news/2014-04-permafrost-global.html
    http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2014/04/02/1314641111

    versus http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/11/arctic-and-american-methane-in-context/

    ( sigh )

    Comment by Walter — 8 Apr 2014 @ 1:21 AM

  29. Anyone can give practical help to climate scientists at no cost with little effort.

    The Weather@home project, launched in Australia and New Zealand today, is the latest stage of what has been dubbed “the world’s largest climate modelling experiment”.

    In the UK, that has enabled the equivalent of 20,000 years of simulations to be run in just three weeks, testing the likely contributing factors to this year’s devastating floods.
    https://theconversation.com/how-your-computer-could-reveal-whats-driving-record-rain-and-heat-in-australia-and-nz-24804

    Comment by Walter — 8 Apr 2014 @ 2:19 AM

  30. Walter #19,

    I’m a great fan of plans, but there’s that old saying from some general…”no plan or strategy, however well thought out, survives the first encounter with the enemy”.

    The correct analogy here is not tackling HIV but rather the ACA (US health reform, Obamacare). That has been a remarkable success, not because of the number signing up or any other such metric, but because it has both *created a conversation* and *changed the framing* of the conversation. The public is actually engaged and debating real facts, (despite the barrage of falsehoods quite similar to what goes on in climate.) For the first time, people are getting a clue about how crazy the US healthcare system really is, and seeing that reform is not so scary after all.

    Looking for some ‘global’ solution like Diogenes (enforced by UN Black Helicopters?) is simply a type of Nirvana Fallacy. The US, with the size of its economy, could start things moving with a strong regulatory framework. Will that solve everything? Of course not, but it will get people’s attention. Markets work *if* they are properly regulated.

    Comment by mgardner — 8 Apr 2014 @ 5:24 AM

  31. Buck Smith: Gavin is right. You are wrong. See
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SeYfl45X1wo

    Comment by Edward Greisch — 8 Apr 2014 @ 5:34 AM

  32. Reduced plant nutrition under elevated CO2 depresses the immunocompetence of cotton bollworm against its endoparasite

    Our results showed that elevated CO2 decreases the nutritional quality of wheat, and reduces the total hemocyte counts and impairs the capacity of hemocyte spreading of hemolymph of cotton bollworm larvae, fed wheat grown in the elevated CO2, against its parasitoid; however, this effect was insufficient to change the development and parasitism traits of M. mediator. Our results suggested that lower plant nutritional quality under elevated CO2 could decrease the immune response of herbivorous insects against their parasitoid natural enemies.

    http://www.nature.com/srep/2014/140401/srep04538/full/srep04538.html?WT.ec_id=SREP-704-20140408

    Comment by prokaryotes — 8 Apr 2014 @ 6:28 AM

  33. dhogaza, I recognize it may not the wisest course to attempt to engage with you, but I’ll give it a shot anyway. It is certainly a rational interpretation to say the Journal has flip-flopped and I suppose to imply a nefarious motive for so doing. Would you allow that it’s also a rational interpretation to see the first statement (which I obviously was not pretending was never issued — “Just as you’re doing” — else why would I reference it) as a polite way for the journal to retract a paper that it recognized was problematic? Would it also be rational to suppose that the second attempt was a recognition that the first attempt had failed?

    Comment by Walter Manny — 8 Apr 2014 @ 7:47 AM

  34. 33.

    I must for once agree with Dhogaza- what’s ‘problematic’ is the response of a publishing house exposed to litigation to being threatened with same – redaction is cheaper that fighting off the law firm of Sue, Grabbit & Runne, even if the plaintiffs face a six sigma probability of being laughed out of court.

    Comment by Russell — 8 Apr 2014 @ 10:03 AM

  35. Walter Manny,
    Anonymity is precisely what is wrong with the Internet. Anonymity encourages trolls. If one are really ashamed of the opinions you profess, maybe one should rethink them.

    [Response: There are many reasons for anonymity and even people that use their real names can still be trolls. This is an irrelevance for the most part. - gavin]

    Comment by Ray Ladbury — 8 Apr 2014 @ 10:15 AM

  36. Is this a Gentleman Who Prefers Fantasy suffering a dose of reality catching up with him? The IPCC appear to be expecting Richard Tol to correct his contribution to WGII. And the spat between Tol & Bob Ward is throwing up some goings-on that perhaps need some explanation from Tol. The chapter in WGII co-co-ordinated by Tol suddenly was amended to feature Tol’s own erroneous work.
    As Ward describes it“A section had been inserted on ‘Aggregate impacts’ which was based almost entirely on Professor Tol’s 2013 paper. The Chapter also included a new table and graph which were based on Figure 1 and Table 1 from his 2013 paper. None of this material had been included in the Second Order Draft of the report (a copy of which was also leaked to a blog for climate change ‘sceptics’) that had been made available to reviewers, including me.”
    As Tol told David Ruse of the Rail on Sunday “It’s all about taking away my credibility as an expert.” I suppose, if he has acted like a Gentleman Who Prefers Fantasy, then his credibility will indeed be rather difficult to hold on to.

    Comment by MARodger — 8 Apr 2014 @ 10:28 AM

  37. Walter Manny:

    “People spin the whole truth every single day of the week… if they can get away with it. Or even when they cannot.

    They “said it” so it must be true? Oh please!”

    OK, you’re accusing the journal of lying when they issued their official statement, which you don’t care for, and telling the truth, now that they’ve written a blog post saying something you do care for.

    “It is certainly a rational interpretation to say the Journal has flip-flopped”

    Certainly a rational interpretation? Any other interpretation implies a serious reading comprehension problem, or the typical denialist approach of cherry-picking that which pleases them and ignoring that which doesn’t.

    “Would you allow that it’s also a rational interpretation to see the first statement as a polite way for the journal to retract a paper that it recognized was problematic?”

    No. Again, this is just another way of accusing them of lying in their official statement (out of some sense of “politeness”).

    “Would it also be rational to suppose that the second attempt was a recognition that the first attempt had failed?”

    The second attempt’s apparent contradiction of the original, official statement has simply further tarnished their reputation with the audience which a journal, in normal circumstances, cares most about: the academics who write for it, review submitted articles for it, and read and cite it.

    My rational explanation is that the journal hasn’t had a good handle on how to respond to the threatened legal attacks, and has muddled the process. The official statement did not placate those whose threats of legal action led to the retraction in the first place, and they’re bending over backwards trying to deal with the situtation.

    I’m somewhat sympathetic. Though the academic environment isn’t known for overwhelming politeness and civility, those in that environment, including journal publishers, aren’t used to the overwhelming, rabid, and uncompromising junkyard-dog attacks, including threats of legal action, that the journal has been facing since publishing “Recursive Fury”. They’re dealing with a situation for which there’s little precedence in that community.

    UWA deserves praise and credit for telling McIntyre (among others) to take a flying leap, and for standing behind its researchers.

    Comment by dhogaza — 8 Apr 2014 @ 10:46 AM

  38. A new paper in the Journal of Sustainable Forestry demonstrates that forest management can mitigate the effects of climate change.

    Carbon, Fossil Fuel, and Biodiversity Mitigation With Wood and Forests (Oliver et al. 2014).

    Abstract
    “Life-cycle analyses, energy analyses, and a range of utilization efficiencies were developed to determine the carbon dioxide (CO2) and fossil fuel (FF) saved by various solid wood products, wood energy, and unharvested forests. Some products proved very efficient in CO2 and FF savings, while others did not. Not considering forest regrowth after harvest or burning if not harvested, efficient products save much more CO2 than the standing forest; but wood used only for energy generally saves slightly less. Avoided emissions (using wood in place of steel and concrete) contributes the most to CO2 and FF savings compared to the product and wood energy contributions. Burning parts of the harvested logs that are not used for products creates an additional CO2 and FF savings. Using wood substitutes could save 14 to 31% of global CO2 emissions and 12 to 19% of global FF consumption by using 34 to 100% of the world’s sustainable wood growth. Maximizing forest CO2 sequestration may not be compatible with biodiversity. More CO2 can be sequestered synergistically in the products or wood energy and landscape together than in the unharvested landscape. Harvesting sustainably at an optimum stand age will sequester more carbon in the combined products, wood energy, and forest than harvesting sustainably at other ages.”

    http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10549811.2013.839386#.UznEccdlbx5

    Comment by Phil L — 8 Apr 2014 @ 11:04 AM

  39. Walter and dhogaza, my original post (used to be #15) was moved to the Borehole for some reason after appearing here. As Eric once pointed out to me off line, the workings of the Borehole are sometimes mysterious, but on the off chance you were curious, there it is.

    As to your second observation, dhogaza, it is true that UWA is still backing the paper, which may bear watching especially since Dr. Lewandowsky has left for Bristol. I doubt very much that there is any “neener-neener” aspect to its response, though. I would think they back the paper because they think its valid and gave it the OK to begin with for that reason. And if the work is valid, it should find its way to a journal eventually.

    Comment by Walter Manny — 8 Apr 2014 @ 11:19 AM

  40. The potential El Niño has not fizzled yet but there is still plenty of time.

    http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/#tabs=Trade-winds

    Comment by Pete Dunkelberg — 8 Apr 2014 @ 11:25 AM

  41. Natural cycling can recover:

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/gcb.12379/abstract

    The collapse of collective farming in Russia after 1990 and the subsequent economic crisis led to …. the most widespread and abrupt land use change in the 20th century in the northern hemisphere. The withdrawal of land area from cultivation led to several benefits including carbon (C) sequestration. Here, we provide a geographically complete and spatially detailed analysis …. The amount of C sequestered over the period 1990–2009 …. compensates all fire and postfire CO2 emissions in Russia and covers about 4% of the global CO2 release due to deforestation and other land use changes. Our assessment shows a significant mitigation of increasing atmospheric CO2 by prolonged C accumulation in Russian soils caused by collective farming collapse.

    Can we manage agriculture to sequester carbon?
    Can we be as smart as dirt?

    Comment by Hank Roberts — 8 Apr 2014 @ 11:59 AM

  42. Good grief! At Pete Best’s link, Charles Moore, the reviewer of “The Age of Global Warming” says in his 2nd paragraph:

    The theory of global warming is a gigantic weather forecast for a century or more. However interesting the scientific inquiries involved, therefore, it can have almost no value as a prediction.

    That’s the kind of risible denier ignorance (currently number 60 in popularity at SkS) we’d expect from the Wall Street Journal or Forbes. Unsurprisingly, Moore’s review appears in the U.K.’s Daily Telegraph. As the Stoat warns us: Do not trust the Torygraph, for it is Tory.

    Comment by Mal Adapted — 8 Apr 2014 @ 3:39 PM

  43. dho, I am not accusing the journal of lying when they issued their first official statement. Nor am I accusing them of lying in their second official statement. It’s oh-so-satisfying television to hear, “Were you lying then or are you lying now? Mwa-ha-ha!” But I don’t automatically assume either statement is true — I assume it’s real people dealing with a real issue and doing their best in the circumstances. And I’ll put it out there as pure conjecture that one reason the journal could be fearing litigation is because they might lose in court, legitimately. Just as it’s conjecture to assume they fear litigation that is frivolous. I don’t find it as easy as you to leap to any firm conclusions yet. Perhaps the story is over, perhaps not.

    Comment by Walter Manny — 8 Apr 2014 @ 3:45 PM

  44. The plot thickens: Ugo Bardi Resigns as Chief Topic Editor over Journal’s Conduct in Lewandowski et al Retraction.

    Comment by Mal Adapted — 8 Apr 2014 @ 4:20 PM

  45. #37 Dhogaza, you’re actually conflating 2 different Walters here. Me and then W Manny.

    Whilst you’re entitled to analyse this situation hypothetically anyway you wish, please note that regarding this “including threats of legal action”, that Frontiers have specifically said there were NO such threats ever made to them by anyone. They also specifically have said that the “complaints and criticisms” were taken seriously by Frontiers .. I can’t recall their language now but the sense i got from that was that the small number of complaints they did receive were quite reasonable in every way.

    Any claims that the paper was withdrawn due to unfounded threats of litigation are in fact at this moment totally unfounded, if anyone wishes to accept Frontiers own statements in good faith.

    Idle opinions pronounced in the blogosphere and newspapers in general about this issue by those not actually inside the tent doesn’t equal accuracy.

    RE “OK, you’re accusing the journal of lying when they issued their official statemen” …. ( sigh ) no I am not accusing them of “lying”.

    I made a simple statement regarding ‘spin’ in relation to the WHOLE Truth. Every organisation/business/government treads a balancing act between what they really know and what can be said “publicly” – there are always competing “ethics” issues, as well as their public image (a good will asset) which any responsible org (and their lawyers) are required to protect.

    Nuance is important. Nothing is black and white, not with Frontiers and not with anything. You make it (falsely) a black and white issue when you accuse me of accusing someone else of “lying” when that never happened.

    Comment by Walter — 8 Apr 2014 @ 5:36 PM

  46. Walter Manny:

    “dho, I am not accusing the journal of lying when they issued their first official statement.”

    It’s dhogaza.

    earlier, you said:

    “People spin the whole truth every single day of the week… if they can get away with it. Or even when they cannot.

    They “said it” so it must be true? Oh please!”

    And you say you’re not accusing them of lying? Whatever.

    Comment by dhogaza — 8 Apr 2014 @ 5:43 PM

  47. #30 “Looking for some ‘global’ solution like Diogenes (enforced by UN Black Helicopters?) is simply a type of Nirvana Fallacy.”

    Science since 1988 onwards, every statement by the IPCC, every conversation about “mitigation” ever made has emphasized the fact that AGW, CC,and humanities future on this planet is a ‘global problem’ that requires a ‘global solution’. That’s why they created the UNFCCC and several other UN organisations / teams.

    Now, for some unknown reason to me, such an approach has morphed into a ‘Nirvana Fallacy’.

    I really do not understand why people insist on twisting not only people’s words but the accepted reality as well. It’s beyond frustrating.

    Well, actually, I do understand it and why it arises, i simply wish there was far less of it in the world. It would make it a nicer place to be.

    I repeat that there is NOT ONE credible comprehensive global plan (i am aware of) to solve the problem of increasing carbon pollution at this time. Why such a straightforward and realistic comment like that is a problem for anyone else, is simply too much to deal with honestly on a public discussion board.

    Comment by Walter — 8 Apr 2014 @ 5:59 PM

  48. dhogaza, the accuracy of the fine details matter. be it the frontiers issue, your name’s spelling, or this: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2014/04/unforced-varaitions-apr-2014/comment-page-1/#comment-497729 ( smiling )

    Comment by Walter — 8 Apr 2014 @ 8:58 PM

  49. dhogaza (sorry about the ‘dho’, lazy on my part):

    It’s an easy mistake to make, but it’s the other Walter who wrote what you quote me as writing. I didn’t catch it either the first time you mixed us up.

    But please have a go at what I have written, by all means.

    Comment by Walter Manny — 8 Apr 2014 @ 9:07 PM

  50. > I repeat

    Yes, but:

    “Use “the UV Mar 2014 thread open for more Diogenetic conversation”

    It’s there for you.

    Comment by Hank Roberts — 9 Apr 2014 @ 12:11 AM

  51. #47 walter,

    Nirvana Fallacy is when only the ‘perfect’ solution is acceptable. Your *observation* that no ‘perfect’ solution has been offered is not a Nirvana Fallacy; it is as you say an observation. The negative tone with respect to other proposals, however, fits the definition quite nicely. If the US and China and the EU enacted serious policies to control emissions, that would not be a ‘global’, UN-voted, solution, but it would be a really Good Thing.

    To carry on the analogy with Obamacare, “but it isn’t single payer” is a similar critique. Why you or Diogenes think others need to be constantly reminded that “good” isn’t “perfect” is puzzling– most of the participants in these discussions seem to be well aware of that.

    Comment by mgardner — 9 Apr 2014 @ 6:27 AM

  52. Dear Hank, thank you so much for your very kind advice. The fact is Hank I was responding to a personal reply directed to me here on this thread by mgardner, about a previous comment of mine which was actually a direct response to YOUR own comment namely:
    ——————-
    Hank Roberts says:
    7 Apr 2014 at 5:14 PM
    Various plans have been proposed. I wonder if Kim of the World Bank has looked at _any_ of them, and if so, which ones. Someone has probably blogged a list of them somewhere. Pointers welcomed.
    ——————–

    NOTE: *pointers welcome*

    To whit my reply to YOU included:

    ———————–
    Walter says:
    7 Apr 2014 at 10:14 PM
    Hank “Various plans have been proposed.”
    Excluding Diogenes’ plan, and all other one-offs like that by individual talking heads, be they known high powered individuals, I have seen NO PLANS. [...]
    So keep searching Hank for a “Globally Comprehensive” articulated science and economics reality based Plan. I gave up. Good luck! ( smile )
    ——————-

    At the risk of sounding imprudent, may I humbly offer you a little advice of my own, which is that: you take your own advice, walk your own talk, and try to remember that people in glass houses should not be throwing stones.

    Have a great day.

    Comment by Walter — 9 Apr 2014 @ 10:56 AM

  53. Walter:

    “Whilst you’re entitled to analyse this situation hypothetically anyway you wish, please note that regarding this “including threats of legal action”, that Frontiers have specifically said there were NO such threats ever made to them by anyone.”

    At least one legal threat is documented.

    You can read a quick quote (e-mails retrieved due to a FOIA request) here:

    http://www.shapingtomorrowsworld.org/news.php?p=2&t=124&&n=218#3481

    That thread, and others, document the fact that at least one such threat was made, regardless of what the journal now claims.

    Comment by dhogaza — 9 Apr 2014 @ 11:23 AM

  54. On the subject of global sea level rise: I can understand that ice sheets respond slowly to warming, so they are ‘out of equilibrium’ with the current climate – there would be a lot more ice melt to come, and hence sea level rise, even if we could stabilise global temperature at today’s value (which I know isn’t going to happen). What I don’t understand is why the component of sea level rise which is due to expansion of sea water would not stabilise as soon as global temperature stabilised. Why wouldn’t expansion stop as soon as there was no more rise in ocean heat content?

    Thanks!

    Comment by Icarus — 9 Apr 2014 @ 11:41 AM

  55. from: http://retractionwatch.com/2014/04/09/chief-specialty-editor-resigns-from-frontiers-in-wake-of-controversial-retraction/#more-19736

    Meanwhile, Frontiers editorial director Costanza Zucca responded to a request for comment we placed last week about the apparent contradiction between the retraction notice and a later statement by the journal. The former said that the journal “did not identify any issues with the academic and ethical aspects of the study,” while the latter said the paper “did not sufficiently protect the rights of the studied subjects.”

    Zucca said: “There is no contradiction between the two statements. The reference to ethical considerations in the original retraction statement is a reference to the ethical clearance for conducting the study given by UWA. The issue was not with the study as such, but with how the paper was written. The paper made it possible to explicitly identify subjects. Frontiers stands by its decision to retract the article, which it considers to have been the right and responsible course of action.”

    Comment by Walter Manny — 9 Apr 2014 @ 12:42 PM

  56. Ray Ladbury wrote: “Anonymity is precisely what is wrong with the Internet. Anonymity encourages trolls.”

    The ClimateProgress site used to allow anonymous comments. There were a few trolls. So they changed the blog to require commenters to sign in using Disqus, Facebook, or some other traceable account. Now there are more troll comments than ever — most from Facebook accounts, using the person’s real name.

    The real trolls don’t want to be anonymous. They want to be famous.

    Comment by SecularAnimist — 9 Apr 2014 @ 5:14 PM

  57. dhigaza, you had a pretty good run at me there with the misquote and the snide “whatever”. How about an “oops”? Do I get an “oops”? :)

    Comment by Walter Manny — 9 Apr 2014 @ 5:31 PM

  58. From the Guardian: BT, Shell and corporates call for trillion tonne carbon cap.

    H/T Planet 3.0

    Follow the links

    http://www.climatecommuniques.com/Trillion-Tonne-Communique.aspx

    http://www.climatecommuniques.com/~/media/Files/Communique%202014/The_Trillion_Tonne_Communique_FAQ.ashx

    May you find The Plan.

    Comment by Pete Dunkelberg — 9 Apr 2014 @ 7:38 PM

  59. Iacrus, just like ice sheets which take a long time to reach equilibrium, so does ocean heat content. Especially the heat content of the deep ocean. If surface temperatures were “stabilized” there would still be net heat flux into the oceans for hundreds of years.

    Comment by Thomas — 9 Apr 2014 @ 7:49 PM

  60. #53 dhogaza,

    Look I had read that page last week already, ok? Understand?

    Yet you now say “.. document the fact that at least one such threat was made, regardless of what the journal now claims.”

    WHICH PROVES MY EARLIER POINT PRECISELY ….
    ———–
    Walter says:
    7 Apr 2014 at 11:42 PM
    #21 .. “the journal said there were no ethical problems.”
    People spin the whole truth every single day of the week… if they can get away with it. Or even when they cannot.
    They “said it” so it must be true? Oh please!
    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2014/04/unforced-varaitions-apr-2014/comment-page-1/#comment-497412
    ————-

    For Frontiers also said there were NO threats of litigation … do you “get it” yet, that what I said was 100% accurate about “spin” by Frontiers and by every kind of org placed in such a situation?

    However I don’t accept that someone called FOXGOOSE is a credible source either. http://www.shapingtomorrowsworld.org/rfmedia.html#3359

    But given he claims “This ended the matter personally, as far as I was ..” then where is the THREAT today? I have no idea, bar the unspoken suggestion that what the paper does is leave them open to litigation in some form.

    Lewandowsky can beat this up all he wants (that’s his right to put his pov) … but Frontiers have a right to make their own decisions based on their Lawyers advice. In fact it is incumbent upon them to take that advice and fulfill their responsibilities to protect their organisation.

    Whether I agree with their decisions is 100% irrelevant to the point I was making which you have rejected out of hand still.

    I do not have access to the WHOLE Truth of what really happened. Neither does Lewandowsky, and neither do you. Conspiratorial Ideation does not only infect the climate deniosphere! Lewandowsky and many others have the exact same problem they rightly claim (and prove) that others do. I suggest you add yourself to the list. Good luck working it out.

    Comment by Walter — 9 Apr 2014 @ 9:23 PM

  61. IIRC, someone on the last open thread (on of the Walters?) claimed that Gore was to blame for the political polarization of the climate issue. This wide spread claim (but apparently one not supported by the data) has recently been reinforced by a NYT editorial that was also full of other mis-information. It has been taken apart by the good folks at Climate Progress:

    http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/04/09/3424593/showtime-years-dangerously-response/

    Comment by wili — 9 Apr 2014 @ 9:41 PM

  62. Hank, everyone makes mis-takes and has knee-jerk reactions on social media and discussion boards. What sorts the men from the boys is being able to admit it, and have a good belly laugh about it.

    Walter Manny is in the same boat as I, so I can appreciate his very mature retort: “Do I get an “oops”? :)”

    Not likely Mr Manny. So I am left with only one important thing to say to Hank:

    *PLONK*

    Comment by Walter — 9 Apr 2014 @ 9:42 PM

  63. #51 mgardner, thanks for the reply. I hear you.

    re “Nirvana Fallacy is when only the ‘perfect’ solution is acceptable.”

    If this is what you think I am on about, then you are mistaken.

    “Why you or Diogenes think others need to be constantly reminded that “good” isn’t “perfect” is puzzling – most of the participants in these discussions seem to be well aware of that.”

    If that is a genuine query M Gardner, and not rhetorical, then I am happy to address it. I just don’t want to waste my time, so please confirm you are willing to listen.

    Here’s a hint (and Diogenes can confirm this is his motivation or not himself): The issue i snot so much about the ‘solutions’ but about defining accurately the precise nature of the problem first.

    Diogenes started his comments here by focusing on the fact that all claims here (and links to good news about alt energy plans/actions submitted here) that renewables can solve the ‘problem’ was a continual denial by those posters as to the extent of the problem itself.

    Diogenes involvement here over the last several weeks/months has actually led to several others shaking off their denial and inhibitions to verbalize the real truth of matters “carbon emissions” and getting more serious and honest about defining the reality by using the science and the facts about energy use etc that are available.

    As such despite all the unfounded criticisms laid upon Diogenes shoulders here by almost all, he has been a great service to the readership, imo. He has also had an effect on the moderators of RC as well who have changed their tunes about the usefulness of discussing mitigation issues and the politics that surrounds that. These matters cannot be separated from the scientific discussions as if they are unrelated subjects.

    This has been a massive step forward for RC and benefits everyone, imo.

    I congratulate Diogenes. people who insist on only seeing the negatives and condemning him here simply do not “get it” yet, and have not actually heard what he has been saying from the get go. Whether his personal opinions for solutions are good or bad or lunacy, is actually beside the point. He knows that, and so did I from the get go. All the knee-jerk emotional reactions got in the way of those who had them. Such is life on social media.

    If you need more clarification or details, and you really are genuine, then please let me know, and I will do my best to help you understand this. Frankly I gave up long ago and consider my posting good quality refs here a total waste of time.

    Comment by Walter — 9 Apr 2014 @ 10:07 PM

  64. Now this I like, because there is nothing like a little external confirmation. A couple of high flyer academics from ANU mirroring my own thoughts, my own personal experience, and several months of blog posts and references.

    10 April 2014
    What science communicators can learn from listening to people

    In making this documentary we’ve been driven by a singular ironic fact – that the facts alone will not bring about a change in attitude and behaviour. Yet those of us looking at the relationship between science and society still need to do more to communicate this fact.

    We still see scientists who desperately want key policy and behavioural changes hoping that clearly stating the facts will win the day.

    In this chapter we draw out how the lessons of the past few decades of science communication practice and research have shown this fallacy for what it is.

    [ie Untrue and Self-defeating ]

    The end result is our documentary Up Stream, available now in four episodes for free and online.

    https://theconversation.com/what-science-communicators-can-learn-from-listening-to-people-25087

    Enjoy, includes x 4 videos, that are right up your ally Prok of CS :-)

    Enjoy this, I know I have. Best to all …. ( smiling )

    Comment by Walter — 10 Apr 2014 @ 4:32 AM

  65. wili .. re “(on of the Walters?) claimed that Gore was to blame for the political polarization of the climate issue.”

    yes that is I however, you are falsely reframing that incorrectly by using the word BLAME. Check the archives.

    I did not “blame” him, I said that by his involvement with AIT it opened the door even wider to more “political blowback” and that’s what happened…. iow just his face on movie screen was enough to activate wild outrageous reactions … it was an “added” motivation which activated the troops.

    Now I didn’t mention this at the time … but at the same time 2007, if you chekc your history you will see was a period when “social media” came out of the closest and became mainstream.

    So, many things happened at the same time. I did NOT blame Gore, I still do not blame Gore, I simply reported on the history of that event and what came afterwards. I think I used the word “major effect” .. or at least that is what I meant.

    What I also indicated ( I thought quite clearly ) was that Gore was filling a vacuum left by the lack of communication engagement with the public and leaders in the world by the IPCC, and by Climate Scientists in general.

    Why? because it has all the signs of sitting back and just assuming that they would be listened to, and that laying out the simple facts would be enough……. detailing the validity of the science on RC from 2004 etc would be enough. History proves it wasn’t. Gore’s AIT is still a hot spot with deniers all over.

    Then there is this : https://theconversation.com/what-science-communicators-can-learn-from-listening-to-people-25087

    I will look at Romms site, and see what he says. Frankly people’s raw sensitive emotional buttons about such “level headed” unemotional and Non-Blaming comments and points of view this and many other things is quite ….. well words fail me sometimes.

    Earlier today I saw another “professional” article of the history, and the polticial activism against global warming began in the 70′s .. I thought hey, I will share that at RC after someone suggetsed the poltical deniosphere didn;t begin until 2009 and ClimateGate. I thought (for a moment) people might begin to realise their default “beliefs” of this whole critical aspect about “public communication of climate science totally wrong. Then I thought better of it .. why bother?

    If one does not learn from ‘mis-takes’ of the past then what is the point of getting out of bed in the morning?

    Pretending past mis-takes (well intentioned or not) never happened and deny it forever is no solution. Denial of what is, is not limited to anti-climate science types or fossil fuel miners only. ( smile )

    Comment by Walter — 10 Apr 2014 @ 4:55 AM

  66. http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/Polarization-638×468.jpg

    Well look at the liberal peak in the US in 2006 when AIT came out there. Then look at the ‘trend change’ UP for conservatives beginning in 2006 that extended for two years until falling again.

    The success of AIT to shift public opinion galvanised the deniosphere and their funders/controllers/manipulators. Triggered Heartland’s shift to anti-AGW activism in the public sphere, triggered Monckton public activism, triggered the funding and covert direction for the CRU hack and many others that never made it into the press because they could find nothing.

    Watts established the blog, Watts Up With That? (WUWT?) in 2006. (co-incidence?)

    The Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF)was established in November 2009, shortly after the start of the Climatic Research Unit email controversy, and its headquarters occupy a room at the Institute of Materials, Minerals and Mining.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Warming_Policy_Foundation

    (co-incidence?)

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Heartland_Institute#Global_warming
    Became outwardly pro-active in late 2007 and into 2008, before the CRU hack. Co-incidence?

    It took some time before the co-ordinated behind the scenes activities had an outer effect on public opinion. But things became ‘deadly serious’ when AIT came out and was successful. It was a rallying cry for the Ayn Rand type troops to get off their butts and do something to save the world from the Liberals destroying it.

    AIT was great, would have had longer lived legs if Sir David Attenborough or similar was the front man. Would have been more effective if a large global group of climate scientists and academic media communication experts supported it (eg a climate science NFP Foundation) to make AITv2 in 2009, AITv3 in 2011, and AITv4 in 2013.

    Unfortunately instead it became a lightening rod for the Deniosphere to this day. I call that a missed opportunity. A BIG one at that. Whatever was gained through the effort of AIT was lost.

    Others will disagree. Fine. It really doesn’t matter anymore. 25 years later, nothing much has really been achieved for all the investment made in Climate Science. Sure the knowledge base has increased, but credible response actions have been poor and at times counter-productive.

    CO2e is still rising as we speak. That’s the only yardstick that counts. Cheers

    Comment by Walter — 10 Apr 2014 @ 5:43 AM

  67. Are you Listening?
    Up Stream Doco Part 4: Looking Forward aka “the science of science communication” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iyRKTqsXfjM

    ——————————————–

    Looking backward – and coming full circle.
    Quoting: If you still feel that your purpose is directed at the “public and journalists” may I suggest you use your best recent POST from RC, go visit http://theconversation.com/au and submit for publication, and then see what kind of responses you get from what is mainly academic level readers from all walks of life, and then ask yourself what % of readers understood what you said/meant. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/10/the-ipcc-ar5-attribution-statement/comment-page-1/#comment-417262

    It’s not necessary to write ugly, unintelligible prose … just because it’s a technical report. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/10/the-ipcc-ar5-attribution-statement/comment-page-1/#comment-417264

    I’m pretty sure the nuances of these keywords are lost entirely on media and the public. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/10/the-ipcc-ar5-attribution-statement/comment-page-1/#comment-417295

    [Quoting Research Paper: The Tragedy of the Risk-Perception Commons: Culture Conflict, Rationality Conflict, and Climate Change] This conflict between individual and collective rationality is not inevitable. It occurs only because of contingent, mutable, and fortunately rare conditions that make one SET OF BELIEFS about risk congenial to one cultural group and an opposing set congenial to another. NEUTRALIZE THESE conditions, we will argue, and the conflict between the individual and collective levels of rationality is resolved. Perfecting our knowledge of HOW to achieve this state should be A PRIMARY AIM OF THE SCIENCE OF SCIENCE COMMUNICATION. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/10/the-ipcc-ar5-attribution-statement/comment-page-1/#comment-417306

    Responses to that ‘paper’ quoted just above:
    Hank http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/10/the-ipcc-ar5-attribution-statement/comment-page-1/#comment-417318

    Retrograde Orbit http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/10/the-ipcc-ar5-attribution-statement/comment-page-1/#comment-417346

    SecularAnimist http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/10/the-ipcc-ar5-attribution-statement/comment-page-1/#comment-417358

    Patrick 027 http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/10/the-ipcc-ar5-attribution-statement/comment-page-1/#comment-417365

    What you said about “screaming paid stooges” is true. I believe what the Paper was saying is also true. Blending of the two truths plus other aspects and understanding the dynamics as “whole unit” is far closer to representing the “reality” of the “problem” I was seeking to point to. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/10/the-ipcc-ar5-attribution-statement/comment-page-1/#comment-417428

    SecularAnimist to whit: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/10/the-ipcc-ar5-attribution-statement/comment-page-1/#comment-417448

    Anonymous Coward to SA “Please desist. It’s not helping either the cause of rational inquiry or the level of discourse here. You might also want to get informed about what’s going on in the rest of the world before pinning global phenomenons on factors specific to some countries.”
    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/10/the-ipcc-ar5-attribution-statement/comment-page-1/#comment-417457

    Ray Ladbury retorts http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/10/the-ipcc-ar5-attribution-statement/comment-page-1/#comment-417461

    and Hanks finds another ‘paper’ http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/10/the-ipcc-ar5-attribution-statement/comment-page-1/#comment-417462

    Are you listening, yet?

    Up Stream Documentary https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCLdUqbVD9bioQGgFh5kEucw

    Well, time is up, so good luck with it. ( smile )

    Comment by Walter — 10 Apr 2014 @ 8:08 AM

  68. Interesting, if taken with the proverbial grain of salt:

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/04/wind-power-emissions_n_5087308.html

    The last paragraph or two is a horse of a different color; less to do with puffing wind energy (couldn’t resist that pun) and more of a context statement:

    As for the EPA, it’s still not clear what the standards for emissions reductions from existing power plants will look like. The EPA said Friday that it has sent its draft standards to the Office of Management and Budget for interagency review, and expects to release those draft standards in June, per President Barack Obama’s climate action plan. EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy has said that standards will be crafted in a way that allows states to develop their own feasible emission reduction plans through energy efficiency measures and the increased use of renewable energy.

    It’s not yet clear, however, how steep the emissions cuts for existing plants will be. It’s also not yet clear how much of a state’s compliance with the standards will be expected to come from changes inside the power plants — such as efficiency or technology upgrades — or from added capacity via renewables. AWEA argues EPA could “set the standard pretty aggressively” for states to use additional generation from wind and other renewables to comply.

    Comment by Kevin McKinney — 10 Apr 2014 @ 8:25 AM

  69. #66 Walter – The denialist campaign was ongoing many years before Gore’s film. Remember The Global Climate Coalition? Their “astroturf” organization was an early attempt to spread political disinformation about the problem of AGW. Other efforts with funding from corporate interests with major investments in the fossil fuel industry, such as Exxon and the Koch brothers, appeared after the Kyoto Protocol in 1997. People such as the Idso’s and John Daley were active on the internet long before 2006. The denialist campaign is timed to coincide with the US election cycle and the approaching end of the Bush administration in 2008 resulted in a major effort, to which you allude.

    Comment by Eric Swanson — 10 Apr 2014 @ 9:39 AM

  70. Looks like pollution near the Equator does more damage globally than pollution emitted in the past at higher latitudes. The atmosphere is more complicated than we counted on, and Paul Crutzen’s hope that we had dodged a bullet by keeping bromine out of the stratosphere was true for the past, but may not be holding up now. We could still lose the ozone layer.

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/04/140404092931.htm
    http://www.awi.de/en/home/

    Thanks to the OH hole that the researchers discovered over the tropical Pacific, greater amounts of brominated hydrocarbons can reach the stratosphere than in other parts of the world. Although their ascent takes place over the tropical West Pacific, these compounds amplify ozone depletion in the polar regions. Since scientists identified this phenomenon and took it into account in the modelling of stratospheric ozone depletion, their models have corresponded excellently with the actually measured data….

    … sulphur dioxide may also reach the stratosphere via the OH hole over the tropical West Pacific, it quickly becomes obvious that the atmospheric elevator over the South Seas not only boosts ozone depletion, but may influence the climate of the entire Earth. In fact, the aerosol layer in the stratosphere, which is also composed of sulphur particles, seems to have become thicker in recent years. Researchers do not know yet whether there is a connection here.

    But wouldn’t it be a stroke of luck if air pollutants from South East Asia were able to mitigate climate warming? “By no means,” Markus Rex vigorously shakes his head. “The OH hole over the South Seas is above all further evidence of how complex climate processes are. And we are still a long way off from being in a position to assess the consequences of increased sulphur input into the stratosphere. Therefore, we should make every effort to understand the processes in the atmosphere as best we can and avoid any form of conscious or unconscious manipulation that would have an unknown outcome.”

    Why wasn’t the OH hole discovered earlier?

    The tropical West Pacific is one of the most remote regions on our planet. That is why extensive measurements of the air composition have yet to take place in this area. There is also a considerable gap in the otherwise dense network of global ozone measurement stations here. Even in the past measurements from the peripheral sections of the now investigated region showed minimal ozone values in the area of the upper troposphere, but not the consistently low values that have now been found across the entire depth of the troposphere. The newly discovered phenomenon reveals itself in its full scope only through the measurements that were conducted to such an extensive degree for the first time and was thus not able to be grasped at all previously.

    Comment by Hank Roberts — 10 Apr 2014 @ 9:59 AM

  71. Wili #14,

    “Interviewed ahead of next week’s biannual World Bank meeting, Kim added: “They [the climate change community] kept saying, ‘What do you mean a plan?’ I said a plan that’s equal to the challenge. A plan that will convince anyone who asks us that we’re really serious about climate change, and that we have a plan that can actually keep us at less than 2°C warming. We still don’t have one.

    So is Diogenes really Jim Young Kim???!!!”

    The only thing I wish we had in common is his paycheck!

    But, he is mostly correct about the absence of a plan for climate change amelioration. There are essentially three main categories of proposed actions for climate change amelioration related to ‘plans. First are the proposals for action without any quantitative targets. They constitute the majority of posts on the climate advocacy blogs. I have discussed them before; they are not plans. Kim understands plans; his organization would not consider proposals without myriad quantitative targets across many different types of metrics.

    Second are the high-risk plans. These include plans such as Kevin Anderson’s, McKibben’s, Ceres Clean Trillion, etc. They are high-risk for two reasons. First, the targets of 2 C are viewed by the climate experts as different flavors of Dangerous. Second, there are no contingencies in these plans. What happens if the temperature creeps toward the 2 C target, and we find that the carbon feedbacks are accelerating rapidly, or perhaps are at the point where some have gone on to autopilot? What do we do now, Coach; where is our Plan B? In the corporate world, no CEO worth his salt would EVER propose a plan without contingencies; that is true even in government. In either case, they would not want the risk of the organization going under if Murphy’s Law kicks in. But, in the world of climate change, successful planning principles seem to go out the window. Contingency; who needs that?

    Third are the lower-risk plans. The only two of which I am aware are Hansen’s and mine. They both aim for a safer 1 C target. I include contingency two ways. First, I have stricter demand reduction on the front end, and introduce massive reforestation sooner. This would compensate to some extent for problems that could crop up at a later time during implementation of the plan. Second, I allow for the possibility of geo-engineering if the strong front-end emissions reduction starts to result in an unacceptably fast increase in temperature. We would have to have much of the geo-engineering infrastructure in place if the temperature increase starts to take off. I personally don’t like the idea of geo-engineering at untested global scales, but I like the idea of temperature increasing beyond some critical point even less.

    Comment by DIOGENES — 10 Apr 2014 @ 11:41 AM

  72. Diogenes (“born of Zeus” but who’s your mama? ‘-)): at 69–Note also that Kim, not surprisingly, is still devoted to plans that include global economic growth. This seems like another important dividing line between plans–which ones can face the fact that we can’t get anywhere near anything remotely safe in anything like the time we actually have at this point, and also keep growing the global economy. I can’t recall whether Hansen has taken a position on this so far.

    I’m a bit confused by one thing: If Anderson’s plan has a target of the unsafe 2 degrees and is therefore too slow, why is his goal for rate of emissions reduction 10% per year, while Hansen’s is 6-9% per year, iirc. And can we be so sure that reforestation will work? Aren’t climate changes in various regions going to make it very difficult to reestablish forests?

    Comment by wili — 10 Apr 2014 @ 1:50 PM

  73. “Earth’s Future” — open access journal from the American Geophysical Union. Those of you writing publishable work might well look into it.

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1002/%28ISSN%292328-4277

    Brief quote from a (paywalled) interview in the AGU’s EOS newsletter (excerpt also posted over at Stoat in a Policy thread):

    —-quote—-
    Eos: I’d like to turn to you now, Dr. Norgaard, as Earth’s Future’s resident expert on economics. Traditionally, AGU journals have not covered topics that connect economics to Earth and space science. How do you plan to change that with Earth’s Future?

    Norgaard: Many economists are working to include ecosystem services and natural capital into our economy—and this is okay— but they are not addressing the problems of accelerated economic growth….
    Eos: But why should Earth and space scientists be thinking about economic theory? What are some of the pressing issues in ecological economics?

    Norgaard: … it is the acceleration of human impacts on Earth processes the last few centuries that is really important. The increase in market-based economic activity in the past century has been approximately 15 times greater than population growth. The global economy, in terms of market activity, increased by a factor of 10 in the second half of the 20th century. There is nothing “natural” about this phenomenon. Rather, it is closely tied to how we have built our economies, and that is closely tied to how economists and policy makers, along with the public and economic interests, have understood economics.

    Ecological economists have a lot of issues to work through, as do scholars engaged in other efforts to bridge the disciplines, understand what sustainability means, and be effective….
    —- end quote —-

    Comment by Hank Roberts — 10 Apr 2014 @ 2:12 PM

  74. How easily good intentions get perverted:

    Timber industry lobbyists clinched a nice little victory in Sacramento four years ago, and now forests and the climate are paying the price.
    Under California’s cap-and-trade program, which began in late 2012, timber companies can earn carbon credits by felling forests and chopping down old-growth trees — and then replanting the razed earth with younger trees. Which they will eventually chop down, again, after they have grown. The idea was that the younger trees would suck up a lot of carbon dioxide as they grew. But that flies in the face of scientific findings, published earlier this year in the journal Nature, that older trees are far better than their younger cousins at sucking carbon out of the sky….

    We know better and we keep doing stupid

    Comment by Hank Roberts — 10 Apr 2014 @ 2:27 PM

  75. Walter @ 66, thanks for those data points. Could you give a link to the article with the graph you linked?

    Asking slightly different questions leads to different graphs, as the many Gallup surveys show. Here is a recent poll with up to date data:

    http://www.gallup.com/poll/167960/americans-likely-say-global-warming-exaggerated.aspx

    This seems to indicate a peak partisan difference in 2010, the difference declining slowly through this year. Discussion of this poll:

    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/03/19/1285877/-New-Gallup-Poll-on-Climate-Change-Shows-Media-and-Political-Malpractice#

    Other recent Gallup polls on climate change attitudes:
    http://www.gallup.com/tag/Climate+Change.aspx

    Still more of them:
    http://www.gallup.com/search/default.aspx?q=&s=date&i=460&t=&p=2

    A poll from a year ago:
    http://www.gallup.com/poll/161714/republican-skepticism-global-warming-eases.aspx
    The graphs in this poll clearly differ for slightly different questions.

    Comment by Pete Dunkelberg — 10 Apr 2014 @ 2:34 PM

  76. That poll discussion link in my previous post highlights a curious relation between press and perceptions. And speaking of the press, here is Eli’s latest Breakthrough.

    Comment by Pete Dunkelberg — 10 Apr 2014 @ 4:03 PM

  77. Beyond “If you see something say something.”

    Climate scientists are under attack like never before for telling the truth about about the growing dangers posed by unrestricted carbon pollution.

    Anyone who wishes can help climate scientists in their quest to provide humanity the information we need to save ourselves by supporting the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund (CSLDF). To find out how, go here.

    Eight years ago this week, Time magazine launched the bluntest cover story on climate change ever published by a major news outlet. Like the best science journalism, it was based on interviews with many of the world’s leading climate scientists. The article’s online sub-hed was especially blunt:

    Polar Ice Caps Are Melting Faster Than Ever… More And More Land Is Being Devastated By Drought… Rising Waters Are Drowning Low-Lying Communities… The climate is crashing, and global warming is to blame. Why the crisis hit so soon–and what we can do about it.

    For a time it seemed as if the public and policymakers were actually listening, as awareness of the climate crisis grew and leading politicians from both parties called for action. Then came the the vicious backlash — the most successful disinformation campaign in history, funded by fossil fuel companies and making use of tactics developed by the tobacco industry. Scientists were vilified and cyber-bullied.

    Scientists are far more worried than they were in 2006 — since emissions have soared, and the overwhelming majority of recent studies show the reality of climate change is far worse than what we suspected a decade ago — see this review of over 60 studies. See also the uncharacteristically blunt 2014 report from the American Association for the Advancement of Science, as well as the 2013 report from the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The IPCC’s next report, due out this weekend, appears no less alarming.

    And because the stakes are higher, the intimidation and cyber-bullying of climate scientists continues unabated. Doing something about it is easy, though.

    Climate Progress readers have been among the biggest supports of the important work of the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund (CSLDF). Prof. Scott Mandia explains what supporters have helped accomplish so far:

    Raised litigation fees to help Dr. Michael Mann defend climate science from politically-motivated witch-hunts.
    Provided resources to legal experts from Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) so they could offer free legal advice to scientists at professional conferences.
    Offered legal counsel to scientists hit with frivolous Freedom of Information Act requests — Andrew Dessler and Katharine Hayhoe, two of the country’s finest climate scientists.
    Provided legal workshops to scientists at professional conferences.
    Offered a series of legal education webinars partnering with American Geophysical Union (AGU).

    But this has all been done by Mandia and Joshua Wolfe “from their kitchens.” They both have “full-time jobs and families with small children and neither receives compensation for their time.”

    So now they would like readers’ support to “go professional” to “hire a full-time Executive Director who will manage the day-to-day operations of providing legal help to our experts as well as increasing fundraising efforts. Having the full-time professional helps to assure that CSLDF will be there for our scientists years down the road. After all, climate change is not going anywhere and the sad fact is that neither will the legal attacks on our scientists.”

    Scientists are the thin blue line helping protect us from a world ruled by superstition and “might makes right.” If anyone wants to know how they can help climate scientists, they can go here.

    Not bad! Of course, “If you see something say something” remains a good idea as well.

    Comment by Pete Dunkelberg — 10 Apr 2014 @ 4:15 PM

  78. This constant use of “subjects” is so incredibly misleading as to be beyond belief. Analyzing public, voluntarily published speech “so that the individual speaker might be individually identified” is in no way to engage in an experimenter-subject relationship.

    Perhaps the authors should have cited each public statement in the reference section, though that may have gotten unwieldy. But public speech voluntarily put into the public domain by the speaker is by definition not private, protected speech. This violates no aspect of copyright law or research ethics that I can remotely imagine.

    Comment by jg — 10 Apr 2014 @ 5:14 PM

  79. Pete @~ 77
    Climate of attack, more food for thought recently in the news:

    Of major cable outlets, two out of three continue to let anti-science ideology dominate coverage of global warming

    “Though numerous media surveys and studies have shown that mainstream news outlets have consistently ignored or underreported the crisis of climate change over the last two decades, a new analysis released Monday shows that even when the top cable news channels do cover the issue, they consistently misinform their viewers on the facts.”

    http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2014/04/07-4

    Changing our Climate of Indifference

    “Trying to tell these stories as a journalist makes me sometimes wonder why I even bother. I’ve been told flat out by editors that their readers are burnt out on depressing climate crisis stories. They don’t want to print a story that contains nothing but bad news.”

    http://otherwords.org/changing-climate-of-indifference/ 

    Who rules?

    Gilens and Page analyze 1,779 policy outcomes over a period of more than 20 years. They conclude that “economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while mass-based interest groups and average citizens have little or no independent influence.”

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/monkey-cage/wp/2014/04/08/rich-people-rule/

    McKibben

    “We’ve never thought that there was a small flaw in their business plan that could be altered by negotiation; we’ve always thought their business plan was to keep pouring carbon into the atmosphere. And indeed Exxon’s statements are easy to translate: “We plan on overheating the planet, we think we have the political muscle to keep doing it, and we dare you to stop it.” And they’re right — unless we build a big and powerful movement, they’ll continue to dominate our political life and keep change from ever taking place.

    “So now, with that information clearly on the table, it’s time for college boards and foundation heads, church denominations and city mayors to act and act firmly. By divesting — by announcing that they are breaking ties with these companies — they will begin the process of politically bankrupting them. Of taking away the social license that allows them to act with such consummate arrogance, on the very day that the planet’s scientists laid bare the impact of climate change on everything from crop yields to civil wars.”

    http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/apr/03/exxon-mobil-climate-change-oil-gas-fossil-fuels

    Comment by Radge Havers — 10 Apr 2014 @ 6:32 PM

  80. Sorry for the bad link.

    Changing our Climate of Indifference can also be found at:
    http://www.commondreams.org/view/2014/04/06-4

    (links without ‘www’ seem to break here)

    Comment by Radge Havers — 10 Apr 2014 @ 6:46 PM

  81. Aside, I quoted above

    Under California’s cap-and-trade program, which began in late 2012, timber companies can earn carbon credits by felling forests and chopping down old-growth trees

    Seems to me that’s another version of the phenomenon described by the “Breakthrough” folks in the NYT:

    conservatives become less skeptical about global warming if they first read articles suggesting nuclear energy or geoengineering as solutions.

    But I think they misunderstand — or misexplain — why.

    People who know what they want to see done will accept any reasoning or unreasoning excuse to have it done – because, believe it or not, they find any reason whatsoever convenient to get the result.

    It’s what _they_ argue the so cia lists are doing to grab their wallets, ya know? Any excuse. Because they can’t believe science tells us constraints that apply regardless of politics.

    It’s the same attitude that gives us “lower taxes, less regulation” as the proposed solution to _every_ public policy problem — they don’t care about the problem, they like any excuse to promote their solution to everything.

    Solutions? Universal: “aqua regia” and “royal libertarianism” are promoted as solving everything needing solution.

    Comment by Hank Roberts — 10 Apr 2014 @ 7:09 PM

  82. Hank Roberts @ 74:
    You neglected to mention that the link you provided contains this statement, “The findings don’t contradict the prevailing notion that young forests are better overall at sucking up CO2 than are old-growth forests. That’s because younger forests contain so many more trees.”
    i.e. You’re not seeing the forest for the tree.
    The article goes on to say, “That said, it’s still best for the climate that we leave those aging stands in place because cutting them down would unleash the carbon they spent their lifetimes absorbing.” However that statement assumes that the carbon will be immediately vapourized, rather than sequestered for long periods of time.
    Do you have any thoughts on the article by Oliver et al. (2014) that I pointed out above at #38?

    Comment by Phil L — 10 Apr 2014 @ 10:59 PM

  83. ‘Communication’ as a difficult issue for scientists is not a new topic in RC comment threads. To be fair to scientists, they are generally pretty good at communicating with their peers. That’s the audience they know, that’s the audience they’re trained for. First law of communication: Know your audience. When in front of a lay audience in a short TV news segment, for example, Hansen has gotten better, though I have seen him wander into the weeds.

    Now keeping in mind the dicta “Know your audience,” would you think that simply badgering and bashing a group of scientists radio talk show style would be particularly engaging or helpful? And, wow, ending a comment with a ‘plonk’ adds nothing useful and says more about the commenter than I’m guessing most of the audience here wants to know.

    Specific, non-dogmatic assists on getting points across is good. It’s actually requested
    ( http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2014/03/can-we-make-better-graphs-of-global-temperature-history/ ). Gassing about communication etc. not so much.

    Comment by Radge Havers — 11 Apr 2014 @ 10:06 AM

  84. Yeah, I think this

    Maximizing forest CO2 sequestration may not be compatible with biodiversity. More CO2 can be sequestered synergistically in the products or wood energy and landscape together than in the unharvested landscape. Harvesting sustainably at an optimum stand age

    is just clearcutting with a pretty mask.

    Forest = biodiversity
    Trees = crop
    Sustainability = biodiversity
    We don’t know how to sustain _less_ than the biodiversity that develops naturally over time. We don’t know how to take out what we want and leave a sustainable ecosystem; forests overharvested degrade. With more extreme precipitation they’ll degrade faster as climate changes.

    The answer they want is cut trees. They’ll use any argument and claim it supports the answer they already determined to have.

    http://scholar.google.com/scholar?as_ylo=2014&q=clearcut+landslide+biodiversity&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5

    Comment by Hank Roberts — 11 Apr 2014 @ 10:28 AM

  85. Re- Comment by Phil L — 10 Apr 2014 @ 10:59 PM, ~#85

    Given that the total amount of carbon that is locked out of the atmosphere is what counts and there is no contesting the fact that a mature forest stores the most carbon, and that the duration of CO2 in our atmosphere is more than 1,000 years while a large percentage of a harvested tree is vaporized in 10 years, and the rest within 100 years, what’s your point?

    Steve

    Comment by Steve Fish — 11 Apr 2014 @ 10:45 AM

  86. Phil, read the report
    “Valuing adaptation under rapid change Final Report”
    linked here, first result on the page:
    http://apo.org.au/search/site/valuing adaptation under rapid change

    Industrial forestry isn’t able to cope with extreme events now; we expect the extremes to get worse with rapid climate change (look at http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Pujalte+PETM for the paleo case); look at the recent landslide in Washington as an example.

    Biodiversity holds ecosystems together and soil on the land, with a bit of surplus we can harvest carefully.

    Taking more degrades the source, perhaps too slowly to notice for the first century or two. But it’s not the first century of extraction anywhere habitable now, and we’re seeing the consequences of bad management (or not seeing them due to shifting baselines).

    Comment by Hank Roberts — 11 Apr 2014 @ 10:54 AM

  87. broken link, copy and paste the whole line into your search engine:

    http://apo.org.au/search/site/valuing adaptation under rapid change

    Comment by Hank Roberts — 11 Apr 2014 @ 10:57 AM

  88. National Phenology Network: Informing Science & Conservation
    U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)
    Video:
    Good educational presentation here about the development of data collection, tools widely available, methods standardized, and results collected and made public:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=ch4Tk1gODcY
    Published on Feb 10, 2014
    (Audio of a phone conference with slideshow)
    – part of the Climate Change Science and Management Webinar Series, co-hosted by the USGS National Climate Change and Wildlife Science Center and the FWS National Conservation Training Center.
    Describing what’s developing — standard tools and protocols:

    https://www.usanpn.org/natures_notebook‎
    The USA National Phenology Network (USA-NPN; http://www.usanpn.org)

    Got kids to educate? School classes to take outdoors? Any observations of your own?

    This is developing a way of collecting useful observations nationwide.

    Comment by Hank Roberts — 11 Apr 2014 @ 11:51 AM

  89. Cliff Maas — the US House of Representatives has passed a bill, now going to the Senate where it can be amended. It prescribes in astonishing detail (far more detail than the bill’s authors likely understood, so who wrote this language for them?) how NOAA should spend its budget.

    Maas in his discussion leans heavily toward weather forecasting and suggests cutting back several kinds of global climate model in his discussion of what he’d like to see changed in the funding language by the Senate.

    The Weather Forecasting Improvement Acts Passes the House: What are the Implications?

    Seems to be arguing — my paraphrase — “well we know the climate will change, we don’t need to model how it will change, we just need better short term weather predictions so whatever changes won’t surprise us.”

    But his major point is to criticize NOAA’s present problems and point out that the US weather forecast system is inadequate compared to the European system currently in use — which is clearly true.

    I think the real budget pinch is starting to show up everywhere.

    Comment by Hank Roberts — 11 Apr 2014 @ 12:03 PM

  90. Third are the lower-risk plans. The only two of which I am aware are Hansen’s and mine.

    Yeah, well, mine has been around since 2011 is the only one that is actually based in sustainability and is not just a climate plan, but a global sustainability plan. Before that I suggested in 2008 a plan to change the entire US over to sustainable energy systems in such a way that would have massively boosted the economy by building out a massively distributed energy grid via individual and community-based local energy production via gov’t $5,000 grants per household. This plan could still be done and would cost 500B, but create far more economy than that.

    Of course, I laid out most of what became Iceland’s response to the debt crisis, including homeowner debt relief instead of banks, letting banks fail, and prosecutions. This also would have been a massive boost to the economy. That after predicting in Jan ’08 the crash of ’08.

    Also around 2008/9 I tried to interest people developing a global climate/energy/collapse model that would have been pretty easy to do. Things similar to my idea have been developed, but far inferior. What I have in mind could actually end up helping us determine a plan… it could model the darned thing in situ.

    Most of this can be found on my blog, A Perfect Storm Cometh. But, hey, what do I know?

    Anywho… Rather than tell you how to fix the world, let me play Socrates and ask some actual and some rhetorical questions:

    1. Why do you talk of solving climate without speaking of solving energy, population, complexity, and ALL dminishing resources? What do you hope to accomplish by touching but one area of the elephant?

    2. Why do you try to talk about solutions without first ever discussing what the characteristics of a sustainable system are? What in the world are you planning *for*?

    2b. Your one-sentence definition of sustainability is probably insufficient, and is but a definition, not a description. It does not tell you much about what sustainability *is*: what it looks like, what it’s patterns are, from what it arises, wrom whom and in what manner it can or cannot be created, etc.

    3. Why are you never discussing the sustainable systems that do exist?

    3b. Why are you never discussing sustainable governance?

    4 Why do your parameters always start with preserving what currently is, rather than starting with a tabla rasa and filling it with what must be, then designing from there?

    5. Why is sustainability ultimately local? (Lots of correct answers here.)

    6. Why do so many expect sustainable systems to emerge from non-sustainable systems, much like expecting an apple to produce an orange?

    7. Have any of you bothered to read Tainter, Diamond?

    8. There are currently sustainably governed (as opposed to sustainable) societies, but there is in particular one modeling that 21st Century societies can do sustainable governance. What is it? Why aren’t we talking to them about sustainable governance?

    They both aim for a safer 1 C target.

    When the climate system for the duration of the Ice Age has not been over 300ppm, why in the world are we playing with fate by accepting a significantly higher energy imbalance? The ASI started melting at 300 – 315. This 1C or 2C or whatever C are all largely arbitrary. We have very clear, very real parameters laid out in 3 millions years of climate. Doe it make sense to ignore this when it is so simple to get back to 300ppm?

    I include contingency two ways. First, I have stricter demand reduction on the front end, and introduce massive reforestation sooner.

    Don’t say “reforestation” because it really means nothing in isolation. Forests exist within larger ecosystems, and humans have been modifying forests since time immemorial. Speak in terms of natural carbon sequestration via forestry, agroforesty, farming and gardening, and more. Basically, carbon farming, which really is just natural, organic farming/gardening. Hansen’s number for sequestration is very low because he is not a designer, so he’s thinking in terms of fixes rather than solutions. But solutions can only come from elements embedded in a broader systemic solution/design.

    We are, FYI, already starting the process of all of this sequestration, so “begin” in your sentence is meaningless.

    Second, I allow for the possibility of geo-engineering if the strong front-end emissions reduction starts to result in an unacceptably fast increase in temperature.

    Um… first, as stated before, your estimates of sequestration are fairly massively underestimated, and the only geoengineering we can be reasonably sure of managing any unintended consequences with are sustainable system design. Since the solution to all aspects of the Perfect Storm is, in fact, sustainable design, why in the world do anything else? If you fail at that you have already failed at your only solution and may as well spend the rest of your days drinking on the beach.

    Comment by DIOGENES — 10 Apr 2014 @ 11:41 AM

    Cheers

    Comment by Killian — 12 Apr 2014 @ 2:01 AM

  91. Hank Roberts and Steve Fish: There seems to be some confusion about sustainable forestry vs. unsustainable timber extraction practices.
    Forestry in North America has progressed through a number of phases, including exploitation with no regulation, sustained yield management (considering only maximizing timber values), and ecosystem-based forest management (considering timber and other ecosystem values).
    I adhere to the so-called “triad” approach to forest management:
    - a proportion of the landbase excluded from extraction (parks and other ecological reserves);
    - a proportion of the landbase managed intensively using an agricultural model (for economic reasons these are usually close to mills);
    - the largest proportion of the landbase managed extensively, attempting to mimic natural forest processes.
    Hank, you mentioned biodiversity. Biodiversity should be considered at all spatial scales, from the tree to stand to landscape. What Mother Nature has placed in the boreal forest landscape is a mosaic of stands of different species compositions and ages. Woodland caribou and pine marten prefer the old stands, but other species prefer young stands, while other species prefer the habitat conditions found in middle-aged stands. The average fire return interval in the boreal results in a “reverse J” ageclass distribution, with a lot of young stands and few old stands. If forest harvest “rotation ages” are set too low (e.g. targetting small trees for pulpwood), the ageclass distribution can be skewed too much to the younger age classees. Managing for sawtimber requires longer rotations. Managing for maximized carbon sequestration (considering standing trees, soil carbon, and forest products), can require longer rotations still. However the notion of replacing all young stands with old stands won’t maximize biodiversity. And don’t even get me started on the folly of converting sage grouse habitat in the Great Plains to forest.
    On my bookshelf is a copy of “Forest Stand Dynamics” by Chadwick D. Oliver and Bruce C. Larson.
    http://ca.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-0471138339.html
    It’s a good resource for understanding natural forest processes and how to mimic them. Chadwick Oliver is the first author of the paper that I referred to at #38 above. Here’s another summary
    http://news.yale.edu/2014/03/31/using-more-wood-construction-can-slash-global-reliance-fossil-fuels
    Note that the issue of rotation ages and biodiversity is addressed.

    Comment by Phil L — 12 Apr 2014 @ 1:48 PM

  92. Dr. Peter Ward addresses “Science Literacy” and public outreach as a REQUIREMENT for research scientists being hired at the University level. Dr. Ward addresses why only 40% of the U.S. population believe in Evolution, why 50% believe in alien abductions and less than half of Republicans believe or understand Climate Change. If you want to skip to the crux of the lecture go to 34:00 minute mark.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HP_Fvs48hb4

    Published on Nov 26, 2013

    Dr. Peter Ward presents the University of Washington’s 34th Annual Faculty Lecture on one of the most controversial topics of our times: global warming. Ward, a professor in the Department of Earth and Space Sciences and the Department of Biology at UW, asks just how serious are the actual threats from a warmed world and takes a look at clues from the rock and fossil record.

    Dr. Peter Ward, professor, Department of Earth and Space Sciences; professor, Department of Biology, University of Washington.

    Comment by Chuck Hughes — 13 Apr 2014 @ 3:09 AM

  93. There is a lot of activity in this area, if you look. Clearly scientists are aware of the issue– which is not to say that it shouldn’t be discussed. On the contrary, just… you know, try to keep it real.

    Joe Romm asked me to write a guest post introducing you to Climate Communication — a new science and outreach organization dedicated to improving public understanding of climate change science. Before I do that, I want to say that Joe does a remarkable job of keeping Climate Progress readers informed on an impressively wide variety of topics related to climate change. And he does so in a rapid response mode that is truly amazing. It’s the first site I send people to when they ask where they can go to keep up with what’s happening on a daily basis with climate change. We at Climate Communication are doing something different…

    http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2011/09/13/317862/susan-hassol-on-climate-communication-the-science/

    and

    The problem may lie in an inescapable tautology: to fully understand a scientific, taxonomic, objective conception of the natural world is to be so steeped in scientific idiom that poetics become impossible.

    And yet, there are those who are capable of communicating the invisible phenomena of science to the public. These people are essentially bilingual. The Sagans, the deGrasse Tysons, the E.O Wilsons; Angier, Attenborough, Carson and Greene; the radio producers, writers, filmmakers, documentarians, and public speakers; these are our human bridges, our storytellers, fluent in both big and small. It’s a specific skill, to be a gifted science communicator — that rare person who can straddle two divergent worlds without slipping into the void between the so-called “Two Cultures,” someone with hard facts in their mind and literary gems in their rhetoric.

    http://scienceblogs.com/universe/2011/05/27/on-science-communication/

    and

    Again, scientists need to reveal their passion in order to evoke emotion with their audience to get the science “sticky”.

    http://profmandia.wordpress.com/2010/04/11/alan-alda-brings-passion-for-communicating-science-to-brookhaven-lab/

    http://worldsciencefestival.com/events/science_storytelling

    http://ubcsagan.org/

    http://www.centerforcommunicatingscience.org/alda-centers-oconnell-to-take-part-in-a-plenary-discussion-why-arent-they-listening-at-the-2014-ocean-sciences-meeting/

    http://environment.yale.edu/climate-communication/
    .
    .
    .
    etc., etc.

    I’m a fan of meta-literacy. Bunch of stuff out there on that too, though probably not enough.

    http://blog.chron.com/climateabyss/2013/02/scientific-meta-literacy/

    (may need to cut/paste some URLs)

    Comment by Radge Havers — 13 Apr 2014 @ 11:00 AM

  94. Re:

    Frontiers have specifically said there were NO such threats ever made to them by anyone.”

    vs

    But given he claims “This ended the matter personally, as far as I was ..” then where is the THREAT today?

    The former statement may be spin indicating that no lawsuit had been filed at that point in time, whereas the live threat TODAY and into the future is presumably that one of the aggrieved will change their mind about pursuing legal action…

    …as Foxgoose essentially claims to have done now on one of the STW threads (although it’s entirely possibly he might change his mind back).

    Comment by Lotharsson — 13 Apr 2014 @ 11:08 AM

  95. I’ve been watching the Weather Channel talk about Climate Change all day. It looks like this latest shout by the IPCC may have struck home with a few in the media. Of course I’m not in any way convinced that governments around the world are going to join hands and start singing Kumbaya or that world peace will break out tomorrow but hey…. are we witnessing real progress here? Has anyone else taken note of this rather sudden change of direction in (some) media outlets?

    Also, I’m wondering if we still have time to avoid 2C or is that now a pipe dream? What would be a realistic achievable goal as far as GAT is concerned… provided the political will is there? Big question I know.

    Thanks.

    Comment by Chuck Hughes — 13 Apr 2014 @ 11:34 PM

  96. Chuck Hughes #95,

    “Also, I’m wondering if we still have time to avoid 2C or is that now a pipe dream?”

    I’ve laid it out a number of times on the Diogenistic thread (Mar 2014 UV). We have time (in theory) to go even below 2 C, if we had the global will. The odds of actually doing that are somewhat below my chances of winning the $500M Powerball.

    Comment by DIOGENES — 14 Apr 2014 @ 5:35 AM

  97. Much thanks to Chuck, Phil L, Killian (A Perfect Storm Cometh plus ur comments on other threads – well done!!!), Eric, and jg … good stuff.

    Pete Dunk. I did reply to your query but it got shafted too. Good luck.

    Comment by Walter — 14 Apr 2014 @ 6:13 AM

  98. Walter (#97),

    Your comments have not disappeared. Many, many can be read here: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/category/the-bore-hole/

    Comment by Chris Dudley — 14 Apr 2014 @ 8:58 AM

  99. CONFUSION regarding the most recent IPCC report on emissions reductions and their costs. Can we really mitigate/reduce emissions by the amounts cited in the report at a cost of only 0.6 global GDP?

    Surely this is not realistic economically and politically is the willing there globally. I guess it all comes down to Europe, USA and China but even so can fossil fuel companies or countries be persuaded to leave their resources in the ground for a new generation of energy sources that might not involve them?

    I know that the big issue is coal and its elimination is quite possible with alternative base load technologies but coal will not be singled out for reductions and oil will need to be targeted as well and alternatives to oil are not mature enough. First gen biofuels take food from the worlds poor and producing more means paying more for food, second gen biofuels are presently not a large enough reality and other alternatives are not available apart from electricity or fuel efficiency gains which will have an impact but will it be enough?

    So if we reduce emissions from 2 ppmv to 1 ppmv that does just delay the climate issue or change the game?

    Comment by Pete Best — 14 Apr 2014 @ 2:25 PM

  100. Kevin (#68),

    That is interesting. I see a potential conflict with the new source regulations that are already available to read: http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2013-09/documents/20130920factsheet.pdf

    New renewable energy power should be regulated by those regulations. Putting solar panels on an existing coal plant’s roof and calling that compliance with the new regulations on existing stationary sources sources would seem a little squirrelly, like opening up a kissing booth by putting lipstick on a sow. Hope this does not turn into a recursive mess.

    Comment by Chris Dudley — 14 Apr 2014 @ 5:32 PM

  101. Why a price on carbon is flawed.

    A price on carbon is an attempt to address a market failure: namely that future generations pay the bulk of the cost of fossil fuel use while we only pay a fraction. And, worse, we don’t have that good an idea of what their cost will be. So, setting a price on carbon can be seen as making fossil fuel use more expensive for us so that we see a similar price to what future generations will see. In a sense, we would be allowing the future to bid on keeping fossil fuels in the ground. But a bidding war is going to be won by the present in this case because we set the competing bid.

    A more standard approach to market failure is regulation. Natural monopolies, for example, have a hard time drumming up competition so no market exists. So, we regulate. In the case of fossil fuel use, the present has a natural monopoly on pollution. The future simply can not produce any pollution that can affect us. Rather than pretending that a market can be made, we’d do better to regulate. The present effort by the EPA should be emulated elsewhere. Cap-and-trade systems may be useful in places, but the important thing is the cap, the regulatory imperative.

    Comment by Chris Dudley — 14 Apr 2014 @ 7:13 PM

  102. Sorry, I posted this to the previous unforced variations thread. Please delete the post from that thread.

    I have made some contour maps of NE Greenland surface and bedrock from the Bamber(2013) data. They are at

    http://membrane.com/sidd/greenland-2013/convel.html

    together with a comparison to the Rignot(2012) velocity map.

    It is very interesting , how the concavities in the contours map to the ice velocity. I may do a regression at some point. Another interesting thing is the bedrock trough leading north, which does not seem to be reflected in the surface data.

    For an overview based on the Bamber data

    http://membrane.com/sidd/greenland-2013/

    sidd

    - See more at: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2014/03/unforced-variations-mar-2014/comment-page-13/#comment-504790

    Comment by sidd — 15 Apr 2014 @ 12:00 AM

  103. o dear, they seems to be a stray link at the bottom of my last post …

    Comment by sidd — 15 Apr 2014 @ 12:02 AM

  104. Re 91 Phil L,

    - a proportion of the landbase excluded from extraction (parks and other ecological reserves);
    - a proportion of the landbase managed intensively using an agricultural model (for economic reasons these are usually close to mills);
    - the largest proportion of the landbase managed extensively, attempting to mimic natural forest processes.

    My only comment is the scale needs to be reconsidered, and that occurs via the consumption assumptions, primarily. The first step in every aspect of every plan anywhere on the planet starting 40 years ago needed to be rate of consumption. We’re every late, but it still needs to be.

    Rather than fitting policy to consumption, we need to fit policy to systemic sustainability, and that means… let’s just stop chopping down trees altogether, except where absolutely unavoidable. Instead, let’s forget about this are or that area for certain types of logging and think instead of all forests as places where we interact with and live within nature.

    Native Americans, aka the first Asian immigrants, lived in and around Yellowstone. And modified it. The problem isn’t in being human and using stuff, it’s in acting like only humans matter, and can survive without all the rest. We will need to depopulate the cities to some extent or other and create these networked bio-regional communities. Many set aside areas will likely end up human spaces.

    We must plan for where we wish to end up, not where we are.

    Comment by Killian — 15 Apr 2014 @ 1:46 AM

  105. In terms of a plan for mitigation, the Institute of Mechanical Engineers has done a pretty good job of creating a plan for the UK to 2050. See here: http://www.imeche.org/knowledge/themes/energy/uk-2050-energy-plan
    Of course this is a technologist viewpoint and somewhat idealistic, but at least it’s a plan of sorts. You have to start somewhere!
    Anyone know of any similar ones for other countries?

    Comment by Rachel F — 15 Apr 2014 @ 5:44 AM

  106. > important thing is the cap, the regulatory imperative

    Hmm, so who’s to take care of keeping the cap in place?
    Using what model for prohibiting disallowed transactions?

    Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Carbon?

    Seems to me there’s some issues there.

    I recall reading that one of the problems for whale migrations has long been illegal oil prospecting using acoustic methods (air guns or explosives) in the large area where that’s been prohibited. Turns out they were merely prematurely pro-exploration:

    Outer Continental Shelf Governors Coalition (OCSGC), a group promoting expanded offshore drilling that’s chaired by McCrory. Its other members are Republican Govs. Bobby Jindal of Louisiana, Nikki Haley of South Carolina, Rick Perry of Texas, and Sean Parnell of Alaska.

    McCrory and his OCSGC colleagues asked Jewell to support seismic testing for oil and gas reserves off the Atlantic Coast, which is currently protected by a longstanding moratorium on offshore drilling. They got their answer three days later, when the Interior Department’s Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) published an environmental analysis that endorsed a plan for seismic exploration in Atlantic waters.

    Jewell — the former CEO of outdoor goods company REI who started her career as an engineer for what was then the Mobil oil company — is expected to formally approve the testing plan next month, McClatchyDC reports. BOEM is accepting comments on the plan here until April 7.

    http://www.southernstudies.org/2014/03/the-growing-fight-against-oil-and-gas-exploration-.html

    Comment by Hank Roberts — 15 Apr 2014 @ 9:44 AM

  107. #101–Seems like a ‘creative’ application of the conceptual framework; you really can’t have a market of any sort that works across time. Nor do you need one for pricing carbon: there are plenty of present harms which could be priced in, and there are also extant markets in which ‘customers’ pay in the present for expected (or even, as in the case of insurance, purely contingent) goods.

    So I don’t find the case presented in 101 particularly compelling when set against the apparent consensus of economists that both cap-and-trade and carbon-taxing approaches are likely to prove more economically efficient. (Even if designing good schemes is non-trivial.)

    Comment by Kevin McKinney — 15 Apr 2014 @ 11:19 AM

  108. Hank (#106),

    Again I urge you to read more carefully. The EPA is the agency that the Supreme Court has charged with examining the dangerousness of greenhouse gas emissions. They are developing and implementing the regulations on greenhouse gas emissions. In the case of CAFE standards the NHTSA enforces the fines for non-compliance. Stationary source regulation will likely be enforced through the EPA. The model for new stationary sources will be new source review which involves state and local permits. http://www.epa.gov/nsr/ghgpermitting.html

    Comment by Chris Dudley — 15 Apr 2014 @ 1:43 PM

  109. Pete,
    That is possibly a game changer. The big issue will be how much the biota can remove from the atmosphere. This is another moving target, which unfortunately is moving in the wrong direction presently.

    Comment by Dan H. — 15 Apr 2014 @ 2:39 PM

  110. What is the current state of the proposed “new Maunder minimum”?

    Current observations.

    Comment by prokaryotes — 15 Apr 2014 @ 2:42 PM

  111. Kevin (#107),

    I don’t think you can really invoke efficient markets when it comes to fossil fuels. The largest sector is controlled by a cartel. CAFE standards at the least are superior to a carbon tax which would have the least effect on the most distorted fossil fuel. Further, new source regulations explicitly require coal to practice CCS to get a permit. That is all to the good. Also, it is hard to see how a price on carbon helps with fugitive methane emissions which really do require regulation since they are not even sold.

    The IPCC finds it simpler to do calculations using a carbon tax, but that does not mean it is a better approach. Regulations not markets work for pollution. Artificial markets like cap-and-trade are merely regulation methods. They don’t deliver goods to consumers or value to investors, they just serve the public good.

    Comment by Chris Dudley — 15 Apr 2014 @ 4:01 PM

  112. Any others tiring of the Walters, Dudley, even Hank? RC signal to noise ratio appears to be setting new record lows ATM.

    Comment by GlenFergus — 15 Apr 2014 @ 7:38 PM

  113. Reading the final IPCC WG1

    The GWP value at a particular time may give misleading information about the climate impacts at that time, as the time scale used in the GWP becomes very different from the residence time of the emitted compound.

    The AGWP for CH4 in 100 years is 29 years and uncertainty is particular in regards to ozone changes. Link

    Comment by prokaryotes — 15 Apr 2014 @ 8:59 PM

  114. I hate to sound selfish here but I’m interested in some sort of prognostication of our situation in regards to Global Average Temperature. There are all types of scenarios as to what can happen but my question is…. what is the most likely? Factoring in politics, human nature and the rest, what is the most likely outcome for the planet? Is 2C out of the question? Are we looking at 4C as the most likely probability? Is it going to be worse than that?

    What is the general consensus at this point? Joe Romm has done what I was suggesting should be done last July. That is getting some celebrities and Hollywood types to put together a compelling story about the Climate situation. If anyone wants to go back and read the July Unforced Variations thread and take a look at what I was suggesting you can compare what Joe Romm is doing with what I had been suggesting needed to be done last July.

    http://yearsoflivingdangerously.com/

    Comment by Chuck Hughes — 15 Apr 2014 @ 9:33 PM

  115. Killian # 104:
    You state, “Rather than fitting policy to consumption, we need to fit policy to systemic sustainability, and that means… let’s just stop chopping down trees altogether, except where absolutely unavoidable. Instead, let’s forget about this are or that area for certain types of logging and think instead of all forests as places where we interact with and live within nature.”
    In the post you are responding to (#91), I provided a pointer to the study by Oliver et al (2014) which demonstrates that the best forest-related mitigation option involves increased timber harvest, not curtailment. Here are some quotes from YaleNews:

    “Despite an established forest conservation theory holding that tree harvesting should be strictly minimized to prevent the loss of biodiversity and to maintain carbon storage capacity, the new study shows that sustainable management of wood resources can achieve both goals while also reducing fossil fuel burning…”
    “The researchers calculated that the amount of wood harvested globally each year (3.4 billion cubic meters) is equivalent to only about 20 percent of annual wood growth (17 billion cubic meters), and much of that harvest is burned inefficiently for cooking. They found that increasing the wood harvest to the equivalent of 34% or more of annual wood growth would have profound and positive effects:

    • Between 14% and 31% of global CO2 emissions could be avoided by preventing emissions related to steel and concrete; by storing CO2 in the cellulose and lignin of wood products; and other factors.

    • About 12% to 19% of annual global fossil fuel consumption would be saved including savings achieved because scrap wood and unsellable materials could be burned for energy, replacing fossil fuel consumption.

    Wood-based construction consumes much less energy than concrete or steel construction. Through efficient harvesting and product use, more CO2 is saved through the avoided emissions, materials, and wood energy than is lost from the harvested forest…”

    Again, here is the link.
    http://news.yale.edu/2014/03/31/using-more-wood-construction-can-slash-global-reliance-fossil-fuels
    I believe this article is in accord with the consensus forest science used by IPCC Working Group 3.

    Comment by Phil L — 15 Apr 2014 @ 10:33 PM

  116. Chuck Hughes (#114): Factoring in politics, human nature and the rest, what is the most likely outcome for the planet?

    Since a paradigm shift is required we might witness it or maybe not. However, as long there are no real affords it is hard to claim that special temperature targets are a certainty. For instance, once you begin to reduce emissions effectively, it might have synergistic effects as well.

    With more climate disruption and people loosing their livelihoods, it could be assumed that there is a correlation to climate awareness and subsequently for climate action. But, I’m not always sure about this, poor education or religious beliefs (i.e. like in the movie you linked) could also be blamed for climate disruption. But the hardcore deniers might eventually die out before the rest of us… and maybe then we can progress. But the price we pay for unprecedented climate change might even mean a slow long and global decline of the species, degeneration of the race and war over the last resources.

    The PETM saw large carbon excursions, in a different environment, with no significant ice sheets during the time, but with volcanism at the beginning. Though, it could be assumed that the ice still buffers the large excursions? But, because of the rate and different atmospheric composition today it could change this outlook considerably.

    However, as long there is no pronounced geological response i would assume we are still in an environment where we can prevent worst case developments and a situation when climate change becomes self sustaining because of domino – and ripple effects in various systems. But then there are studies which caution based on the long term ice sheet inertia and SLR, which could suggest that there are already major feedbacks triggered. But it could stabilize if we act and we need to seriously do this.

    Comment by prokaryotes — 15 Apr 2014 @ 10:56 PM

  117. James Lovelock reflects on Gaia’s legacy

    This week Lovelock spoke to Nature about his career, his earlier predictions and his new book, A Rough Ride to the Future

    Comment by prokaryotes — 15 Apr 2014 @ 11:19 PM

  118. for Chuck Hughes, if you want to search a bit, look for “probability distribution” — that’s a way of showing “what is the most likely”
    https://encrypted.google.com/search?tbm=isch&q=probability+distribution+global+warming

    Comment by Hank Roberts — 15 Apr 2014 @ 11:46 PM

  119. #114 Chuck, There is no general consensus, and even if there was then it wouldn’t make it accurate by default.
    After spending several months digging into carbon & non-carbon energy use past, present and projected I came to my own fallible conclusions. see a summary here: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2014/04/shindell-on-constraining-the-transient-climate-response/comment-page-1/#comment-504744

    View what Rachel offered here http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2014/04/unforced-varaitions-apr-2014/comment-page-3/#comment-505327

    and your own post on Peter Ward re implications of a 1000 ppm CO2e world contains far more important info than an IPCC report, imo. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2014/04/unforced-varaitions-apr-2014/comment-page-2/#comment-502630

    Trawl UV march http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2014/03/unforced-variations-mar-2014/comment-page-13/#comments

    Much info here from Hansen http://www.columbia.edu/~mhs119/
    and then Anderson http://kevinanderson.info/
    Mann just said last week that stay under 2C carbon budget runs out in 2036, so see what he bases that on as well.
    some hints here too http://lackofenvironment.wordpress.com/2013/02/19/what-on-earth-are-we-doing/

    I do not believe the IPCC energy and temperature forecasts anymore, for good reason.

    BAU 179,000 TWh of global energy from Fossil Fuels in 2040

    To replace all this Fossil Fuel energy capacity would equal an average of 7,200 TWh of EXTRA Energy a year for 25 years. How does this amount of energy compare to our current energy use? It would mean adding over 140 large 6,000 MW power stations every year from now to 2040.

    Fossil Fuels
    The largest Coal fired power plant is 5,500 MW
    The largest Gas fired power plant is 5,600 MW
    The largest Oil fired power plant is 5,600 MW
    The largest Oil Shale fired power plant is 1,600 MW

    Renewables
    The largest Wind power plant is 1,000 MW
    The largest Biofuel fired power plant is 750 MW
    The largest Geothermal power plant is 300 MW
    The largest PV Solar power plant is 500 MW
    The largest CS Solar power plant is 380 MW
    The largest Tidal power plant is 250 MW

    Check OECD, World Bank, Iea, Eia, IAEA data sets

    Comment by Walter — 15 Apr 2014 @ 11:56 PM

  120. Here, for example:
    http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=12595&page=22

    Comment by Hank Roberts — 15 Apr 2014 @ 11:57 PM

  121. Better lecture version of UW Peter Ward’s et al science conclusions here http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=HtHlsUDVVy0#aid=P5WsytY358A

    Comment by Walter — 15 Apr 2014 @ 11:59 PM

  122. Re:RC signal to noise ratio appears to be setting new record lows

    Quite. My killfile is skipping well over 90% of all text posted. That’s unthreaded, it would be close to 100% if this were a threaded forum. This is how Usenet newsgroups would die. This is how the deniers win.

    Quit beating dead horses, fercryinoutloud, and at such length. We know your opinions, you have explained them in tedious detail, we get it. Just post a citation and a (small) para explaining why we ought to look at the cite. Just not the same thing over and over and over and over … and for heaven’s sake, quit replying more than once to those you think are trolls.

    or realclimate.org could implement a killfile …

    What the hell, spring is here, i shall go out an plant more trees. Better than most other alternatives, both for the planet and for me.

    sidd

    Comment by sidd — 16 Apr 2014 @ 12:18 AM

  123. Re #114 – we can go to any temperature upto 6C if the governments that matter (china, Europe and the USA) decide that its too expensive to do anything about it and indeed as it presently stands emitting 9-10 billion tonnes of carbon per annum presently and growing at 1-2% per year means that within a decade 2C is increasing likely and then 3-4C becomes the next exit junction. Remember the more we expand our fossil fuel energy base the harder it becomes to reduce emissions significantly.

    The easiest fossil fuel to mitigate is coal technologically but economically and politically it might be the hardest (ironic really) as coal is available in many countries or countries that have large reserves are seemingly happy to export it to those countries that need it. Nuclear, solar, and wind can easily replace coal as a base load energy source and indeed eliminating coal would be a good step towards tackling oil and gas next.

    Comment by pete best — 16 Apr 2014 @ 3:35 AM

  124. IPCC should publish the report on the web, instead just with PDF’s. To look something up you have to download, scroll through various pages, read small font size and related content often is within various files. And when you foudn something interesting it often is hard to copy/past, if possible at all. Just try to look up the methane GWP, there is no clear one page summary.

    Comment by prokaryotes — 16 Apr 2014 @ 5:33 AM

  125. Chuck,
    Unfortunately, there is no general consensus. There are too many factors involved, whose changes in the future are uncertain. The range in predictions is quite large as shown in these examples:

    http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2007JCLI2119.1
    http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.397.6972&rep=rep1&type=pdf

    [edit - stick to the credible]

    Comment by Dan H. — 16 Apr 2014 @ 6:36 AM

  126. I echo the suggestion by sidd above to enable threaded comments (An option under the settings, discussion tap in the backend).

    Comment by prokaryotes — 16 Apr 2014 @ 7:55 AM

  127. #111–”CAFE standards at the least are superior to a carbon tax which would have the least effect on the most distorted fossil fuel.” That’s not the experience of British Columbia:

    http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2014/03/british-columbia-carbon-tax-sanity

    “Further, new source regulations explicitly require coal to practice CCS to get a permit. That is all to the good.”

    Indeed it is.

    “Also, it is hard to see how a price on carbon helps with fugitive methane emissions which really do require regulation since they are not even sold.”

    Well, it isn’t either/or, is it?

    “Artificial markets like cap-and-trade are merely regulation methods.”

    Yes–ones the inherent flexibility of which can make that benefit/cost ratio pretty darn high:

    http://www.epa.gov/capandtrade/documents/ctresults.pdf

    In fact, a 2003 Office of Management and Budget (OMB) study found that the Acid Rain Program accounted for the largest quantified human health benefits – over $70 billion annually – of any major federal regulatory program implemented in the last 10 years, with benefits exceeding costs by more than 40:1.

    Comment by Kevin McKinney — 16 Apr 2014 @ 8:18 AM

  128. Glen (#112),

    You may want to actually read my posts since they could inform you. My subject matter has to do with the area of disagreement that has had language dropped from the WG III SPM. The full report has this to say:

    “Income patterns and trends as well as distribution of GHG emissions have changed significantly since the 1990s, when the UNFCCC and Kyoto Protocol listed Annex I/Annex B countries; some countries outside these lists have become wealthier and larger emitters than some countries on these lists (U.S. Department of Energy, 2012; WRI, 2012; Aldy and Stavins, 2012). For example, in 1990, China’s total CO2 emissions were about half of United States emissions, but by 2010, China emitted more than 50% more CO2 than the United States. Over this same time period, China’s per capita CO2 emissions experienced an almost three-fold increase, rising to nearly equal the level in the EU, but still about 36% of the United States level (IEA, 2012; JRC/PBL, 2012; PBL, 2012, see Annex II.9; Olivier et al., 2012). Non-Annex I countries as a group have a share in the cumulative global greenhouse emissions for the period 1850 to 2010 close to 50%, a share that is increasing (den Elzen et al., 2013b) (see Section 5.2.1 for more detail on historical emissions).”

    http://mitigation2014.org/report/final-draft/

    Your sense of signal-to-noise ratio may be failing you if the noise of contention is not a signal to you of potentially consequential issues. My posts have been unsettling to some who are unaware of the changed situation and that does lead to chatter, but I think you’ll find useful links and evidence associated with my posts.

    Comment by Chris Dudley — 16 Apr 2014 @ 8:50 AM

  129. 122 sidd, I know exactly what you mean when you’re in a space where killfiles seems like the answer, been there and done that. [my previous experience tells me it's not the answer, because the 'cause/problem' is being misunderstood - but that's a long story to explain so I won't ]
    I can still remember a time when one could have an intelligent respectful discussion on alt.philosophy, and even occasionally on alt.politics but times have changed. It’s important to realise they were non-moderated groups and so the analogy has serious weaknesses to here and now. It depends on what you are seeking and what the operators of this site want.
    Guessing what that might be, given what I have seen in the 8 years of visiting here i suggest the following as a possible alternative worth considering.
    Close public comments as reddit and climateprogress have done. Knowing that when you do that the result will be articles like this not going away http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/04/11/3425731/cyclone-ita/ because no one has the opportunity of saying, excuse me but, that is BS or not true because of xyz.
    99.9% of my time here has only ever been reading the posted articles, so it is still a valid option that would suit the majority of visitors to RC.
    Then for those advanced more scientific orientated folks, then the RC team could certainly provide “a private discussion board” for approved users / invitees .. eg yourself, hank, steve fish et al. Problem solved, no killfile required, signal to noise ratio solved, and much time wasting by the moderators saved (and readers too). A win-win for all …… on the surface at least. But again, it depends on what you want and more difficult to determine, what you might need. Do as you wilt.

    Comment by Walter — 16 Apr 2014 @ 9:33 AM

  130. Chuck Hughes, The question of where we go from here is not one of consensus, but one of free will. Humans as individuals and as collectives will make choices and either take action or not. Those choices will have consequences. And hopefully, the decision-makers and stakeholders most responsible for the decisions will be called to account for their actions.

    Comment by Ray Ladbury — 16 Apr 2014 @ 9:38 AM

  131. Kevin (#127),

    That article from Mother Jones is interesting. The awareness raising aspect is something that regulation also has. US car ads talk a lot about fuel economy again now as the new CAFE standards have given them something to talk about. I noticed this to:

    “Thus, the carbon tax survived an initial trial by fire, and the opposition softened. After all, after a few years with the tax in place (and the resulting tax cuts for BC residents getting larger and larger), any repeal of the policy would amount to a highly unpopular tax increase.”

    So, what happens when everyone has an electric car? In the US, the answer would be to eliminate social programs rather than to replace the lost tax revenue: starve the beast. Tax shifting with a temporary tax can cause good governance problems.

    Regarding sulfur, I think it is a safe bet to say that it was the cap, not the trading, that produced the public health benefit there. And, I’m pretty sure that a trading simulation could have been run that would achieve the same savings. That simulation could then be dictated as straight out regulations without overhead cost. That would have been seen as unfair since different sources would seem to be treated differently. So, the pablum of actually trading might be necessary, but it isn’t necessarily the most cost effective method.

    “Well, it isn’t either/or, is it?” No, it isn’t. There will be places where it is the only option, like Vancouver, which probably does not have the regulatory authority to ban coal but does have taxing authority. There will be places that find a tax easier than doing the level of assessment that effective regulations need. But, that is no reason to disparage the good work of effective regulating agencies.

    Comment by Chris Dudley — 16 Apr 2014 @ 12:13 PM

  132. Recommended reading for commenters opining about China: a new report from Greenpeace entitled “The End of China’s Coal Boom” (PDF document).

    Comment by SecularAnimist — 16 Apr 2014 @ 4:52 PM

  133. Pete Best said CONFUSION regarding the most recent IPCC report on emissions reductions and their costs. Can we really mitigate/reduce emissions by the amounts cited in the report at a cost of only 0.6 global GDP?

    Far less than that. The problem is their assumptions and your acceptance of them. First of all, this isn’t just a climate issue, it is also resource limitations, economics, social structure and complexity. Underlying all of those is The Elephant In The Room That Shall Not Be Named.

    We in the US of A and some other places nee to drop our consumption to about 10% of what it currently is, right? Well, how much energy does it take to just stop doing stuff? Not much. How much energy does some transitional activities require? Overall, a lot less than BAU. We already have all three of the absolutely necessary things in this country that are required: An infrastructure of wind, hydro and solar that equals…. drum roll…. that ten percent we need to keep using.

    We grow more than enough food in this country, by a good margin @ only 35 people per sq. km or so. We have enough electricity. We have more unused homes than we do homeless. In broad strokes, we could literally just stop doing most of what we do tomorrow. In reality, there are issues that must be addressed at the local and bio-regional level having to do with supplying key services. But with unemployment still high and so many more people no longer doing what they were doing, manpower would be abundant.

    Economics? Jubilee, global, period. Instant end to fractional banking and interest for any new lending. Non-monetary economy based in working, not jobs. Do it. Why? Needs to be done. Use Time Banking if you prefer to keep some accounted process for work.

    And on and on…

    Surely this is not realistic economically and politically is the willing there globally.

    This is an irrelevant question. I don’t know why it continues to be raised. The answer is literally simplify or watch it all fall down and go boom. Without climate, we would have to make virtually all the same changes due to resource, environmental and complexity issues. We might have more time and the problem wouldn’t be as existential, i.e. the mass extinction probably wouldn’t be on the same scale, but the rest of it still would be rolling right along to massive disruptions.

    I guess it all comes down to Europe, USA and China but even so can fossil fuel companies or countries be persuaded to leave their resources in the ground for a new generation of energy sources that might not involve them?

    Errr…. would they still be digging them up if we were not still buying them? Has nothing to do with them in the end. The answer to that question is in ht mirror: Do we choose collapse, or do we choose to keep buying FFs and using more stuff than the planet can supply?

    Freaks me out people don’t get the whole, “If you don’t buy it, they won’t build it,” thing. We hear nothing but market, market, market; economics,economics, economics. Well, that cuts both ways? Why protest the Tar Sands or Big Oil when all you have to do is stop using stuff and let market forces do the work for you?

    Permaculture (i.e. sustainable design/regenerative design) Principle: Least change for maximum effect.

    I know that the big issue is coal

    Nah. It’s a touchstone. In reality, we cut all FFs or we face the consequences. Look at the ASI graph since 1900. It’s 315 ppm, max, or risk an out-of-control climate shift because we have already destabilized virtually every ecosystem on the planet and cannot just slow down, we must reverse the damage to ensure no out-of-control processes. That means refreezing all that Arctic-based carbon. Well, if the ice was melting at 315, we darn well better get back below that.

    and alternatives to oil are not mature enough.

    If you refer to fungibility, that may be correct. However, using only a tiny fraction of oil for lubrication and such can likely be done and still meet all other sustainability goals while the amount of oil we have would allow, for all intents and purposes, the use of oil for as long as we needed to create sustainable synthetic lubricants.

    If you speak of energy, then see previous comments.

    So if we reduce emissions from 2 ppmv to 1 ppmv that does just delay the climate issue or change the game?

    Anyone thinking that is acceptable is not understanding the situation, in my opinion. We need -2 to -5/yr.

    Comment by Killian — 16 Apr 2014 @ 6:45 PM

  134. Phil L said, Killian # 104: You state, “Rather than fitting policy to consumption, we need to fit policy to systemic sustainability, and that means… let’s just stop chopping down trees altogether, except where absolutely unavoidable. Instead, let’s forget about this are or that area for certain types of logging and think instead of all forests as places where we interact with and live within nature.”
    In the post you are responding to (#91), I provided a pointer to the study by Oliver et al (2014) which demonstrates that the best forest-related mitigation option involves increased timber harvest, not curtailment. Here are some quotes from YaleNews:

    “Despite an established forest conservation theory holding that tree harvesting should be strictly minimized to prevent the loss of biodiversity and to maintain carbon storage capacity, the new study shows that sustainable management of wood resources can achieve both goals while also reducing fossil fuel burning…”

    This fits with regenerative design theory wherein we augment nature’s productivity by applying her own rules to her. One thing ecosystems do a lot of? Boom and bust. Grow, grow, grow, burn, burn, burn in this case. They probably have this right, but only if said forest needs to not burn, burn, burn and does not work so well if said forest does need to burn, burn, burn. E.g. Some things, we just can’t mess with without substantially altering the ecosystem while having no idea what the new stasis condition will be.

    But, I was talking about consumption goals setting policy vs. needs and productive capacity setting policy, so my point stands. It matters what the directionality of decision-making is. You can have a process that should boost forest productivity, but that does not matter if you exceed that productivity.

    Comment by Killian — 16 Apr 2014 @ 7:13 PM

  135. #114 Walter said BAU 179,000 TWh of global energy from Fossil Fuels in 2040

    To replace all this Fossil Fuel energy capacity would equal an average of 7,200 TWh of EXTRA Energy a year for 25 years. How does this amount of energy compare to our current energy use? It would mean adding over 140 large 6,000 MW power stations every year from now to 2040.

    Why discuss this? There is nothing at all backing up a run to that much energy consumption at that time. You may as well discuss the likelihood Halley’s Comet will become a yearly even starting this year. There’s a simple test: we are already using 1.5 Earths a year, so how can using 2 possibly work?

    Comment by Killian — 16 Apr 2014 @ 7:25 PM

  136. Walter (#119),

    You say:

    “I do not believe the IPCC energy and temperature forecasts anymore, for good reason.”

    And then put down some numbers. Does it seem strange to you that the 193 UN member states could not build less that one power plant a year? The Sierra Club blocked construction of over 150 coal plants in the US in a rather short campaign http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2012/04/beyond-coal-plant-activism and is now shutting down existing plants: http://content.sierraclub.org/coal/victories

    I don’t see why you think the numbers look iffy. BAU has been happening all along, by definition.

    Comment by Chris Dudley — 16 Apr 2014 @ 8:33 PM

  137. As validation of Churchill’s dictum that the US can always be trusted to do the right thing, new regulations on mercury emissions will shut down 60 GW of coal power, mostly by 2016. http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303887804579503600891325942 The new regulations were required by Congress in 1990….

    Comment by Chris Dudley — 16 Apr 2014 @ 9:31 PM

  138. I read with anticipation every comment that sidd makes. That is what makes the commenting portion worthwhile.

    Comment by WebHubTelescope — 17 Apr 2014 @ 2:15 AM

  139. #134 Why discuss this? Chuck asked ” There are all types of scenarios as to what can happen but my question is…. what is the most likely? Factoring in politics, human nature and the rest, what is the most likely outcome for the planet?”
    Until something big changes, then BAU now to 2040 for global energy demand and FF energy use is the “most likely” outcome. BAU figures are IEA and they match well with others out to 2030-2040. The only thing that really counts is CO2/CO2e = ppm growth = “most likely” temperature rise.

    Alternative is to replace FF energy with non-carbon energy = “It would mean adding (equivalent) over 140 large 6,000 MW (non-carbon) power stations every year from now to 2040.” … to meet BAU energy demand, to get a sense of scale in the degree of “mitigation” needed with zero demand reduction, and BAU GDP growth.

    Of course it doesn’t add up, that’s the point, therefore BAU growth in FF energy = “most likely” temperature rise (all things being equal – the rest is maths)

    My answer for Chuck (fwiw noting refs) is that BAU is “most likely” when -Factoring in politics, human nature and the rest- so what is the “most likely outcome” for the planet? +2C before 2050, and +4C by 2100 unless something changes very soon and global CO2 is cut to 10% of 1990 levels before 2050.

    Variables? Lots, and I am not psychic. But I do know that nothing changes until something changes.

    Comment by Walter — 17 Apr 2014 @ 12:02 PM

  140. #131, Chris D

    Haven’t a clue who you think has been “denigrating regulatory responses.” Not me! (If anything, you seem to be denigrating any alternative to them.)

    So, I went looking. This gentleman–an economist by trade, employed as such by Harvard, in fact–isn’t too fond of the regulatory approach, it seems:

    …experience has shown that such standards cannot ensure achievement of emissions targets, create problematic unintended consequences, and are very costly for what they achieve.

    Why can conventional standard not ensure achievement of reasonable emissions targets? First, standards typically focus on new emissions sources, and do not address emissions from existing sources. Think about greenhouse gas standards for new cars and new power plants, for example. Second, standards cannot possibly address all types of new sources, given the ubiquity of energy generation and use (and hence CO2 emissions) in a modern economy. Third, emissions depend upon many factors that cannot be addressed by standards, such as: emissions from existing sources and unregulated new sources; how quickly the existing capital stock is replaced; the growth in the number of new emissions sources; and how intensively emissions-generating plants and equipment are utilized.

    Next, what about those unintended consequences? First, by reducing operating costs, energy-efficiency standards — for example — can cause more intensive use of regulated equipment (for example, air conditioners are run more often), leading to offsetting increases in emissions — the “rebound effect.” Second, firms and households may delay replacing existing equipment if standards make new equipment more costly. This is the well-known problem with vintage-differentiated regulations or “New Source Review.” Third, standards may encourage counterproductive, unintended shifts among regulated activities (for example, from purchasing cars to purchasing SUVs under the CAFE program). All of these unintended consequences result from the problematic incentives that standards can create, compared with the efficient incentives created by a cap-and-trade system (or a carbon-tax, for that matter).

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-stavins/cap-and-trade-versus-the_b_312835.html

    (Useful discussion of both carbon tax and cap-and-trade approaches follows; the writer prefers the latter, but is ‘not opposed’ to the former.)

    My sense is that Dr. Stavins is more or less in the mainstream on this.

    Going back to another comment, you question “So, what happens when everyone has an electric car? In the US, the answer would be to eliminate social programs rather than to replace the lost tax revenue: starve the beast.”
    The design of the BC tax is revenue-neutral, remember? So, should universal adoption of electric cars come about, any effect on tax revenue would be balanced by a reduction in the allowance on income taxes.

    And the BC tax affects more than just transportation:

    Analysis indicates that, as expected, the economic impact of British Columbia’s carbon tax varies by industry and some industries are more impacted than others. Industries with high emissions intensities, such as cement production, petroleum refining, oil and gas extraction and some other manufacturing subsectors, are most impacted.

    http://www.fin.gov.bc.ca/tbs/tp/climate/Carbon_Tax_Review_Topic_Box.pdf

    So I think that objection is a ‘fail.’

    Comment by Kevin McKinney — 17 Apr 2014 @ 1:02 PM

  141. Kevin (#140),

    I think you are correct that Stavins is fairly mainstream. The 2009 article does not seem to be very prescient on how the endangerment finding promulgated just two months later has affected regulations. In particular, he seems caught unaware that existing sources will be regulated. Also, he seems quite unaware that both cars and trucks come under the new CAFE standards.

    So, lets take him at his word and do away with all standards and instead do greenhouse gas emissions trading. First, we must do away with the Montreal Protocol since ozone destroying greenhouse gases are under regulation there. They must be traded regardless of their potential to destroy the ozone layer…. Oh, wait, atmospheric science is more complicated than markets….

    I wonder sometimes if the reason the economists like cap-and-trade better is because you have to hire economists to implement it while regulations need scientists to do it right.

    Comment by Chris Dudley — 17 Apr 2014 @ 6:17 PM

  142. #134 Why discuss this? Chuck asked ” There are all types of scenarios as to what can happen but my question is…. what is the most likely? Factoring in politics, human nature and the rest, what is the most likely outcome for the planet?”
    Comment by Walter — 17 Apr 2014 @ 12:02 PM

    Irrelevant, isn’t it? If what is most likely is a non-solution, thus essentially equaling mass extinction of some degree or other, what’s the point?

    The question to be asked is, what are the solutions. Yes, you can talk about die off, but what’s the point?

    Comment by Killian — 18 Apr 2014 @ 1:45 AM

  143. Killian at #134 says, “But, I was talking about consumption goals setting policy vs. needs and productive capacity setting policy, so my point stands. It matters what the directionality of decision-making is. You can have a process that should boost forest productivity, but that does not matter if you exceed that productivity.”
    Please note that I have not advocated pushing timber harvest to the limits of the forest’s inherent productivity. I have been advocating sustainable forest management. For example the article that I pointed to at #115 above has this finding, “The researchers calculated that the amount of wood harvested globally each year (3.4 billion cubic meters) is equivalent to only about 20 percent of annual wood growth (17 billion cubic meters), and much of that harvest is burned inefficiently for cooking. They found that increasing the wood harvest to the equivalent of 34% or more of annual wood growth would have profound and positive effects.” If you have a science-based argument against increasing the annual harvest from 20% up to 34% of annual wood growth, please point to your science. Arguments based on anti-forestry confirmation bias are just hand-waving.

    Comment by Phil L — 18 Apr 2014 @ 10:12 AM

  144. Killian, a philosophical analogy. A patient has a very rare thigh bone cancer. The hospital oncology experts have been monitoring that and it’s growing at an exponential rate. The first team of experts have seen other cases of this in history, and every time it killed the patient when it grew up into the hip and bodily organs. It needs to be “stopped” ie your leg fully amputated to save your life.

    They hand it to a second team of experts in the hospital, who confer, and agree. They hand it to a third team of experts who come back and tell you, well, we are not sure, the data is inconclusive, but we had a meeting and we came to a consensus that if we only cut off your foot it should help solve the problem. Unfortunately the decision of what to do or what to recommend you do isn’t our job, so we are passing the problem over to the HMO, and the accountants and clerks there will decide for you what is best for you. We don’t really know, well we do, but we are not allowed to say.

    Let the HMO decide to cut off your foot or not and ‘most likely’ you’ll die. Is that a solution to the REAL problem or isn’t it? Because that is what is being offered by “consensus” of the experts.

    Let’s now talk about the various nuances of cutting off a foot and explore in depth the cheapest easiest most economical and less painful way to do that. Facing the reality of having to cut off one’s leg to save one’s life, is hard enough. Yes Killian, what is the point?

    Comment by Walter — 18 Apr 2014 @ 11:52 AM

  145. Phil L said Killian at #134 says,…It matters what the directionality of decision-making is. You can have a process that should boost forest productivity, but that does not matter if you exceed that productivity.”

    Please note that I have not advocated pushing timber harvest to the limits of the forest’s inherent productivity.

    I didn’t say you did.

    …They found that increasing the wood harvest to the equivalent of 34% or more of annual wood growth would have profound and positive effects.” If you have a science-based argument against increasing the annual harvest from 20% up to 34% of annual wood growth, please point to your science. Arguments based on anti-forestry confirmation bias are just hand-waving.

    I repeat, I said not a syllable on not cutting. As I had to say to Dudley, speak a’ d’ English? Why are so many here so freaking disagreeable if disagreed with? Heck, I didn’t even disagree with you! I simply made an observation on directionality. Anti-forestry? Arguing against harvest? I have said neither of these. In fact, I clearly stated it is well within the principles of sustainable systems to manage supposedly pristine systems to make them more productive, so what the heck is your problem? I have said the DIRECTIONALITY of the logic/decision-making is backwards. For this reason, we need to be cautious of the conclusions and/or careful about applying hem in planning. Also, wood harvest vs. ecosystem are an issue. As I said before.

    It is entirely possible the conclusions are correct, but the question is not asked, how much wood do we *need?* In particular, how much do we need in a negative growth environment? Then, how much in a stabilized sustainable society?

    That is, I am providing additional context. Try being more observant and more polite next time. Handwaving and bias… criminy…

    Comment by Killian — 18 Apr 2014 @ 1:05 PM

  146. Phil, one paper does not suffice to change direction; it’s one paper. With science, look for followups citing that paper.

    Look at the numbers on wood wasted — do you see any proposal for actually salvaging it to burn for energy?
    Most concrete is assembled using wood forms — used one time and trashed. Found any program to change that?

    The paper you cite is an “if everyone would only ‘X’” approach. Those are always interesting. But getting people to do what’s actually involved — manage the resource, not simply cut more — isn’t easy to arrange.

    I’m looking for actual logging done this way.
    Got pointers/pictures?

    “Forest harvest creates a temporary opening that is needed by forest species such as butterflies and some birds and deer before it regrows to large trees.”
    “This diversity can be maintained by harvesting some of the forest growth.”

    Also looking for timber management logging plans that meet those criteria. Pointers welcome.

    Comment by Hank Roberts — 18 Apr 2014 @ 2:07 PM

  147. Here’s the full text online for the paper Phil refers to:
    http://www.tandfonline.com/toc/wjsf20/current
    View full text
    Download full text

    In other news:

    Katharine Hayhoe interview on NPR: Apr. 18, 2014, How a Warming Planet Will Change What’s on Your Plate

    Comment by Hank Roberts — 18 Apr 2014 @ 2:24 PM

  148. Hank, its not just one paper. The summary has a link to the full paper, which has many citations.

    You can read about Sustainable Forest Management in Canada at the website of the Canadian Council of Forest Ministers
    http://www.nrcan.gc.ca/forests/canada/sustainable-forest-management/13183

    About 90% of the industrial forestry in Canada takes place on public land. Industry operates under legislation and policy that varies from province to province, but all provinces have mechanisms to set “annual allowable cut” and rules to ensure that actual harvest does not exceed the AAC. You can read about one province’s Forest Management Plan requirements here:
    http://esrd.alberta.ca/lands-forests/forest-management/forest-management-plans/default.aspx

    Certainly there is room for criticism, but I think the debate should be about issues such as certification and the rigour of forest management plans and compliance, not unsubstantiated arguments based on the incorrect view that timber harvest = deforestation.

    For those interested in diving into forest ecology, I suggest the textbook by J.P. (Hamish) Kimmins.
    http://www.amazon.com/Forest-Ecology-Edition-James-Kimmins/dp/0130662585

    Comment by Phil L — 18 Apr 2014 @ 3:53 PM

  149. > certification and the rigour of forest management plans
    > and compliance

    I’m with you there. But dealing with the waste of much of the wood after it’s cut is part of the calculation of sustainable forestry.
    I don’t see it happening where I am.

    So Canada’s doing something better along those lines?

    Vancouver Island and the Olympic Peninsula’s last 3 or 4 decades of logging shows how it’s been done wrong. Where is it being done right?

    Comment by Hank Roberts — 18 Apr 2014 @ 7:54 PM

  150. Killian at #145: You say, “I repeat, I said not a syllable on not cutting.” Perhaps I misunderstood your earlier statement, “Rather than fitting policy to consumption, we need to fit policy to systemic sustainability, and that means… let’s just stop chopping down trees altogether, except where absolutely unavoidable.” If I misinterpreted you, I apologize.

    Comment by Phil L — 18 Apr 2014 @ 11:27 PM

  151. #141, Chris D.

    “So, lets take him at his word and do away with all standards and instead do greenhouse gas emissions trading.”

    Except he doesn’t say that anywhere in the article. He isn’t a fan of regulation and gives several reasons why. But in the real world, we’ve seen both approaches co-exist in the same policy space: for example, the acid-rain cap-and-trade plan which succeeded so well was complementary to the Clean Air Act. Nor did British Columbia take any of anti-pollution laws off the books when they enacted their carbon tax.

    So ‘doing away with’ the Montreal Protocol is clearly what we call a ‘straw man.’

    Speaking for myself, I certainly welcome the new CAFE standards–and by the way, IMO the Administration deserves some kudos for getting them done quickly and without any great fuss; still a bit of a mystery why the usual suspects didn’t try to make the usual sorts to trouble to any great degree–and the EPA actions following the endangerment finding. It’s a useful workaround for the obstructionist Teapublican bloc in Congress, and will probably accelerate the decline of coal-fired thermal capacity in the US.

    But that doesn’t mean that it’s the best of all possible climate policies–or would be, if we lived in the best of all possible worlds. And it doesn’t mean that that regulation would need to somehow ‘go away’ if the political landscape were to shift enough to enable a Federal carbon tax. It would still be there, doing its thing, even as emissions sources outside its ambit came under new financial pressure to mitigate.

    Two words: “Both And.”

    Comment by Kevin McKinney — 19 Apr 2014 @ 6:44 AM

  152. Aside — climate scientists are not the only ones who use models of how aerosols behave. It’s worth looking at regulations that use models of aerosol dispersal — and how changes in what’s understood about how aerosols disperse affect projects, particularly financial calculations.
    e.g. https://www.google.com/search?q=aerosol+dispersion+safety+culture (most of those results lead to subjects off-topic here; just noting that scientists need to remember who else uses their numbers, and how).

    Aside, this is an interesting collection of work:
    U.S. Department of Energy’s Atmospheric Radiation Measurement (ARM) Climate Research Facility
    http://www.arm.gov/about/history

    Comment by Hank Roberts — 19 Apr 2014 @ 10:18 AM

  153. “Irrelevant, isn’t it? If what is most likely is a non-solution, thus essentially equaling mass extinction of some degree or other, what’s the point?

    The question to be asked is, what are the solutions. Yes, you can talk about die off, but what’s the point?”

    Comment by Killian

    I’m all for solutions Killian. I think that’s what everyone here is hoping for anyway, myself included. I see some very viable solutions but as many here are pointing out, it’s the politics of the situation we’re up against and public opinion/education about science itself. I posted a link to Peter Ward discussing public outreach and science education as A REQUIREMENT for hiring faculty who also engage in scientific research. The scientific community will have to engage the public and educate our young people starting in grade school.

    This IS the problem right here:

    http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/04/18/oklahoma-students-know-less-about-evolution-after-biology-i-than-they-did-before-taking-it/#.U1HQPMcuwMU.facebook

    “A study published in the latest edition of Evolution: Education and Outreach demonstrated “the average student…completed the Biology I course with increased confidence in their biological evolution knowledge yet with a greater number of biological evolution misconceptions and, therefore, less competency in the subject.”

    The study, conducted by Tony Yates and Edmund Marek, tested biology teachers and students in 32 Oklahoma public high schools via a survey the pair called “the Biological Evolution Literacy Survey.” The survey was administered to the teachers first, to get a benchmark of their grasp of evolutionary theory. The survey was then administered twice to the students — once before they took the required Biology I course, and once after they had completed it.

    Yates and Marek found that prior to instruction, students possessed 4,812 misconceptions about evolutionary theory; after they completed the Biology I course, they possessed 5,072. Of the 475 students surveyed, only 216 decreased the number of misconceptions they believed, as opposed to 259 who had more of them when they finished the course than before they took it.”

    Comment by Chuck Hughes — 19 Apr 2014 @ 11:50 AM

  154. I may have asked this on here before – apologies if so:

    According to NASA GISS the net climate forcing has scarcely risen since about 1990, yet the OHC data shows that global warming is accelerating, which suggests that the planetary energy imbalance is growing rather than being reduced. Could this mean that some of the slower climate feedbacks are increasingly contributing to global warming, or is the data not accurate enough for us to be sure that this apparent contradiction really exists?

    Comment by Icarus62 — 20 Apr 2014 @ 3:53 PM

  155. Some comparison to Greenland ice surface contour to bedrock depth at

    http://membrane.com/sidd/greenland-2013/walkback.html

    Csatho saw this is 2006, little kinks in surface contours where they cross bedrock canyons. I have some slides from her presentation there as well.

    For a comparison to the Rignot(2009) ice velocity, and some subsurface hydrology in NE Greenland, please see

    http://membrane.com/sidd/greenland-2013/convel.html

    sidd

    Comment by sidd — 20 Apr 2014 @ 5:25 PM

  156. 149 Phil L said Killian at #145: You say, “I repeat, I said not a syllable on not cutting.” Perhaps I misunderstood your earlier statement, “Rather than fitting policy to consumption, we need to fit policy to systemic sustainability, and that means… let’s just stop chopping down trees altogether, except where absolutely unavoidable.” If I misinterpreted you, I apologize.

    The key is where unavoidable, i.e. needed. Forest “management” is driven by market forces, not conservation, and a need-driven decision process, rather than a want-driven market process, will result in a different policy. Left alone, forests don’t need out help. We “manage” forests because we want wood and are concerned about managing their productivity primarily for that reason. They will reach their own apex and have fires when needed, etc., so if we are going to harvest for our use, let’s make sure that is a need-driven process that does not exceed the productive limits of the forest.

    What we are taking now is not need-based, it’s market-based.

    152 Chuck Hughes “Irrelevant, isn’t it? If what is most likely is a non-solution, thus essentially equaling mass extinction of some degree or other, what’s the point?

    The question to be asked is, what are the solutions. Yes, you can talk about die off, but what’s the point?”

    Comment by Killian

    I’m all for solutions Killian. I think that’s what everyone here is hoping for anyway, myself included. I see some very viable solutions but as many here are pointing out, it’s the politics of the situation we’re up against and public opinion/education about science itself.

    I had to ask myself, can an unsustainable system, one the exact opposite of sustainable, completely dependent on growth, bring about a sustainable system? Can a class of governors driven by greed and power create a system devoid of greed- and power-based decision-making? I decided, no, it can’t.

    Luckily, this fit well with principles of sustainable design because it really calls for a massively distributed system in the form of multiple linked systems, each designed for local conditions, to maximize diversity and diminish brittleness. Decision-making has to mimic this because decisions – design – is place-based. Thus, if you could get 535 sustainability-aware people in Congress, it still wouldn’t work. Decisions have to made at the home > neighborhood/town > city/area > bio-region levels. You’d have to rearrange the states, at minimum, into something like four to ten bio-regions. In fact, you’d have to make North America the largest geographical and political unit. That won’t happen politically. It might happen socially, though, where we, the various peoples, tell the various levels of government to kis our grits, we’re busy saving ourselves and the world, thank you very much.

    We need a new system. A few months after I came to this conclusion regarding governance, I came across Buckminster Fuller’s observation that you don’t fight an older, established system head on, you build a better one and let the old one wither away. I’m paraphrasing, but that’s accurate.

    Then you look at what real, global social change regarding governance, societal design, resource use that is comprehensive, effective, life-changing, etc., has ever been spearheaded by governments and the answer is: none.

    Sustainability is ultimately local. You can’t design sustainability from Congress, so why bother asking them to try? Nope, new system coming. From the bottom up. If you’re expecting political solutions, you really are wasting your time. Start a garden, start a community general assembly, start a local currency, localize. Etc. That simply, you’ve just created the new governance. Yay!

    Comment by Killian — 20 Apr 2014 @ 7:58 PM

  157. The Big Question: Why are we still debating climate change?

    Comment by prokaryotes — 21 Apr 2014 @ 6:40 AM

  158. Kevin (#151),

    “…still a bit of a mystery why the usual suspects didn’t try to make the usual sorts to trouble…”

    They do. All the new regulations get challenged in court. However, since it was the Supreme Court that ordered the EPA to comply with the law and study the dangers of greenhouse gas emissions, the subsequent regulations face only small modifications.

    Repealing the Clean Air Act and elimination the EPA are brought up in Congress pretty often and are used in fund raising campaigns all the time. But, the courts are pushing the EPA to do more, not less.

    Comment by Chris Dudley — 21 Apr 2014 @ 9:52 AM

  159. Killian wrote: “Nope, new system coming. From the bottom up.”

    Great news. I hope this bottom-up new system can stop the ongoing global increase in CO2 emissions and begin steep reductions in less than 5 years.

    Comment by SecularAnimist — 21 Apr 2014 @ 12:43 PM

  160. Other than societal collapse, it’s the only thing that can in a way that gets us to sustainable systems. All the stuff that is just higher efficiency and less-polluting, you now, greenwashing?, that stuff is as likely to get us to collapse and 6C as BAU, just more slowly because it doesn’t solve the underlying issues. It glosses over them. It freaks me out people here argue with me when I say industrial-scale solar is unsustainable; it’s more efficient, but still reliant on materials that are limited on this planet, thus, unsustainable. Worse, it eats up the time we almost certainly need to transition. But folks argue this point! Talk about it as a bridge, or what we might be able to do to make it sustainable, OK. But to argue its sustainability? Prima facie silliness. Anywho…

    As I have said for years, it’s the tipping points, stupid, and that means it’s the risk assessment. And that means act four decades ago. Since we didn’t do that, it means act now, act quickly, act massively, act simply.

    Comment by Killian — 21 Apr 2014 @ 6:58 PM

  161. “Some researchers have in the past attributed a portion of Northern Hemispheric warming to a warm phase of the AMO,” said Michael E. Mann, Distinguished Professor of Meteorology. “The true AMO signal, instead, appears likely to have been in a cooling phase in recent decades, offsetting some of the anthropogenic warming temporarily.”

    Any thoughts on this?

    Comment by JCH — 21 Apr 2014 @ 8:15 PM

  162. “Yates and Marek found that prior to instruction, students possessed 4,812 misconceptions about evolutionary theory; after they completed the Biology I course, they possessed 5,072. Of the 475 students surveyed, only 216 decreased the number of misconceptions they believed, as opposed to 259 who had more of them when they finished the course than before they took it.”

    That is my own experience. When I learn more about something, I have a lot more to be wrong about. Before I learn something, I was in the “not even wrong” area, with no idea of the right questions to ask, so being wrong wasn’t even a possibility. After I learn something, I know some more of the right questions to ask, but each such question is one more opportunity to be wrong.

    But for lil old me that is progress, from “not even wrong” to “wrong”
    and it’s fun to eventually sniff out the right answer

    sidd

    Comment by sidd — 21 Apr 2014 @ 8:39 PM

  163. Killian (#160),

    Could you please post a link about peak sand. This is a new topic the should interest everyone. Last I heard, if seven maids with seven mops swept for half a year, it was very much in doubt if they could get all the sand clear on just one beach. Bitter tears have been shed over sand found in such large quantities. http://www.poetryfoundation.org/poem/173170

    Comment by Chris Dudley — 21 Apr 2014 @ 9:06 PM

  164. Killian #156 said “… so if we are going to harvest for our use, let’s make sure that is a need-driven process that does not exceed the productive limits of the forest.”
    The challenge is in defining “need”. I concur with IPCC Working Group III and the journal article I referred to above, i.e. forest management can mitigate the effects of climate change. That includes building with more wood and less concrete and steel, heating with forest biomass instead of fossil fuels, etc. Are those mitigation efforts needed? I think they are a good thing, others might disagree. What we can agree on is to “not exceed the productive limits of the forest.”

    Comment by Phil L — 21 Apr 2014 @ 10:31 PM

  165. Sidd’s Greenland:

    That sub-ice plumbing is extraordinary. Is the 1000 km long “Petermann Canyon” a flowing water course? For its whole length? That would be the longest subsurface river on earth.

    And what does it mean … how does this thing behave as it melts and melts? I still wonder if it goes something like the San Quintín piedmont lobe in Patagonia — which is gone now, having melted away in situ, soaked in its own juices … in my lifetime. No ice discharged to anywhere.

    Please can we have a kmz version.

    Comment by GlenFergus — 22 Apr 2014 @ 5:20 AM

  166. Killian #160 – Unforced variations: Apr 2014,

    “It freaks me out people here argue with me when I say industrial-scale solar is unsustainable; it’s more efficient, but still reliant on materials that are limited on this planet, thus, unsustainable. Worse, it eats up the time we almost certainly need to transition. But folks argue this point! Talk about it as a bridge, or what we might be able to do to make it sustainable, OK. But to argue its sustainability? Prima facie silliness”

    Not silliness! If their prime objective is to ‘sell’ renewables, it makes perfect sense. Your primary objective is survival of the biosphere; don’t assume that’s everyone else’s prime objective.

    Comment by DIOGENES — 22 Apr 2014 @ 8:12 AM

  167. JCH @ 161 says “Any thoughts on this?”

    Yes.
    0. Where is your link?
    1. I think Mike keeps up with this see for instance
    Delworth_and_Mann_2000 cited by hundreds of later papers
    “Observed and simulated multidecadal variability in the Northern Hemisphere”
    2. The AMO does not change the global average temperature afaik. Your unlinked partial quote may have mislead you.

    Comment by Pete Dunkelberg — 22 Apr 2014 @ 9:04 AM

  168. El Niño likely in 2014.

    Comment by Pete Dunkelberg — 22 Apr 2014 @ 9:10 AM

  169. For all those who continue to promote the fiction of fossil fuel’s decline and rapid replacement by renewables, think again. The following article should bring you a tad closer to reality (note that I did not say BACK to reality; that was never a starting point).

    http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/04/21/3429130/russia-arctic-offshore-oil-platform/

    “With Russian President Vladimir Putin on hand, the Russian Arctic offshore oil platform Prirazlomnaya, the first offshore oil rig to begin commercial drilling operations above the Arctic circle, sent off its first shipment of oil on April 18.

    “The start of loading the oil produced at Prirazlomnaya means that the entire project will exert a most encouraging influence on Russia’s presence on the energy markets and will stimulate the Russian economy in general and its energy sector in particular,” Putin said. “this is, in fact, the beginning of our country’s enormous work on oil production in the Arctic.””

    Comment by DIOGENES — 22 Apr 2014 @ 9:27 AM

  170. Pete:

    On Forced Temperature Changes, Internal Variability and the AMO

    abstract

    news article

    Comment by JCH — 22 Apr 2014 @ 11:24 AM

  171. Re- Comment by DIOGENES — 22 Apr 2014 @ 9:27 AM

    I await with abated breath your version of “the only self-consistent plan on the climate blogs that will” stop Russian President Vladimir Putin from developing Russian offshore oil. Oh, you can’t do that? Perhaps you shouldn’t be so critical of others.

    Steve

    Comment by Steve Fish — 22 Apr 2014 @ 11:32 AM

  172. #160–

    Thing is, we aren’t going to get to ‘sustainable’ in one generation. Hopefully, we *can* get to ‘survivable’ in that timespan, and work toward true long-term sustainability from there.

    Comment by Kevin McKinney — 22 Apr 2014 @ 1:41 PM

  173. Re:Greenland subglacial hydrology

    (Please note, the images I have posted are derived from the Bamber(2013) dataset, and all credit should go to that team.)

    I have updated

    http://membrane.com/sidd/greenland-2013/convel.html

    with the full image from Livingtone(2013) doi:10.5194/tc-7-1721-2013

    on subglacial hydrology. It is probably time to remind that the hydraulic potential beneath the ice depends ten times more strongly on the surface slope than the bedrock slope, so water can flow “uphill” on bedrock if the surface downslope is large enough in the uphill (relative to bed) direction.

    The paper is open access, and has a depiction of putative drainage changes as the ice sheet changes. Especially interesting to me are switches between Peterman and Humboldt, and between Nioghalvfjerdsfjorden/Zachariae and Storstrommen.

    As for providing kmz files, I have stayed away from them since they are so closely tied to Google. I have no translator easily available, and little time to investigate the possibilities. I personally use GRASS and some other open source tools, and while GRASS has a formidable array of formats it understands, kmz dos not seem to be one of them. I recommend GRASS in spite of its quirks. If you do use it, a warning is that it has an annoying habit of flipping Greenland upside down, watch out.

    I tend toward Mr Fergus’s suspicion, that Greenland will mostly melt in place. As Enderlin(2014) doi:10.1002/2013GL059010 points out, surface ablation now exceeds ice discharge. Fig 3 from that paper is linked from

    http://membrane.com/sidd/fireice/

    sidd

    Comment by sidd — 22 Apr 2014 @ 3:14 PM

  174. Phil L said Killian #156 said “… so if we are going to harvest for our use, let’s make sure that is a need-driven process that does not exceed the productive limits of the forest.”

    The challenge is in defining “need”. I concur with IPCC Working Group III and the journal article I referred to above, i.e. forest management can mitigate the effects of climate change. That includes building with more wood and less concrete and steel, heating with forest biomass instead of fossil fuels, etc. Are those mitigation efforts needed? I think they are a good thing, others might disagree. What we can agree on is to “not exceed the productive limits of the forest.”

    Actually, we have yet to disagree. Need is not a mystery. It is literal. Use what you need, no more than that. The real question is about the organization and structure of society and what it uses. Eventually, we will use much more wood because we cannot keep using concrete. But, there are many other natural materials, so even that statement is overstatement. Also, we will be using far less energy generally and building structures that need no external energy, or very little, so where we end up…?

    My point is not that I know what the amounts are, only that the decisions must be need-based, not want-based, that is, these decisions cannot be economic or political decisions and management needs to be local, not institutional at the end of the day. (See passage below reflecting local management.)

    That’s a can of worms we won’t get into now. Here’s a sense of what I mean:

    The notion of a virgin Amazon is largely the result of the population crash following the arrival of the Europeans in the sixteenth century. Studies suggest that at least 10-12% of the Amazon’s terra firme forests are “anthropogenic in nature” resulting from the careful management of biodiversity by indigenous people. However, unlike most current cultivation techniques, these Amazonians were attuned to the ecological realities of their environment from five millennia of experimentation and accumulation of knowledge, with a strong understanding of how to manage the rainforest to meet their requirements within a sustainable capacity. They saw the importance of maintaining biodiversity through a careful balance of natural forest, open fields and sections of forest managed so as to be dominated by species of special interest and greatest use to humans.

    http://news.mongabay.com/2005/1017-amazon.html

    Comment by Killian — 22 Apr 2014 @ 3:33 PM

  175. I repeat, why are Dudley’s immature remarks not in the Bore Hole?

    (!) said
    Killian (#160), Could you please post a link about peak sand.

    Comment by Killian — 22 Apr 2014 @ 3:36 PM

  176. Steve Fish #171,

    There are three general types of posters on this blog. At one vertex of the triangle are the posters like Walter. He publishes solid factual information of where we are, and where we are very likely headed. Putin’s actions fit right into Walter’s projections of fossil fuel use three decades out, confirming the EIA projections of 50% HIGHER use of fossil fuels annually, and even making them look somewhat conservative.

    At a second vertex are posters like myself and Killian, who show what is required to avoid the impending catastrophe. While Killian might disagree, there is no way either of these plans, or even the plans of Hansen and Anderson, will ever get implemented. They are not what the public wants to hear.

    At the third vertex are posters like the ‘tag team’ and their vanishing followers. They post moderately ambitious plans for implementing low carbon technologies and higher energy efficiency technologies. These plans have little chance of getting implemented, since even they, as modest as they are, are well beyond where the public wants to go. But, even if they did get implemented, by some miracle, they would do almost nothing to avoid the impending catastrophe.

    And, what is the fate of these three groups. Walter, often as not, gets Boreholed. I get relegated to the RC-equivalent of the Ecuadorean Embassy – p.3. And, the ‘tag team’ with their non-viable non-impactful message; why, they get front and center treatment. And, we wonder why the recent Gallup Poll shows support for climate change amelioration disappearing? With the promulgation of the message I have shown above by the climate advocates, who can blame them? That’s the best we can do?

    Comment by DIOGENES — 22 Apr 2014 @ 3:44 PM

  177. Re 172 Kevin McKinney said #160– Thing is, we aren’t going to get to ‘sustainable’ in one generation.

    Why not?

    Hopefully, we *can* get to ‘survivable’ in that timespan, and work toward true long-term sustainability from there.

    If it’s not sustainable, it’s not survivable. You are making a distinction without a difference. If we canto the latter, we have done the former. The key is simplification rather than trying to power and maintain what is. When people realize what simplicity means, they will better understand how and why it can be done rapidly. Besides, I don’t think the planet is going to give us that much time.

    If we haven’t reduced atmospheric GHG ppm/ppb significantly by one generation, I don’t see how the planet doesn’t flip totally past all important tipping points; the degradation of systems is just so massive already.

    Comment by Killian — 22 Apr 2014 @ 3:49 PM

  178. Steve Fish #171 – Unforced Variations Apr 2014,

    “I await with abated breath your version of “the only self-consistent plan on the climate blogs that will” stop Russian President Vladimir Putin from developing Russian offshore oil.”

    As I have stated many times, my plan represents what is required to avoid the ultimate disaster, but is not salable. One of the reasons it is not salable is represented by what Putin is doing, and the rest of the countries anywhere near the Arctic will be doing in the near future. Putin realizes that his product is what the global masses want, and he will do whatever it takes to provide it. As the Arctic ice disappears and becomes more navigable in the process, the extraction of oil and other fossil resources will increase. Truly, a positive feedback mechanism!

    The fiction that you and the rest of the tag team constantly regurgitate is that low carbon technologies will expand rapidly AND replace the fossil fuel use. Putin’s actions, and the continually increasing global emissions, show the fallacy of your unfounded assertions. The EIA projections of ~50% INCREASED fossil fuel use annually in three decades reflect reality; in fact, they may even be conservative. You and the tag team offer nothing that will avoid the climate Apocalypse, even if it were implemented. My plan would provide a reasonable chance of avoidance, if implemented.

    Comment by DIOGENES — 23 Apr 2014 @ 5:04 AM

  179. Icarus62,

    Do you have a link? According to James Hansen’s update (PDF), earlier this year, climate forcing has been increasing since 1990.

    Comment by Tony Weddle — 23 Apr 2014 @ 5:14 AM

  180. On some of the affects of capitalism – Bruno Latour – Lecture given at the Royal Academy, Copenhagen, 26th of February, 2014
    http://www.royalacademy.dk/Files/Billeder/Royal%20Danish%20Academy%20Lectures/Bruno%20Latour/136-AFFECTS-OF-K-COPENHAGUEcc.pdf or https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=8i-ZKfShovs

    Complex, deep, intense, confronting, light hearted and witty. Some short quoted snippets – “If the world were a bank, they would have already bailed it out”. Such is the slogan painted by Greenpeace militants in one of their recent campaigns. It says a lot about our level of intellectual corruption that we don’t find such a line simply funny but tragically realistic. It has the same bleak degree of realism as Frederick Jameson’s famous quip that: “Nowadays it seems easier to imagine the end of the world than to imagine the end of capitalism!”.

    This inversion of what is transitory and what is eternal is no longer a joke, especially since what should be called the “Australian strategy of voluntary sleepwalking toward catastrophe” is being implemented to the full after the last election: not content to dismantle the institutions, scientific establishments and instruments that could prepare his constituency to meet the new global threat of climate mutations,1 the prime minister, Tony Abbott, is also dismantling, one after the other, most departments of social science and humanities.2 Such a strategy makes a lot of sense: not thinking ahead is probably, when you are an Australian and given what is coming, the most rational thing to do. “Not thinking” seems to be the slogan of the day when you consider that in the United States alone something like a billion dollars,3 yes, one billion, is being spent to generate ignorance about the anthropic origin of climate mutations.

    “Agnotology”, Robert Proctor’s science of generating ignorance, has become the most important discipline of the day.4 It is thanks to this great new science that so many people are able to say in their heart “Perish the world, provided my bank survives!”. It is a desperate task to continue thinking when the powers of intelligence are dedicated to shutting down thought and to marching ahead with eyes wide closed. What is there, in this second nature, that generates such a lack of sensitivity to the worldly conditions of our existence? This is the problem we have to tackle.

    Comment by Sean — 23 Apr 2014 @ 7:06 AM

  181. For those concerned about source material availability for photovoltaics, here is an interesting article about a high efficiency cell made of silicon with copper contacts and n-type doping. Source materials are silica (sand), copper in minute quantities and dopant phosphorus. These are all quite abundant and will not run out. http://www.nrel.gov/news/features/feature_detail.cfm/feature_id=4309

    Comment by Chris Dudley — 23 Apr 2014 @ 8:32 AM

  182. Joe Romm at Climate Progress just wrote: “Since this El Niño could be the defining climate event for the next few years, Climate Progress will be reporting on it regularly.”

    How about RC??

    http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/04/22/3429380/el-nino-global-warming-temperature-record/

    Comment by wili — 23 Apr 2014 @ 1:58 PM

  183. SkS now has a main post on the likelihood of an El Nino, too. https://www.skepticalscience.com/Is-a-Powerful-El-Nino-Brewing-in-the-Pacific-Ocean.html

    Any plans for anything from RC on this?

    [Response: Seems like a good opportunity for a guest post from a true expert on that topic. Will look into this... - mike]

    Comment by wili — 23 Apr 2014 @ 3:27 PM

  184. 181 Dudley said (why, we don’t know) For those concerned about source material availability for photovoltaics, here is an interesting article about a high efficiency cell made of silicon with copper contacts and n-type doping. Source materials are silica (sand), copper in minute quantities and dopant phosphorus. These are all quite abundant and will not run out. http://www.nrel.gov/news/features/feature_detail.cfm/feature_id=4309

    Shh, everybody! Dudley is pretending solar electricity generation systems only use solar cells and absolutely nothing else! Also that there is no manufacturing process for them! And that if there were, the manufacturing plants are sustainably built and maintained! And that they are never transported! Nor installed! Nor repaired!

    Quiet! Let’s listen to the gears spin! He’s obviously putting a huge amount of thought into this! Given he is such a student of Lovins, he must be correct!

    /sarc

    Comment by Killian — 23 Apr 2014 @ 6:05 PM

  185. “Seems like a good opportunity for a guest post from a true expert on that topic. Will look into this… – mike”

    Awesome!

    (mysteriously relevant reCaptcha: “Keeling childke” –kinetic energy??)

    Comment by wili — 23 Apr 2014 @ 8:35 PM

  186. Killian (#175),

    The immaturity is in your understanding of renewable energy technology.

    You said “It freaks me out people here argue with me when I say industrial-scale solar is unsustainable; it’s more efficient, but still reliant on materials that are limited on this planet, thus, unsustainable.”

    And you are completely wrong, laughably so. Silicon solar panels are made from sand. There is absolutely no shortage of that. Sorry you did not enjoy the humorous nudge towards a more mature view. You are freaking out for no reason, twice.

    Comment by Chris Dudley — 23 Apr 2014 @ 8:54 PM

  187. The RealClimate front page claims there are but 159 comments on this thread. Currently the popup is showing 183 comments. Similarly for Brigitte Knopf’s guest post.

    Even worse, the sidebar comes up, for more than one day now, with comment #88 of Brigitte Knopf’s thread as the most recent.

    [Response: To deal with some performance issues, we had to change the caching of the pages. We are still tweaking the settings. - gavin]

    Comment by David B. Benson — 23 Apr 2014 @ 10:30 PM

  188. Killian (#184),

    You are really flaunting you ignorance. LEED certification is happening quite a lot in RE manufacture. http://www2.dupont.com/Apollo/en_HK/news_events/article20110616.html http://amonix.com/pressreleases/amonix-earns-leed-gold-certification-two-facilities-powers-solar-manufacturing-facilit http://www.gray.com/news/2011/09/15/leed-gold-certification-awarded-siemens-wind-turbine-nacelle-assembly-facility

    Interestingly, it takes much less energy to recycle a solar panel than to make it the first time, so the longer they are recycled, the better their performance becomes as the initial energy cost is more and more diluted.

    At this point you are just trolling which is where you unusually end up. You don’t actually have much grasp of what sustainability is, or why ii only deserves two cheers, or how much more enriching human interaction with the environment can be than just ticking over. You should really read a few books.

    Comment by Chris Dudley — 23 Apr 2014 @ 11:51 PM

  189. Steve @ 171,

    “I await with abated breath your version of “the only self-consistent plan on the climate blogs that will” stop Russian President Vladimir Putin from developing Russian offshore oil. Oh, you can’t do that? Perhaps you shouldn’t be so critical of others.”

    There is one thing that will stop Vladimir Putin from developing Russian offshore oil. CAPEX!

    It will happen probably sooner than later:

    http://peakoilbarrel.com/eias-international-energy-statistics-updated/#more-2654

    “There are plenty of projects in Russia, both, new projects and existing brownfield projects. Russia is a very mature producer. If you exclude all the drilling activity taking place every year, then Russian organic decline in production is close to 19%. To compensate for that organic decline, Russia drills somewhere between 5,000 and 6,000 wells every year.

    This year, as I said before, some people expected production to collapse. We certainly never thought it would collapse, but we did think it would decline. Instead it’s actually growing as a result of benefits from past investments in the new fields coming on stream this year. But we’re simply running out of the pipeline of these new fields. Therefore, next year there will be a lot fewer fields coming on stream; in the absence of new incentives to put more money to work to grow Russian oil production, it will naturally start declining, with organic decline rates of around 19% and growing.”

    “Sometimes, falling free cash flow is a short-term issue. Such was the case after the 2008 oil crash. Oil prices fell, and as a result free cash flow fell as well.

    The current downturn is different. Oil prices have remained relatively stable and yet free cash flow is falling. The reason for this change is simple. Capital expenditures (capex) are rising at a rate far above revenue, thus cutting free cash flow.”

    See also: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dLCsMRr7hAg

    For extra credit you can have a bit of fun at http://mazamascience.com/OilExport/

    The reality is that fossil fuel consumption can not continue to increase for a number of reasons.
    This doesn’t mean that our problems are solved from a climate mitigation perspective. Unfortunately it just means BAU can’t continue and that we are squandering our resources trying to keep it going instead of using them to transition to a simpler way of life.

    As for Vladimir Putin, he is just another power hungry thug looking out for his own interests at the expense of anyone who gets in his way. He doesn’t care about his own people and certainly doesn’t care about the planet. He is a lot like many of our own politicians and corporate leaders.

    Cheers!
    Fred

    Comment by Fred Magyar — 24 Apr 2014 @ 6:17 AM

  190. CD 186 … “And you are completely wrong, laughably so. Silicon solar panels are made from sand.”
    See, it’s natural and safe, it’s only sand! If someone is a self-appointed expert in pv solar and renewables, wouldn’t you expect they could at least tell the truth, now and then?
    http://www.solarindustrymag.com/issues/SI1309/FEAT_05_Hazardous_Materials_Used_In_Silicon_PV_Cell_Production_A_Primer.html

    I could posted any number of links, I haven’t learnt anything new by doing this, with the link above simply convenient. Shall we talk about rare earth metals and batteries, and …. too? Oh, why bother. ( smile )
    Let’s just stick with a quote … “The immaturity is in your understanding of renewable energy technology.” … and ponder that thought for a moment.

    OK, the moment is up. Moving along.

    Comment by Wally — 24 Apr 2014 @ 6:54 AM

  191. The linked video is a presentation by ecologist William Rees on the concept of and necessity for economic degrowth.

    William Rees // Part 1 of 3 // Why Degrowth?

    However unlikely to happen, it seems the most humane plan if it could be carried out. It is essentially a planned collapse followed by a stable-state economy. Most of the talk is about where we are and how we got here. It’s a bit bumpy at the beginning, so be patient.

    Much of the question period is quite good, too.

    The linked video is a presentation by ecologist William Rees on the concept of and necessity for economic degrowth.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zJQdVCwOZ1Y
    William Rees // Part 1 of 3 // Why Degrowth?

    However unlikely to happen, it seems the most humane plan if it could be carried out. It is essentially a planned collapse followed by a stable-state economy. Most of the talk is about where we are and how we got here. It’s a bit bumpy at the beginning, so be patient.

    Much of the question period is quite good, too.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=owhuUJjZ7s0
    Q&A // Part 3 of 3 // Why Degrowth?

    (OT: Can we all just stop with the personal attacks on other posters, please. It really degrades the whole tone of the site. Attack the ideas, ideally with accurate data, cited studies, clear argumentation, etc. But constant ad hominems only make you look mean-spirited, make the site feel like a cesspool of nastiness, and make it less likely that new posters will want to join the discussion. Thanks.)

    Comment by wili — 24 Apr 2014 @ 2:56 PM

  192. Re- Comment by Fred Magyar — 24 Apr 2014 @ 6:17 AM, ~#189

    Thanks for a little good news Fred.

    Steve

    Comment by Steve Fish — 24 Apr 2014 @ 7:52 PM

  193. I have a question for anyone who cares to voice an opinion:

    What are the chances that the coming El Nino could shake loose the Pine Island Glacier or other sections of the West Antarctica Ice Sheet? I’ve been reading Neven’s Sea Ice Blog and it’s a topic of discussion over there. This is assuming that this El Nino fully develops and equals something similar in strength to the 1998 El Nino.

    Opinions? Comments?

    Thanks.

    Comment by Chuck Hughes — 24 Apr 2014 @ 9:17 PM

  194. Here’s a very short video of the Pine Island Glacier and it’s latest activity:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OQuVQqsyCNw

    Again, has this been factored into the latest IPCC reports?

    Comment by Chuck Hughes — 24 Apr 2014 @ 9:25 PM

  195. Re LEED

    Folks, please do your homework. Much like USDA organic is not organic, LEED is not sustainable. It is a measure of *efficiency*, not sustainability. Remember! Sustainability is a threshold, not a continuum. If *any* component of an element is unsustainable, the entire element must be considered unsustainable unless or until that component is changed or removed. You either are or you are not. Even Straw Bale homes are not sustainable if they use any modern devices because those devices – lights, linoleum, what have you – are not sustainable. Only a Straw Bale house with truly recyclables *only* is sustainable.

    There is no such thing as “mostly sustainable.” This is not The Princess Bride and neither Dudley nor Lovins are Miracle Max.

    Comment by Killian — 25 Apr 2014 @ 4:14 AM

  196. Fred (#189),

    I think you are misjudging this. Oil prices are being held high enough to expand supply by all kinds of means. The Arctic oil is conventional oil and so is no more expensive than oil form the Gulf of Mexico to produce aside from the ice issue. That gives them lots of margin to play around with. Tar sands are obviously too profitable now. With Austin Energy signing a contract for solar power at five cents a kWh, it seem pretty clear that the Green River shale formation can now be produced profitably. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shale_oil_extraction#ExxonMobil_Electrofrac That is about 3 trillion barrels and it is only going to get cheaper.

    There are also smart supply options that are getting close http://www.nrl.navy.mil/media/news-releases/2014/scale-model-wwii-craft-takes-flight-with-fuel-from-the-sea-concept but the trajectory looks like a huge slug of fossil carbon from unconventional oil is on the way.

    Comment by Chris Dudley — 25 Apr 2014 @ 7:31 AM

  197. > likelihood of el Nino

    Thoughtful piece: Dynamic retardation of tropical warming
    Posted on April 24, 2014 by Isaac Held at his blog

    Among much else there, some about what’s modeled vs. what we infer from tracers and timing of observed changes about the actual course of deep ocean circulation; how that’s changing; and how that may relate to how and when the ocean changes state.

    Comment by Hank Roberts — 25 Apr 2014 @ 9:48 AM

  198. I’m having a technical problem.

    I can’t see the Unforced Variations April comments from # 164 (21 April).

    Abi

    Comment by Abi — 25 Apr 2014 @ 1:53 PM

  199. My last comment seems to have cleared the problem. Very odd.

    Thanks

    Abi

    Comment by Abi — 25 Apr 2014 @ 1:56 PM

  200. wili wrote: “Can we all just stop with the personal attacks on other posters, please.”

    “We all” don’t engage in personal attacks on other commenters.

    Only a couple of people do that, and they do it regularly.

    Comment by SecularAnimist — 25 Apr 2014 @ 2:30 PM

  201. Not one, or two, but THREE nice papers on the cryosphere discuss (open access, chekitout)

    Thompson et al., doi:10.5194/tcd-8-2119-2014

    “Modeling the elastic transmission of tidal stresses to great distances inland in channelized ice streams”

    Can’t leave out hydrology in tidal stress transmission, the ocean affects further upstream than we thought.

    Lea et al., doi:10.5194/tcd-8-2005-2014

    tidewater glacier in greenland modelled since 1871, surface ablation forced by atmosphere is too important to leave out.

    Hughes et al., doi:10.5194/tcd-8-2043-2014

    brilliant pic of “Gogineni gorge” under Jacobshawn in Fig 14, and detail on subglacial lakes and hydrology under Byrd. Concludes that Byrd is different, knock on wood, because when Byrd starts sliding there will be small bubbles rising from our coastal cities.

    sidd

    Comment by sidd — 25 Apr 2014 @ 10:10 PM

  202. Re:output formats for greenland maps

    Mr. Glen Fergus: Here are the output formats i can conveniently translate into from GRASS. Perhaps one or more might b helpful to you. I see something called KMLSUPEROVERLAY for raster maps, but i dont know if that is what you meant.

    For vector maps (contours, for example)

    ESRI_Shapefile, MapInfo_File, TIGER, S57, DGN, BNA, CSV, GML, GPX, KML, GeoJSON, Interlis_1, Interlis_2, GMT, SQLite, ODBC, MSSQLSpatial, PostgreSQL, MySQL, PCIDSK, DXF, Geoconcept, GeoRSS, GPSTrackMaker, PGDump, GPSBabel, GFT, CouchDB, ODS, XLSX, ElasticSearch, PDF

    For raster maps (like a 2D matrix)

    VRT, GTiff, NITF, HFA, ELAS, AAIGrid, DTED, PNG, JPEG, GIF, XPM, BMP, PCIDSK, PCRaster, ILWIS, SGI, SRTMHGT, Leveller, Terragen, GMT, netCDF, HDF4Image, ISIS2, ERS, JPEG2000, FIT, RMF, WMS, RST, INGR, GSAG, GSBG, GS7BG, R, PNM, ENVI, EHdr, PAux, MFF, MFF2, BT, LAN, IDA, GTX, NTv2, CTable2, ARG, USGS-DEM, ADRG, BLX, Rasterlite, EPSILON, PostGISRaster, SAGA, KMLSUPEROVERLAY, XYZ, HF2, PDF, ZMap

    sidd

    Comment by sidd — 25 Apr 2014 @ 11:51 PM

  203. Is the IPCC Government Approval Process Broken?
    Posted on April 25, 2014 by Robert Stavins

    Over the past 5 years, I have dedicated an immense amount of time and effort to serving as the Co-Coordinating Lead Author (CLA) of Chapter 13, “International Cooperation: Agreements and Instruments,” of Working Group III (Mitigation) of the Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

    http://www.robertstavinsblog.org/2014/04/25/is-the-ipcc-government-approval-process-broken-2/

    Comment by wally — 26 Apr 2014 @ 4:02 AM

  204. Chris Dudley @ 196,

    “I think you are misjudging this. Oil prices are being held high enough to expand supply by all kinds of means. The Arctic oil is conventional oil and so is no more expensive than oil form the Gulf of Mexico to produce aside from the ice issue. That gives them lots of margin to play around with.”

    First let me be clear that I am quite sure that Putin will develop oil fields in the Artic! However it is extremely naive if not deliberately disingenuous to claim that the costs of drilling in the Artic are comparable to the costs of drilling in the Gulf of Mexico and ice issues are just tip of the iceberg (pun intended).

    An interesting case study is what has happened to Shell Oil over the last few years.

    That oil prices are being held high enough to expand supply by all kinds of means is simply untrue! The data does not in any way support that statement. If you have evidence to the contrary please provide it!
    We are living in a world where oil is a supply constrained commodity and the price has been on a relatively stable price plateau for sometime now. The data are very clear about two things, the market does not support increases in prices and the costs of finding and developing more oil is getting more and more expensive.

    “it seem pretty clear that the Green River shale formation can now be produced profitably. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shale_oil_extraction#ExxonMobil_Electrofrac That is about 3 trillion barrels and it is only going to get cheaper.”

    For the record you are talking about Kerogen deposits:

    “When it comes to the Green River Formation, we’re talking about finely-grained sedimentary rock that holds a significant amount of kerogen.
    Kerogen, unfortunately, is not crude oil.” https://images.angelpub.com/2011/46/11446/kerogen-pic.jpg

    Again, please provide data on realistic future production rates.

    Think of it this way, if you have 3 trillion dollars in the bank but you are only able to take out $500 a week and you have to pay a $100 ATM fee you aren’t exactly going to live like a king.

    If you haven’t yet watched Steve Kopits’ presentation then please do:
    Oil Supply and Demand Forecasting with Steven Kopits
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dLCsMRr7hAg

    Final Note: None of this means that we will stop adding CO2 from fossil fuels to the atmosphere anytime soon. I’m a strong supporter of powering down and simplifying our life sytles.I support transitioning to clean forms of alternative energy such as wind, solar, hydro and wave energy.
    We need to reduce our ecological and thermodynamic footprints asap, however I don’t see any way to accomplish any of that without massive use of fossil fuels. So IMHO, what it boils down to (pun intended)
    is a much more judicious use of our remaing fossil fuel reserves. We need to find a way to bring the majority of the planet’s inhabitants on board with a plan to power down and get out of the consumption patterns that we are currently in.

    Comment by Fred Magyar — 26 Apr 2014 @ 6:26 AM

  205. Fred (#204),

    Well, the price of oil is hold at a “well supplied” market level for a while now based on OPEC’s view of what well supplied means (economically growing customers will buy more oil rather than less). That price is well above break even for oil shale production. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_shale_economics

    The usual objection to shale oil is that you only get about twice as much energy as you put in in production. Your objection about the number of straws is new to me and seems strange. Fracking usually gives fast production, and there does not seem to be an important limit on the number of wells that can operate at once.

    The usual objection is overwhelmed though by the advent of low cost renewable energy. If a solar cell is giving back thirty times the amount of energy that went into making it, and that energy is put into processing oil shale, you are getting 60 times the initial energy input back. Now, if instead we use hydrolysis for hydrogen and biomass carbon to produce liquid fuels the energy conversion efficiency may well end up less than one and will likely not result in a factor of 2 gain. So, you may only get 20 times the energy back from the original manufacture of the solar cell. This may make climate-smart use of low cost solar power to produce liquid fuels seem unattractive.

    We are really potentially unleashing the entire fossil carbon pool (four doublings with feedbacks) by getting good at renewable energy.

    Comment by Chris Dudley — 26 Apr 2014 @ 11:38 AM

  206. Recommended reading:

    Want to Stop Climate Change? Take the Fossil Fuel Industry to Court
    Big Carbon is where Big Tobacco was, before it started losing.
    By Dan Zegart
    April 21, 2014
    http://www.TheNation.com

    Comment by SecularAnimist — 26 Apr 2014 @ 12:03 PM

  207. Fred Magyar wrote: “We need to find a way to bring the majority of the planet’s inhabitants on board with a plan to power down and get out of the consumption patterns that we are currently in.”

    The vast majority of the planet’s human inhabitants already have “consumption patterns” that produce vastly less GHG emissions than “WE” — the commenters on this blog — do.

    Sure, “WE” in the developed world, particularly in the uber-wasteful USA, need “a plan” — actually a whole host of plans — to reduce our emissions to near zero ASAP, starting with addressing the outright, blatant waste of more than half of our primary energy consumption.

    What tens of millions of “the planet’s inhabitants” in the developing world need, on the other hand, is “a plan” — and again, that really means innumerable, local/regional/national, detailed, specific and actionable “plans” — to get access to energy, specifically electricity, and to sustainable food production, without adopting the “consumption patterns” of the USA.

    Comment by SecularAnimist — 26 Apr 2014 @ 12:13 PM

  208. Two notes on obstacles:

    ‘Jobs vs. the Environment’: How to Counter This Divisive Big Lie

    BP Oil Spill: BP Pays PR Trolls to Threaten Online Critics

    Comment by Pete Dunkelberg — 26 Apr 2014 @ 4:10 PM

  209. What the heck… I’ll ask one more time. Does anyone here think that the coming El Nino will have any adverse effect on the West Antarctica Ice Sheet or is this a non issue?

    “Re: Selected Forcing Factor for Abrupt SLR from the Collapse of the WAIS
    « Reply #20 on: March 08, 2013, 04:19:32 PM »

    “I would also like to point out that not only has the recent hiatus in El Nino activity (see previous post) been masking (hiding) the rise in global surface temperatures for the past 10-years (thus reducing the atmospheric telecommunication of heat to the West Antarctic while increasing the ocean telecommunication of heat); similarly the melting of a large volume of Arctic sea ice for the past ten years has masked the Arctic amplification of the increase Arctic surface temperatures. Once the rate of Arctic sea ice volume loss decreases (in the next few years) the rate of increase of Arctic surface temperatures will accelerate thus further reducing the thermal gradient between the topics and the Arctic; which in turn will reduce the atmospheric telecommunication of energy from the tropics to the Arctic. Thus in a few years there will be more energy in the tropics (due both to the end of the El Nino hiatus and the drop in the rate of Arctic sea ice volume loss) to telecommunicate atmospherically to the West Antarctic (which as Steig et al have pointed out is the focus of such telecommunication from the Pacific tropics), which will likely result in the collapse of the Larsen C ice shelf by 2018 and the possible collapse of the thinned FRIS and/or RIS after 2070 due to the ice melt pond mechanism.”

    Discussion here:

    http://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php?topic=41.0

    Comment by Chuck Hughes — 26 Apr 2014 @ 10:34 PM

  210. Re 206 SecularAnimist said Recommended reading:

    Want to Stop Climate Change? Take the Fossil Fuel Industry to Court
    Big Carbon is where Big Tobacco was, before it started losing.
    By Dan Zegart

    Wrong. Climate change is directly tied to consumption. There is one way and one way only around climate change, energy issues, resource issues and degradation of the planet: Use less. Absent that, you’re spitting in the wind.

    Besides, the worst thing you can do to any business is to not buy their stuff. Lawsuits won’t end fossil fuel consumption or force them to renewables. Market forces will: Stop consuming.

    Look how long legal challenges to tobacco took. Etc. So, on top of maintaining demand, which causes them to keep extracting despite the lawsuits, you also give them decades more to keep doing what they are doing before anything likely changes.

    Sorry, but no matter how you look at the collapse we are in the middle of, the answer is to simply stop consuming.

    Comment by Killian — 26 Apr 2014 @ 11:03 PM

  211. Tony Weddle #179 – Thanks for the link to Hansen’s publication. On page 10 he says “If the assumption that aerosol forcing increased (became more negative) in the past decade is correct, then the net climate forcing has been quite flat during the past 15-20 years (Fig. 13b).” – and that’s really my point. If the net climate forcing has been flat for 15 – 20 years then we probably wouldn’t expect the rate of global warming as determined by OHC data to have doubled, as it has done. So maybe, as Hansen discusses, the aerosol forcing hasn’t been as great as assumed, and the net climate forcing has actually been increasing. Alternatively, maybe the climate forcing has been flat but natural slow feedbacks have contributed to the acceleration. Or perhaps the OHC data has exaggerated the warming. I don’t know what the answer is, but it seems like there is an inconsistency there somewhere.

    Comment by Icarus62 — 27 Apr 2014 @ 3:28 AM

  212. Chris,

    Your EROEI figure of 30 for solar PV seems way high. An article in Scientific American gives the number as 6, though a later associated article suggested it might be growing. However, your assumption is that all of the energy that goes into producing shale oil could be supplied by solar PV (and, indeed, perhaps even suggests that solar PV itself could be manufactured, operated and maintained with solar PV) at the appropriate scale for the production of said oil (I understand that the global solar PV capacity is a fraction of the energy required for just US shale oil production).

    Your techno-optimism is actually pessimistic, because it implies that much more oil can continue to be used even if it has a very low EROEI. That would pretty much condemn the planet to climate catastrophe. On the other hand, if other voices are correct (and conventional oil certainly does seem to have plateaued since 2005), then oil will begin to decline soon, regardless of attempts to get more, at an affordable price, (we’ve seen this from the independent oil majors whose production has declined in recent years despite increasing investment), then at least there is a chance of some mitigation, but societies will be destabilised anyway.

    Personally, given the lack of any significant action on reducing emissions (just the reverse if various countries’ backing of fracking and other oil exploration is any guide), I think a natural decline in fossil fuel availability is probably our only chance of any mitigation at all.

    Comment by Tony — 27 Apr 2014 @ 6:12 AM

  213. Tony (#212),

    Yes, I was looking at payback time for a modern low cost solar cell, First Solar-type* or the like. The balance of system energy investment is probably minimal in this kind of application which is just producing heat in a resistive load. Cells can be placed on a convenient slope and wired in series until you get enough DC voltage to get the current to the well bottom. Nothing fancy for inverters, mounts, transmission etc.

    For First Solar, just the cell, mounting, cabling and recycling leaving out the inverter has an energy payback time of about 0.65 years so the EROEI would be about 38. http://www.firstsolar.com/en/technologies-and-capabilities/pv-modules/first-solar-series-3-black-module/cdte-technology. The article you read probably looked at silicon technology from a few years back. Things are changing rapidly in this area.

    You are correct that complete climate catastrophe comes within reach with the advent of high quality renewable power. Unless we regulate emissions around the world, we could unlock huge amounts of fossil carbon, far beyond our current resource estimates. In situ gasification of very narrow coal seams becomes easy, for example.

    *First Solar provides a convenient example because their numbers are checked by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory so you know they are not BS. It is possible they would refuse to let their panels be used for oil shale processing.

    Comment by Chris Dudley — 27 Apr 2014 @ 4:12 PM

  214. Tony said …However, your assumption is that all of the energy that goes into producing shale oil could be supplied by solar PV (and, indeed, perhaps even suggests that solar PV itself could be manufactured, operated and maintained with solar PV) at the appropriate scale for the production of said oil (I understand that the global solar PV capacity is a fraction of the energy required for just US shale oil production).

    Your techno-optimism is actually pessimistic, because it implies that much more oil can continue to be used even if it has a very low EROEI….

    The key here is always going to be efficiency does not equal sustainable. An EROEI of 30 is irrelevant if the systems are unsustainable.

    The other great problem in this discussion is fungibility. It doesn’t matter of we reduce oil but have nothing to replace its functions with, and petroleum is in 95% of everything around you in one form or another.

    Comment by Killian — 27 Apr 2014 @ 7:22 PM

  215. Tony (#212),

    Another thought on tapping fossil carbon. The Marcellus Shale formation is quite carbon rich. Injecting hydrogen and heat could bring that carbon up to the surface as methane. I don’t think that has been counted in carbon inventories yet.

    Comment by Chris Dudley — 27 Apr 2014 @ 11:50 PM

  216. People certainly seem to be more shrill on these forums using terms such as climate catastrophe etc.

    This article on the whole political stance and issue in the USA is a good one:

    http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/obamas-last-shot-20140423

    Worth a read by anyone here.

    Comment by Pete Best — 28 Apr 2014 @ 4:30 AM

  217. Killian wrote: “Wrong. Climate change is directly tied to consumption.”

    I’m guessing you didn’t even look at the article, let alone read it.

    Yes, climate change is directly tied to consumption of fossil fuels.

    Just like lung cancer is directly tied to consumption of tobacco.

    The tobacco companies knowingly and deliberately lied about the tie between lung cancer and smoking tobacco, in order to profit from perpetuating the consumption of their products. This became a legal issue.

    The fossil fuel companies have likewise knowingly and deliberately lied about the tie between fossil fuels and climate change, in order to profit from perpetuating the consumption of their products. This could — and should — become a legal issue.

    And again, with all due respect, speaking of “consumption” without specifying consumption of what, or of “growth” without specifying growth of what, is just noise.

    Comment by SecularAnimist — 28 Apr 2014 @ 7:16 AM

  218. Chuck Hughes @ 209,

    “What the heck… I’ll ask one more time. Does anyone here think that the coming El Nino will have any adverse effect on the West Antarctica Ice Sheet or is this a non issue?”

    I certainly don’t know if that is an issue or not but if it turns out that this is indeed shaping up to be a very strong El Nino event similar to the one we had in 1998 then I’m extremely concerned about the health of tropical coral reef ecosystems. According to Dr. Jeremy Jackson that event by itself was the direct cause of 25% of all shallow tropical corals on the planet dying! And to be clear there are quite a few other things killing corals as well.

    Jeremy Jackson: Ocean Apocalypse

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2zMN3dTvrwY

    Short version: https://www.ted.com/talks/jeremy_jackson#t-352698

    I don’t think the corals will do very well!

    Comment by Fred Magyar — 28 Apr 2014 @ 8:09 AM

  219. Killian wrote: “… petroleum is in 95% of everything around you in one form or another.”

    Yes, chemicals derived from petroleum are extremely useful and valuable.

    Which is another good reason not to burn it all up to produce a tiny fraction of the energy that is readily available from sunlight and wind every year, in perpetuity.

    Comment by SecularAnimist — 28 Apr 2014 @ 9:37 AM

  220. Pete (#216),

    There has been debate here in the past on whether or not James Hansen’s book, “Storms of my Grandchildren” is correct in the claim that the Venus Syndrome is accessible through human action while we are still about 2 billion years away from when the Sun would force the issue. He was considering about four doublings of the carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere. But, there are a number of carbon pools that may not have been considered there that renewable energy would make accessible and profitable. Perhaps another couple doublings would be in reach. Raypierre may still argue that the Kombayashi–Ingersoll limit still would not allow a water runaway with boiling oceans, but we would have a very different and more massive atmosphere at the least. And, we’d be crossing over into the toxic range for carbon dioxide.

    If you think about it, a tool powerful enough to protect us from climate change is likely to be powerful enough to make things worse as well. We need to use the tool responsibly and understand that things could go very very wrong, the more technical capability we have. Offshore oil rigs are sometimes mounted with wind turbines now to help with operations. That could be the start of a bad direction to take.

    Comment by Chris Dudley — 28 Apr 2014 @ 9:41 AM

  221. The latest NOAA El Nino weekly forecast is out:

    “The CFS.v2 ensemble mean…predicts El Niño starting in May 2014″

    So El Nino in…2 days!

    http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/lanina/enso_evolution-status-fcsts-web.pdf

    (p. 26)

    Still hoping for that dedicated thread on this biggest climate story of the year (and probably for next year, as well).

    Comment by wili — 28 Apr 2014 @ 10:32 AM

  222. Re- Comment by Killian — 26 Apr 2014 @ 11:03 PM, ~#210

    Your rigid absolutism continues to blunt your message. Saying just stop consuming will not work. You are, supposedly, trying to convince the comfortable family in their house in the burbs, with two cats in the yard, to not follow their spiritual and political leaders, to ignore their neighbors, and suffer for no apparent reason. This condition is not an addiction. It is not sloth. It is what is easy and inexpensive. This entire enterprise is driven by advertising to support corporate competition and the planned obsolescence big gorilla. I am not saying that this is the whole picture, but that overconsumption is a very complicated phenomenon, and your simple statements are just the guy in the cartoon, on a city corner wearing a robe, holding a sign that says The End of the World is Nigh as crowds of folks in their work attire walk by without looking.

    Steve

    Comment by Steve Fish — 28 Apr 2014 @ 11:49 AM

  223. #216–Yes, Pete, they do.

    Thanks for an interesting and illuminating link on the politics of the forthcoming EPA rules–and much else.

    Comment by Kevin McKinney — 28 Apr 2014 @ 3:21 PM

  224. Pete Best @216.
    I agree with your use of the word “shrill”. It can be particularly deafening at times.
    This has led me to consider that we need a better way to communicate the scale of disasters being predicted here (and elsewhere). So I wonder if what we need is a Hierarchy of Global Warming Outcomes.( I had hoped the name’s acronym would fit with a HereWeGO scale but I think that only works in Frenglish.)

    It is quite remarkable that big disasters with massive death tolls can go almost unnoticed in history – reduced to mere footnotes. As an example, one of my own provocative statements:-
    “World War One? Why all the fuss? It wasn’t half as deadly as a dose of flu.”
    This is based on the death toll of WW1 being about 10 million while the Spanish Flu outbreak of 1918-20 killed 20-odd million (or maybe more Whenever I look the number seems to rise. Wikipedia now put it at 50-100million).
    Of course, there is the idea that such a deadly flu virus could only have developed into such a transmittable disease within a big filthy environment like the Western Front trenches. A deadly virus (like the recent bird flu) usually becomes less deadly before it becomes easily transmittable.
    The point of this WW1 blather is to show the perceived importance of a disaster depends on it being remembered, not just actually happening.

    The HereWeGO Scale – calibrated against recent wars etc. Present AGW status = 1.4?

    1. Iraq One – Cradle of Civilisation.
    Death toll – Hundreds with many tens of thousands of ‘native’ deaths. Total = 0.1% of annual average global mortality.
    Population movements – A few local sources of refugees.
    Economic impact – Imperceptible. Small broadening of dust belts or marshes drained.
    Anthro-Environmental impact – No statistically-significant events.
    Image – Occasional news items/documentaries.
    Involvement – Difficult to find or to get involved. Very unlucky to be caught in it.

    2. Korea/Vietnam.
    Death toll – Many tens of thousands with millions of ‘native’ deaths. 1% of annual average.
    Population movement – A number of regional sources of refugees as some populations shift from locations vulnerable to flood, fire and storm. Boosted by air travel when available.
    Economic impact – Significant local impacts. Some perceptible minor global consequences.
    Anthro-Environmental impact – Significant broadening of dust belts or forests leveled.
    Image – Significant news items/documentaries on the telly almost every night.
    Involvement – Unlucky to be caught in it. Some minor impacts experienced by most communities.

    3. World War Two.
    Death toll – Many tens of millions – 2% of humanity. 100% of annual average
    Population movement – Numerous refugees worldwide.
    Economic impact – Globally transforming.
    Anthro-Environmental impact – Significant numbers of local areas deserted by living population.
    Image – Ubiquitous.
    Involvement – Most of humanity likely to be involved in some way, major or minor.

    4. The Black Death.
    Death toll – Billions – 30% of humanity. 1500% of annual average.
    Population movement – Unprecedented within human history.
    Economic impact – Fundamentally transforming.
    Anthro-Environmental impact – Significant numbers of regions deserted by living population.
    Image – The major concern of the age.
    Involvement – Impossible not to be.

    5. The Cretaceous–Paleogene Event
    Death toll – ~100% of humanity.
    Population movement – Eventually very little.
    Economic impact – Initiates a late but quick feedback mechanism. A major reason for civilisation’s destruction.
    Anthro-Environmental impact – Reliance on artificial environment.
    Image – Very restricted from here.
    Involvement – Impossible not to be.

    Comment by MARodger — 29 Apr 2014 @ 4:44 AM

  225. Can someone give me some information concerning John C. Fyfe; & Nathan P. Gillett which that claims global warming over the past 20 years is significantly less than that calculated from 117 simulations of the climate?

    Comment by Stranger — 29 Apr 2014 @ 1:24 PM

  226. Fred Magyar,

    good informative posts from a perspective not normally seen here. The oil industry is in no position to continue BAU. To wit, spending $3.5 trillion since 2005 on legacy production infrastructure while production from conventional assets decline ~1.5% is telling…

    That being said, falling off the oil production plateau we are currently on will be no panacea.

    Comment by Flakmeister — 29 Apr 2014 @ 3:01 PM

  227. SecularAnimist said Killian wrote: “Wrong. Climate change is directly tied to consumption.”

    I’m guessing you didn’t even look at the article, let alone read it.

    Then how would I know it was wrong? Your problem is you are not seeking to discuss, but to argue, else you’d have asked for clarification – though why you needed it is beyond comprehension given my comments were exceedingly clear.

    Where the article is wrong is in suggesting the courts are an effective way to stop climate change. They are not. For reasons already stated. Clearly. I have argued for years that using the courts to stop denial *would* be effective and have called for an EcoNuremberg-ish response to denial.

    This could — and should — become a legal issue.

    Regardless, and I already made this point clearly, so no idea why you responded at all, taking them to court will have pretty much zero effect on climate mitigation or adaptation… for reasons already clearly stated.

    Apparently what you really want to say is you disagree. You are, of course, free to ignore the historical precedents and the timelines likely available to us, and to disagree. What you should not need to do is be rude about it.

    Try harder next time.

    And again, with all due respect, speaking of “consumption” without specifying consumption of what, or of “growth” without specifying growth of what, is just noise.

    The context is…? Global. That is obvious. Any growth, in any system, anywhere in the universe, given enough time, has a physical limit. Only in your head is there a need to write a treatise on exactly what must not grow and what might every time one posts on the issue of growth. Try not to be argumentative for the heck of it. We need degrowth, not growth, considered globally. Any idiot knows certain extremely low-consumption societies/populations may well see a rise in consumption, and should, as we gain sustainability. And, if you understood sustainability, I would not need to explain where growth and de-growth must occur. Perhaps you are confused about this? Perhaps this principle will help (I’ve posted it many times before, tho): Natural before mechanical, mechanical before technical.

    But this awareness that some populations will actually see a rise in consumption as we achieve sustainable systems is commonly known and need not be trotted out every time overall consumption is addressed.

    Comment by Killian — 29 Apr 2014 @ 3:04 PM

  228. 218 Wili said The latest NOAA El Nino weekly forecast is out:

    “The CFS.v2 ensemble mean…predicts El Niño starting in May 2014″

    Lordy! Jumped from July to May? Oh, my. Still wondering if anyone has any directs to info on the interaction of ENSO with the Arctic.

    Anyone?

    219 Fish said (!)

    223 Flakmeister said …The oil industry is in no position to continue BAU. To wit, spending $3.5 trillion since 2005 on legacy production infrastructure while production from conventional assets decline ~1.5% is telling…

    That being said, falling off the oil production plateau we are currently on will be no panacea.

    Indeed.

    The Hirsch Report

    Bear in mind, the above included nothing on other depleting resources or climate, yet is dire, indeed. Shrill, some would say. (So it must be wrong.)

    Comment by Killian — 29 Apr 2014 @ 6:59 PM

  229. Apparently some folks have been working on the ASI ENSO, NPDO.

    Recent climate variation in the Bering and Chukchi Seas and its linkages to large-scale circulation in the Pacific

    Comment by Killian — 29 Apr 2014 @ 9:24 PM

  230. Killian,

    Hirsch, like myself, saw a fast oil crash. This undulating plateau that we are currently on has, if anything, only made facing the problem more challenging. I must give credit to CERA, in that they predicted the shape of the peak, wrong level and wrong time, but correct shape…

    BTW, Hirsch was commissioned to write on oil and oil alone…

    And while this probably belongs in the extended March UV, I am all but convinced that the only way we avoid a 4-6 C rise is through a “black swan” leading to economic collapse….

    Comment by Flakmeister — 29 Apr 2014 @ 10:48 PM

  231. Alford et al.(2013), doi:10.1002/grl.50684 discuss mixing of southern abyssal waters into the Pacific northwest of Samoa, and I have reproduced fig. 2 with small comment at

    http://membrane.com/sidd/deepwave/

    Deepening of the thermocline in west pacific is seen as possible precursor to El Nino, (mostly all isotherm heave, as opposed to active mixing as disussed in the paper,) but i do wonder if these could affect each other. Naively i would say not, since the mixing discussed in Alford is so deep, but i welcome correction.

    The scale of dissipation in Alford is astounding, a microwatt per kilogram multiplies into a megawatt per cubic kilometer. I recall previous treatment of mixing in the Drake Passage, which is by far the giant here, but i have not seen such detail before; is there similar detail for that mother of all mixers ?

    sidd

    Comment by sidd — 30 Apr 2014 @ 12:49 AM

  232. We seem to now have entered into El Nino territory:

    https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/teleconnections/enso/indicators/sst.php

    http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/CFSv2/CFSv2seasonal.shtml

    http://i.imgur.com/pjlDIyq.gif

    We’ll have to see if this one fizzles like the one in 2012 did.

    Comment by wili — 30 Apr 2014 @ 8:43 AM

  233. OT: Has anyone else had trouble getting access to the Skeptical Science website? Are they being hacked again?

    Comment by wili — 30 Apr 2014 @ 8:46 AM

  234. Flakmeister #230 – Unforced Variations Apr 2014,

    “And while this probably belongs in the extended March UV, I am all but convinced that the only way we avoid a 4-6 C rise is through a “black swan” leading to economic collapse”

    Global Economic Collapse is the First Law of Climate Change Amelioration. It is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for avoiding the impending climate Apocalypse. Anderson and Garrett have come to this conclusion (in different words). Hansen has essentially come to this conclusion without stating it; his massive reforestation effort requires 6% demand reduction per annum, and his still-massive semi-reforestation option requires 9%, roughly the same as Anderson. Steinacher has concluded that emission reductions approximately double those of Anderson are required, based on targets in addition to temperature. I have stated that conclusion many times, given the substantial reduction in GDP that would accompany these massive emissions reductions, at least in the early years.

    Comment by DIOGENES — 30 Apr 2014 @ 8:47 AM

  235. Further to my (#215),

    Source rock for petroleum usually has more carbon than hydrogen so it stops producing oil when the hydrogen runs out. Four or five time more oil might be produced by injection of hydrogen into oil window source rock such as in the Hanifa formation which sources the Ghawar oil field. With an abundant solar resource for producing hydrogen, and existing extraction wells, such an effort might push Saudi Arabia back into the oil producing top spot. They’d just need to aim their tertiary recovery efforts a little lower and switch from carbon dioxide to hydrogen as their working fluid.

    Renewable energy really does seem to have the potential to vastly expand our access to fossil carbon pools.

    It is hard to see how regulatory limits on emissions are not needed to make mitigation work.

    Comment by Chris Dudley — 30 Apr 2014 @ 11:14 AM

  236. Divesting in fossil fuel is one of the most powerful actions that can be taken against business as usual. It is time for Harvard to divest.

    This morning we began blocking the main entrance to Massachusetts Hall, which houses the office of Harvard University President Drew Faust and other top administrators. We are here to demand an open and transparent dialogue with the Harvard Corporation–Harvard’s main governing body–on fossil fuel divestment. To date, President Faust and Harvard University have rejected the case for divestment and refused to engage in public dialogue about divestment and climate change. Alongside the 72% of Harvard undergraduates and 67% of Harvard Law students, as well as the students, faculty, and alumni of Divest Harvard, we refuse to accept our university’s unwillingness to hold a public meeting on this critical issue.

    We are here today because we believe in a better Harvard. We are here because it is our duty to act. We are here today because it is our moral responsibility as students to ensure that Harvard does not contribute to and profit from the problem but instead aligns its institutional actions and policies with the shared interests of society.

    We take this action with the conviction that Harvard can, must, and will be a leader in responding to the climate crisis. We owe it to the world’s less fortunate and future generations to lead the way to a livable planet.

    As the university demonstrated when it divested from tobacco and partially divested from Apartheid, Harvard’s endowment can be put into alignment with shared values. We are not asking our university to inject politics into its finances: we are asking it to stop sponsoring and profiting from climate change. By investing in fossil fuel companies, Harvard itself is responsible for their behavior. President Faust’s recent announcement that Harvard will sign onto the non-binding Principles for Responsible Investment and the Carbon Disclosure Project implicitly recognizes that the university cannot ignore its social responsibility when it comes to its investments and climate change.

    As over one hundred Harvard faculty argued in their letter to President Faust earlier this month, it is far too late for business as usual and statements to continue that do not commit the university to action. The governing Corporation’s refusal to hold an open meeting on the issue of divestment–as well as the President’s recent denial that fossil fuel companies prevent political action on global warming and a Corporation member’s suggestion that Harvard students thank BP for its energy practices–betray a disconcerting lack of understanding and urgency with respect to the impending risk of climate disaster.

    Source

    Petition

    Comment by Pete Dunkelberg — 30 Apr 2014 @ 12:33 PM

  237. DIOGENES wrote: “Global Economic Collapse is the First Law of Climate Change Amelioration.”

    Still preaching the Gospel According To ExxonMobil, I see.

    Comment by SecularAnimist — 30 Apr 2014 @ 5:25 PM

  238. It looks like El Niño north of the equator, and North American weather is energetic enough. But who ever heard of a one-sided El Niño?

    Comment by Pete Dunkelberg — 30 Apr 2014 @ 6:54 PM

  239. For ‘Stranger’ some information about Fyfe and Gillett:
    cited by three more recent papers; Scholar search finds those here:
    http://scholar.google.com/scholar?cites=3647927047531053630

    and using the site search here
    (‘oogle search using this in the search box:
    site:realclimate.org fyfe gillett )

    RealClimate: It never rains but it pause
    Mar 4, 2014 – Fyfe and Gillett (2014) Following on from Kosaka and Xie, Fyfe and Gillett (2014) ($) show that the trends in the Eastern Pacific (1993-2012) are …

    and

    <a href="http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/09/on-mismatches-between-models-and-observations/"On mismatches between models and observations

    Comment by Hank Roberts — 30 Apr 2014 @ 7:26 PM

  240. mumble grumble stupid something grumble. That would be:
    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/09/on-mismatches-between-models-and-observations/

    Comment by Hank Roberts — 30 Apr 2014 @ 7:28 PM

  241. New promo video – AUSTRALIANS FOR COAL. What is your investment dollar doing?
    by ACMC (Australian Coal Mining Company) 2014 Climate Policy Update – http://youtu.be/tqXzAUaTUSc

    This is a great example of good science communication techniques, and shows clearly that the message is getting through to even Coal corporation boards and their shareholders, finally!

    It was surprising to hear they even used two key items I have been suggesting for a long time, cognitive dissonance (holding two competing ideas at the same time) and the Energy Gap between BAU and Reality.

    But I still suggest, that the climate issue cannot be solved globally nor fully until such times as this overriding and controlling *politicial/economic* issue is resolved first: http://youtu.be/QPKKQnijnsM Best

    Comment by Wally — 30 Apr 2014 @ 9:10 PM

  242. Video series, Alan Robock interview with transcript attached at the link.
    (this is #2 of 5, you know how to find them)

    Quoting the first few paragraphs of the transcript here:

    PAUL JAY, SENIOR EDITOR, TRNN: Welcome back to The Real News Network. I’m Paul Jay, and this is Reality Asserts Itself.

    We’re continuing our series of interviews with Alan Robock, who is a climatologist, a climate scientist, a meteorologist. And if you want to know more how we got here, you’ve got to watch part one, ’cause we’re going to just pick it up from here.

    What were doing is we’re going to trace your evolution as a scientist from the beginnings of why you decide to study in climate and where you come to the conclusion that the scientific evidence persuades you that human activity causes global warming and climate change and such. So pick up in college. Why do you decide climate’s going to be your thing?

    ALAN ROBOCK, LEAD AUTHOR, INTERNATIONAL PANEL ON CLIMATE CHANGE: After two years of graduate school, my masters adviser left MIT to–he retired, and I needed a new adviser. So I went to all the professors and I said, I’m interested in air pollution, I like computers. And Edward Lorenz, who became my adviser, said climate would be a good field to get into these days, in 1974. And I was lucky enough to take his advice. He’s the father of chaos theory. He’s quite well known in our field.

    And so I took a climate model, a computer program to calculate how climate changed with time….

    Comment by Hank Roberts — 30 Apr 2014 @ 10:46 PM

  243. 230 Flakmeister says …Hirsch, like myself, saw a fast oil crash.

    Fast, undulating, catabolic… irrelevant to the point I found most salient: The effects were multiplied, negatively, the closer to peak mitigation and adaptation happened. Self-evident. However, the *time* the report concluded was needed under various time frames was telling:

    1. 20 years prior to peak, manageable disruption. 2. 10 years before peak, significant disruption. 3. Not till peak: Ruh-roh!

    And, as I said originally and you repeat here, this is only about energy supplies and does not include the many other shortages, instabilities, etc., we face. If we needed 20 years for smooth preemptive action only on energy, then how much time, in the name of all the various holies, might we need for complete socio-economic, geopolitical meltdown?

    Very important to understand this is most scary if you are trying to keep what is rather than accepting the limits nature has. The latter is far less scary because the actions needed to get sustainable are far less problematic than trying to keep things going as is.

    And while this probably belongs in the extended March UV, I am all but convinced that the only way we avoid a 4-6 C rise is through a “black swan” leading to economic collapse….

    There is no possibility of a Black Swan: Too many people are fully aware of the real risks. A long tail event, sure. A Black Swan, no. By definition, a Black Swan is completely unpredicted.

    Besides, I disagree. Until you understand not only what simplicity is but how simply it can be achieved, it’s difficult to imagine anything but uncontrolled collapse. Simplicity is not just the end result, it’s how we get to the end result.

    234 DIOGENES says Flakmeister #230 …Global Economic Collapse is the First Law of Climate Change Amelioration.

    LOL… and whose law is that?

    It is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for avoiding the impending climate Apocalypse.

    You say this, but then list a series of numbers that are not collapse, but contraction. You need to define for this forum what “economic collapse” means in the context you are using it.

    Jared Diamond and Joseph Tainter both speak to this issue, with Diamond being the more useful of the two in terms of what collapse vs. simplification is. Read both, if you’ve the fortitude, for the difference between controlled simplification and collapse is very important.

    Also, putting collapse in economic terms rather than socio-geo-political terms makes little sense as once it begins in earnest the old economics will be immaterial. Money and finance are abstract. Making things and moving them about is real. The latter is not actually dependent on the former; it’s a mirage.

    Comment by Killian — 1 May 2014 @ 12:38 AM

  244. Thank you Hank. This looks like good stuff.

    Comment by Stranger — 1 May 2014 @ 6:27 AM

  245. NOAA ESRL have just posted the MLO CO2 for 30th April – 402.44ppm (provisional). So the monthly average for April will be a little above 401.25ppm, the first time a month has topped 400ppm since…..
    …..well some would say 3.5 million years but I have argued (and still consider) that 13million years is far more likely.

    Comment by MARodger — 1 May 2014 @ 8:03 AM

  246. Killian #243,

    “DIOGENES says Flakmeister #230 …Global Economic Collapse is the First Law of Climate Change Amelioration.

    LOL… and whose law is that?”

    That is my Law! Our only hope for avoiding the impending climate Apocalypse is implementing the most rapid reduction of fossil fuel emissions possible. Given the relation between GDP and energy generation, and the fact that most energy generation today is fossil-based, rapid reduction in energy generation translates into strong reductions in GDP. This is a hard reality in the early years, and, as I have shown, the introduction of any low-carbon replacements at any rates deemed reasonable today means continued strong GDP reductions for many years. This is Global Economic Collapse in spades!

    “”It is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for avoiding the impending climate Apocalypse.”

    You say this, but then list a series of numbers that are not collapse, but contraction. You need to define for this forum what “economic collapse” means in the context you are using it…..Also, putting collapse in economic terms rather than socio-geo-political terms makes little sense as once it begins in earnest the old economics will be immaterial. Money and finance are abstract. Making things and moving them about is real. The latter is not actually dependent on the former; it’s a mirage.”

    I have defined Global Economic Collapse many times, including above. Now, one can play games with the definition of Economics, as Kevin Anderson does when talking about its roots in stewardship of resources. If you think that the Andersonian approach makes the stringent energy reduction requirement more salable, go right ahead. But, the fossil energy reductions I have proposed will not lead to any prosperity recognizable by Rex Tillerson, the Koch Brothers, our own Windfall proponents, or the majority of the American people.

    Comment by DIOGENES — 1 May 2014 @ 9:13 AM

  247. http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/deadly-tornado-outbreak/life-threatening-flooding-submerges-pensacola-florida-n93201

    Seems we have a new example of extreme precip–5 inches in an hour at Pensacola, with 36 hour totals over 20 inches. The Gulf Coast apparently has some more repair work to do.

    Comment by Kevin McKinney — 1 May 2014 @ 12:38 PM

  248. http://cleantechnica.com/2014/05/01/global-fossil-fuels-face-loss-30-trillion/

    And another investment-oriented report that’s well-worth pondering. Seems Exxon may be in denial not only about the threat of climate change in general, but the threat to their business model of the renewables/efficiency revolution.

    Comment by Kevin McKinney — 1 May 2014 @ 1:05 PM

  249. SkS has a study out that suggests that, when the gradually increasing heat of the sun is taken into account, we are moving into territories of total forcing on GW that have never been seen before in the climate record (of about half a billion years).

    https://www.skepticalscience.com/Past-and-Future-CO2.html#commenthead

    Comment by wili — 1 May 2014 @ 2:37 PM

  250. #237,

    “Still preaching the Gospel According To ExxonMobil, I see.”

    Christmas came early for ExxonMobil this year. Edward Greisch performed a public service by posting a two-part Der Spiegel article from 2012 showing the real-world effects of Germany’s recent emphasis on transitioning to renewables (http://www.spiegel.de/international/business/merkel-s-switch-to-renewables-rising-energy-prices-endanger-german-industry-a-816669-2.html). The article makes the points that:

    “several industries are suffering as electricity prices rapidly rise. Many companies are having to close factories or move abroad.”, “According to a recent survey by the DIHK, almost one in five industrial companies plans to shift capacities abroad — or has already done so. The study also finds that almost 60 percent fear power outages or voltage fluctuations in the power grid, BECAUSE WIND AND SOLAR POWER ARE STILL TOO UNRELIABLE.”

    “Until now, the reliability of the German electricity supply was seen as a significant advantage for doing business in the country. But the loss of several nuclear power plants, coupled with the UNPREDICTABILITY OF ELECTRICITY FROM WIND AND SOLAR SOURCES, has changed the situation.”

    Two years have passed, and what is the present situation? It is summarized from different perspectives in the articles below, and I would urge every visitor to this site to read these articles twice, not once. They present the real-world experience of Germany, a high-tech country if ever there was one, in trying to implement renewables rapidly. Some takeaways:

    “Key German industries have repeatedly expressed concern that the rapid and costly expansion of renewables could undermine the strength of country’s industrial base, ultimately putting 800,000 jobs at risk. (N.Y. Times)”

    “German energy prices 50% higher than EU average: McKinsey (Euractiv)”

    “German consumers already pay the highest electricity prices in Europe. But because the government is failing to get the costs of its new energy policy under control, rising prices are already on the horizon. Electricity is becoming a luxury good in Germany, and one of the country’s most important future-oriented projects is acutely at risk……According to government sources, the surcharge to finance the power grids will increase by 0.2 to 0.4 cents per kilowatt hour next year. On top of that, consumers pay a host of taxes, surcharges and fees that would make any consumer’s head spin…..For society as a whole, the costs have reached levels comparable only to the euro-zone bailouts. This year, German consumers will be forced to pay €20 billion ($26 billion) for electricity from solar, wind and biogas plants — electricity with a market price of just over €3 billion. Even the figure of €20 billion is disputable if you include all the unintended costs and collateral damage associated with the project. Solar panels and wind turbines at times generate huge amounts of electricity, and sometimes none at all. Depending on the weather and the time of day, the country can face absurd states of energy surplus or deficit.

    If there is too much power coming from the grid, wind turbines have to be shut down. Nevertheless, consumers are still paying for the “phantom electricity” the turbines are theoretically generating. Occasionally, Germany has to pay fees to dump already subsidized green energy, creating what experts refer to as “negative electricity prices.”

    On the other hand, when the wind suddenly stops blowing, and in particular during the cold season, supply becomes scarce. That’s when heavy oil and coal power plants have to be fired up to close the gap, which is why Germany’s energy producers in 2012 actually released more climate-damaging carbon dioxide into the atmosphere than in 2011.

    If there is still an electricity shortfall, energy-hungry plants like the ArcelorMittal steel mill in Hamburg are sometimes asked to shut down production to protect the grid. Of course, ordinary electricity customers are then expected to pay for the compensation these businesses are entitled to for lost profits. (Der Spiegel, 2013)”

    Rex Tillerson couldn’t be happier. And, this is the ‘prosperity’ that our renewables advocates keep promising us?

    Comment by DIOGENES — 1 May 2014 @ 2:43 PM

  251. Killian,

    I’ll be the first to admit that I was wrong on the fast oil crash (that was so 2006). Wisdom now tells me the post peak will be similar to crossing the event horizon but in this case, the collapse will be appear slow to co-moving observer. Twenty years for TSTHTF is comparable to my remain days…

    The way I see it, socio-political “collapse” will be preceeded by an economic shock/collapse. For example, do you think the US would remain united if and when the petro-dollar meets its demise? And while you are correct in that the Fall of the House of Saud is not a black swan per se, it certainly would throw the world for a loop, especially if the new regime reneges on pricing oil exclusively in dollars. Repudiation of USD denominated debt and the subsequent deflationary whirlwind could easily result in 20-25% reduction in global economic activity (aka C02 emissions) in 2-3 years. From that new baseline, it may be possible to implement real policies needed to curb emissions but I have serious doubts that will be the case. Convincing the most powerful companies in the world to write off $30 trillion or so in assets ain’t gonna be easy…

    As for oil:

    What appears to be currently happening is that the cost of replacement of the marginal barrel (due to decline of existing fields, ~5% p.a.) is slightly less than or at the level which the global economy can afford. The higher prices that might be able to increase supply cannot be supported. And there are limits to how much and how fast you can improve the “oil efficiency” of the economy. The only short term solution is demand destruction. Incidentally demand destruction in NA and Europe has been a significant part of the supply that Asia now relies on.

    Comment by Flakmeister — 1 May 2014 @ 3:10 PM

  252. Recommended reading:

    Reversing Climate Change Achievable by Farming Organically
    Rodale Institute
    April 23, 2014

    Excerpt:

    Today Rodale Institute announced the launch of a global campaign to generate public awareness of soil’s ability to reverse climate change, but only when the health of the soil is maintained through organic regenerative agriculture. The campaign will call for the restructuring of our global food system with the goal of reversing climate change through photosynthesis and biology.

    The white paper, entitled Regenerative Organic Agriculture and Climate Change: A Down-to-Earth Solution to Global Warming [PDF], is the central tool of the campaign. The paper was penned by Rodale Institute, the independent nonprofit agricultural research institute widely recognized as the birthplace of the organic movement in the United States.

    The white paper states that “We could sequester more than 100% of current annual CO2 emissions with a switch to widely available and inexpensive organic management practices, which we term regenerative organic agriculture.”

    If management of all current cropland shifted to reflect the regenerative model as practiced at the research sites included in the white paper, more than 40% of annual emissions could potentially be captured. If, at the same time, all global pasture was managed to a regenerative model, an additional 71% could be sequestered. Essentially, passing the 100% mark means a drawing down of excess greenhouse gases, resulting in the reversal of the greenhouse effect.

    Regenerative organic agriculture is comprised of organic practices including (at a minimum): cover crops, residue mulching, composting and crop rotation. Conservation tillage, while not yet widely used in organic systems, is a regenerative organic practice integral to soil-carbon sequestration. Other biological farming systems that use some of these techniques include ecological, progressive, natural, pro-soil, and carbon farming.

    Comment by SecularAnimist — 1 May 2014 @ 5:38 PM

  253. Kevin (#248),

    It is hard to tell what is a stranded asset in that article. A lot of times is seems to be projects that are on the drawing board. If they never get developed, how were they ever assets? Perhaps it is the unmined coal or tarsand that they mean?

    Comment by Chris Dudley — 1 May 2014 @ 7:27 PM

  254. #250–Did anyone ever say that transforming the energy economy would be trivial?

    I didn’t think so. And doing it while phasing out nuclear power on an accelerated timetable makes it quite unnecessarily difficult.

    Don’t confuse that with any and every possible future using renewables.

    Comment by Kevin McKinney — 1 May 2014 @ 8:56 PM

  255. #250 If that pleases you, just keep reading Der Spiegel–which is a pinnacle of half-truths, I think. Der Spiegel just wastes my lamp oil.

    Comment by patrick — 1 May 2014 @ 10:21 PM

  256. Sidd@#202:

    Thanks; stuff you’re highlighting is really interesting.

    Kml/kmz is a Google invention, but it’s an open format that is becoming widely supported in many non-G consumer and professional-level mapping applications. An advantage is that it can be geo-viewed and manipulated on lots of platforms without additional software. Unfortunately it still doesn’t seem to support much more than toy 3D overlays — “buildings, bridges, monuments, and statues”. It does raster and vector overlays draped over an existing DTM of course (e.g. GE’s), but that’s not much use for your plot.

    Super-overlay is just a kml tiling scheme for large raster overlays, to facilitate dynamic zooming. It likely would work fine, but as I said, it won’t display your 3D. Probably not worth the trouble; apologies for the run-around.

    Comment by GlenFergus — 2 May 2014 @ 2:50 AM

  257. Kevin McKinney #248,

    “but the threat to their business model of the renewables/efficiency revolution.”

    See post #250 for a real-world example of the “renewables/efficiency revolution”. It will bring ‘prosperity’ to Germany the way the Russian Revolution brought ‘prosperity’ to the USSR!

    Comment by DIOGENES — 2 May 2014 @ 4:43 AM

  258. #206,
    “Want to Stop Climate Change? Take the Fossil Fuel Industry to Court”

    ““What Heede did helps assign blame. It’s a list with names and numbers. It individualizes responsibility in a way that had not been done before,”…..As Pawa explains it, “We’re where the tobacco lawyers were before they started winning. It takes time and it takes persistence for the legal theories to evolve and mature.””

    This article, and the recommendation to read it, are sheer nonsense. Heede only presented part of the picture, and did not assign the full blame. The 93 companies mentioned are the equivalent of the ‘hit-men’. They pulled the trigger for profit. However, as in the criminal world, the major share of the responsibility goes to those who sponsor the ‘hit-men’. In that case, it is us, the consuming public, who must bear the major share of responsibility. Even with the vastly greater knowledge we have about climate change today, and its causes, we still want all the energy that fossil fuels can provide.

    The comparison with tobacco is ludicrous. There was a majority that opposed smoking, and they eventually imposed their will on the minority through the legal system and other means. That is not the case with the Carbon industry. In the latter, the VAST majority of the public is comfortable with the status quo of energy sources, and there is no way the public will allow the legal and political system to do to fossil fuel sources what was done to tobacco. But, hey, anything to shift the blame away from where it belongs!

    Comment by DIOGENES — 2 May 2014 @ 8:00 AM

  259. Patrick #255,

    “#250 If that pleases you, just keep reading Der Spiegel–which is a pinnacle of half-truths, I think. Der Spiegel just wastes my lamp oil.”

    If you noticed, I referenced a number of sources other than, and including, Der Spiegel. Unlike the ideologues, I don’t confine my references to House Organs like CleanTechnica. And, all the sources I came across arrived at the same conclusions.

    Comment by DIOGENES — 2 May 2014 @ 8:27 AM

  260. > the consuming public

    You are repeating the same argument the same apologists used when they were working for the tobacco companies, ‘we just sell, it’s the buyers who decide.’

    And you’re not using the topic Gavin gave you to get your stuff together.

    “Please stop. I’m bored.” — igNobel Awards

    Comment by Hank Roberts — 2 May 2014 @ 10:41 AM

  261. http://mobile.bloomberg.com/news/2014-04-30/german-unemployment-falls-a-fifth-month-as-economy-grows.html

    #257–Well, considering that DS was predicting economic chaos from 2012, and that the current outlook for the German economy is this:

    “German unemployment fell more than twice as much as forecast in April in a sign that Europe’s largest economy will continue to lead the recovery in the euro area.”

    …color me unimpressed with your crystal ball.

    Comment by Kevin McKinney — 2 May 2014 @ 11:05 AM

  262. Jim Larsen #679 – Unforced Variations – Mar 2014

    “You keep talking plans. Incomplete and off the cuff to be implemented mostly via international treaty:

    Demand:

    1. A huge rebated carbon tax. Target gas at $10 a gallon retail.

    2. Feebate cars so the most efficient are subsidized by the least efficient. Set CAFE at 75MPG.

    3. Include expected energy costs in the application process for house and car loans. People will be able to buy a more expensive house and car if they go green.

    4. Government programs for insulation, light bulbs, recycling, etc

    Power Supply:

    1. Stop drilling. Stop opening coal mines. Stop building fossil power plants. Let current infrastructure live out its life, more or less.

    2. Solve cellulose-based ethanol.

    3. Standardize and crank out Integral Fast Reactors. Learn to live with each other enough to allow plutonium proliferation.

    4. Keep driving down the costs for solar and wind. Keep ramping up production.

    Mitigation:

    1. Start geoengineering now, targeting 0-0.5C above preindustrial. We’ll need it soon enough, why not start learning on the bunny slopes?

    Current oil and gas fields have well-known depletion rates. Those natural rates are our target (no new wells).”

    Appreciate the post. You have suggested some very interesting actions. If implemented, what targets (peak temperatures, concentration profiles, etc) will they achieve? Critically important. For a 2 C or 3 C target, you have some slack in what demand reductions you can implement. For anything near what Hansen et al say we need, ~1 C, the slack in demand reduction disappears.

    Many of your Demand reductions are based on economic incentives. They won’t affect the 1%, but will affect the bottom 50% substantially. Are you comfortable with that type of inequality? Why not just impose a stringent fossil energy use limit on all across the board, emphasizing non-essential uses?

    You state: “Let current infrastructure live out its life, more or less”, and also recommend cranking up Fast Breeders and renewables. Can we afford the fossil emissions generated in the interim? This gets back to targets.

    You don’t address carbon removal. As I read Hansen, carbon removal is central to his plan, followed by reasonable demand reduction. Can we get to where we need to go without some sort of carbon removal, either by reforestation and/or different farming/land management practices?

    Comment by DIOGENES — 2 May 2014 @ 11:48 AM

  263. 246 DIOGENES says Killian #243, “DIOGENES says Flakmeister #230 …Global Economic Collapse is the First Law of Climate Change Amelioration…

    Our only hope for avoiding the impending climate Apocalypse is implementing the most rapid reduction of fossil fuel emissions possible.

    And there you get to the crux of the problem: You are using “collapse”, but keep talking about rapid simplification. It is not helpful to make up use of terms for yourself; how are supposed to understand you if you are changing the accepted meanings of words willy-nilly?

    Collapse and simplification are not the same thing. Is that not obvious? To implement” means intentional action. That is simplification, not collapse. Collapse is beyond your control, by definition.

    This is what Diamond explores quite clearly. Choose: Collapse (bad) or simplification (good.)

    Please do not confuse the terms.

    250 DIOGENES says 237, “Still preaching the Gospel According To ExxonMobil, I see.”

    Christmas came early for ExxonMobil this year. Edward Greisch performed a public service by posting a two-part Der Spiegel article from 2012… If there is still an electricity shortfall, energy-hungry plants like the ArcelorMittal steel mill in Hamburg are sometimes asked to shut down production to protect the grid. Of course, ordinary electricity customers are then expected to pay for the compensation these businesses are entitled to for lost profits. (Der Spiegel, 2013)

    So what you’re saying is, by being long-term prudent Germany is taking on some upfront costs. This is good. Why? Germany is the only industrialized nation on the planet who is poised to successfully simplify without chaos being the result.

    So they are potentially shutting down some industrialization as a side effect of simplification and climate mitigation, as they need to be doing? They are going to make so much money when they are using 10% of what they do now, but still have all that wind and solar power generation that virtually every country around them will be begging for.

    Flippin’ brilliant!

    Comment by Killian — 2 May 2014 @ 4:59 PM

  264. 252 SecularAnimist says Reversing Climate Change Achievable by Farming Organically Rodale Institute
    Excerpt:

    The white paper states that “We could sequester more than 100% of current annual CO2 emissions with a switch to widely available and inexpensive organic management practices, which we term regenerative organic agriculture.”

    If… all current cropland shifted to reflect the regenerative model > more than 40% of annual emissions could potentially be captured. If… all global pasture was ma… an additional 71% could be sequestered.

    Did any of you read the research from Rodale? I’ve been posting it for years. A 30+ year longitudinal study. And note this doesn’t even mention

    * Home/community gardens
    * Food forests
    * Reforesation
    * Reduced global consumption, period.
    * Agroforesty/Savory’s claims
    * Bio-char

    So, we use simple, natural food production to get to sub-net zero. That’s 2 – 3 ppm a year not happening. Then we do all these other things they didn’t even discuss (well, not in what was quoted) and get down another 1 – 2 ppm, minimum. Then we actually simplify, knocking out another minimum 2ppm.

    Suddenly, and simply, we’re going **backwards** a minimum of 3ppm/yr, and as much as 5ppm/yr.

    Said all this years ago, folks. Listening yet? Ready to talk about solutions in real time and real terms?

    I’m ready when you are.

    Comment by Killian — 2 May 2014 @ 5:14 PM

  265. > It is hard to tell what is a stranded asset in that article. A lot of times is seems to be projects that are on the drawing board. If they never get developed, how were they ever assets? Perhaps it is the unmined coal or tarsand that they mean?

    Yes, at least that has been my understanding. There are IIRC a couple $trillion worth of reduced carbon in the ground yet on the balance sheets contributing to the paper value of the big companies. Either they leave most of it below ground or we’re cooked. Guess which option Big Carbon prefers.

    Comment by Pete Dunkelberg — 2 May 2014 @ 6:59 PM

  266. Pete (#265),

    Mineral rights leases and options then? That doesn’t sound like the main cost in developing oil wells. Wouldn’t that be casings and drill rig rental and royalties, expenses that are incurred close to and during production? I’m just not too sure that they have much to cry about.

    Comment by Chris Dudley — 2 May 2014 @ 11:06 PM

  267. Kevin McKinney #261,

    ” “German unemployment fell more than twice as much as forecast in April in a sign that Europe’s largest economy will continue to lead the recovery in the euro area.”

    …color me unimpressed with your crystal ball.”

    Let me clue you in: high/rising energy prices do not lead to economic recovery or growth. If German unemployment fell twice as much as forecast in April, then it would have fallen even more than that in the absence of high energy prices. How much more? We would need to re-run the experiment to get the hard data.

    Some further independent views on renewables (which by the way is a misnomer; only the energy source is ‘renewable’, the plant and other supporting infrastructure (conversion and distribution) are decidedly not ‘renewable’.)

    From the Economist: http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2014/01/economist-explains-0

    “But countries with large amounts of renewable generation, such as Denmark and Germany, face the highest energy prices in the rich world. In Britain electricity from wind farms costs twice as much as that from traditional sources; solar power is even more dear.

    A more fundamental challenge is that renewable generators also impose costs on the wider electricity grid. The best sites are often far from big cities (on Scottish hillsides, French lakes or American deserts) which makes them expensive to connect. Many common types of renewable generators only produce power intermittently—when the sun shines or when the wind blows. Wind turbines, for example, spin only about a third of the time. That means countries which have a lot of renewable generation must still pay to maintain traditional kinds of power stations ready to fire up when demand peaks. And energy from these stations also becomes more expensive because they may not run at full-blast.”

    From Bloomberg: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-06-24/japan-s-high-cost-renewable-energy-curbs-subsidy-impact.html

    “High costs are one of the largest impediments to a wider uptake of clean energy in Japan”

    From OilPrice: http://oilprice.com/Alternative-Energy/Renewable-Energy/The-Ten-Reasons-Why-Intermittency-is-a-Problem-for-Renewable-Energy.html

    “4. Even if wind is “renewable,” it isn’t necessarily long lived.

    Manufacturers of wind turbines claim lives of 20 to 25 years. This compares to life spans of 40 years or more for coal, gas, and nuclear. One recent study suggests that because of degraded performance, it may not be economic to operate wind turbines for more than 12 to 15 years.”

    Comment by DIOGENES — 3 May 2014 @ 7:41 AM

  268. #265-6–

    I agree that the article could be more specific.

    FWIW, I’m thinking not so much the *costs* of the rights, as the current “street value” of the FF. That, after all, is what would be ‘evaporating’ in an energy deflation scenario.

    Comment by Kevin McKinney — 3 May 2014 @ 8:02 AM

  269. #267–

    I’ve read the Economist article–actually, I’m a subscriber. Of course there can be costs to developing renewables. But that’s true of any energy development–and it’s also true that the economic effect of such activity is stimulative.

    But what I want to know is, who are you, and what have you done with the DIOGENES who wad always going on about the need for sacrifice snd deprivation in order to address the climate crisis? He’d have been applauding the economic hardship, as Killian did at #263.

    Oh, and the ‘one study’ on the degradation of wind turbine performance has bren thoroughly debunked.

    Comment by Kevin McKinney — 3 May 2014 @ 8:21 AM

  270. On the decline of wind turbines with age:

    http://www.carboncommentary.com/2013/12/31/3394

    http://www.windpowermonthly.com/article/1173200/no-big-drop-performance-turbines-older

    Comment by Kevin McKinney — 3 May 2014 @ 8:31 AM

  271. #264,

    “Reversing Climate Change Achievable by Farming Organically Rodale Institute”

    I frankly don’t understand the logic of different posters here. We are in the most serious crisis civilization has faced with regard to its existence. One would think that we would PULL OUT ALL THE STOPS in any approach recommendations we make. Yet, we see piecemeal recommendations like this one, or piecemeal recommendations of other types.

    We are out of carbon budget if we want to stay within survivable temperature limits. We need to implement ALL the elements of my fully-integrated self-sufficient plan in PARALLEL if we are to have ANY chance of avoiding the climate Apocalypse. There is a time-critical issue that requires PARALLEL implementation. This would include all aspects of rapid carbon recovery from the atmosphere (including optimal combinations of regenerative organic farming, reforestation, et al), the most stringent demand reductions possible starting NOW, rapid implementation of only the MINIMAL low-carbon technology ESSENTIAL FOR SURVIVAL, and possibly short-term implementation of geo-engineering to insure we get over the interim temperature peak.

    If the Rodale approach “could sequester more than 100% of current annual CO2 emissions with a switch to widely available and inexpensive organic management practices,” as stated in the Report’s Executive Summary, let’s use that as a starting point. Add in the other elements of my plan to drive the CO2 concentration as far down as we can, and hopefully reverse some of these positive feedback mechanisms we have unleashed.

    Now, a question to those knowledgeable about regenerative organic farming. We buy almost all our food organically grown. It is not cheap compared to regular supermarket fare, and the price seems to have increased substantially over the recent past. We do it because we believe it contributes to good health. How will most people in this world be able to afford it, and will the price decrease with larger-scale implementation? I have seen comments on some of the climate sites by people with experience in organic farming stating flatly that, while effective on a small scale, organic farming could not support the 7+ billion inhabitants of this planet? Is this true?

    Comment by DIOGENES — 3 May 2014 @ 9:16 AM

  272. Re- Comment by DIOGENES — 3 May 2014 @ 7:41 AM, ~#267

    You say that- “high/rising energy prices do not lead to economic recovery or growth” and then reference the Economist, Bloomberg, and Oilprice.com to support your contention that renewable energy is anti-growth because it is more expensive than fossil energy. As the only well understood and actually practical way to achieve demand reduction and reduce growth is for price to increase, you are arguing against demand reduction and for a growth economy with continuing fossil fuel use.

    Steve

    Comment by Steve Fish — 3 May 2014 @ 9:55 AM

  273. Kevin McKinney #269,

    “But what I want to know is, who are you, and what have you done with the DIOGENES who wad always going on about the need for sacrifice snd deprivation in order to address the climate crisis? He’d have been applauding the economic hardship, as Killian did at #263.”

    There is, as usual, no inconsistency between my postings on renewables and my statements about the need for hardship, sacrifice, and deprivation. My purpose in posting these articles was to show that renewables are not the panacea that is advertised, and their massive introduction would not lead to the fictitious ‘prosperity’ that has been advertised. In my fully-integrated self-consistent plan, under the Lifestyle Maintenance component, I include rapid implementation of low carbon technologies and energy efficiency improvement technologies. I also have stated on numerous occasions that all non-essential energy expenditures be eliminated as rapidly as possible, and thus the low carbon technologies implemented would only be those necessary for survival.

    Bottom Line: for renewables, the energy source is plentiful and ‘free’, but the associated infrastructure for conversion and distribution is not, and has its own environmental and cost impacts. We may need them to prevent utter chaos, but we should use no more than the minimum necessary for survival.

    Comment by DIOGENES — 3 May 2014 @ 12:08 PM

  274. Steve Fish #272,

    ” You say that- “high/rising energy prices do not lead to economic recovery or growth” and then reference the Economist, Bloomberg, and Oilprice.com to support your contention that renewable energy is anti-growth because it is more expensive than fossil energy. As the only well understood and actually practical way to achieve demand reduction and reduce growth is for price to increase, you are arguing against demand reduction and for a growth economy with continuing fossil fuel use.”

    I have responded on this point to Kevin McKinney, who raised the similar issue. There is no inconsistency with my oft-stated policy for climate change amelioration.

    Comment by DIOGENES — 3 May 2014 @ 12:14 PM

  275. #273–A pompous way of admitting that you’ve been arguing a strawman, then; I’ve never claimed that renewables are anything like a ‘panacea.’

    In my opinion, their recent rapid expansion is helpful, hopeful, and intrinsically fascinating. But I don’t view it as a guarantee of anything–as remarkable as it’s been, we still need more than an order of magnitude more. And as we all agree (I think) we need to make sure that added clean generation capacity actually does go to reducing emissions.

    Those two points would be the leading items on my ‘action plan’–if anyone were to ask me, that is. 1) Implement clean energy as quickly as possible, which right now means renewables backed with some nuclear power and lots of efficiency measures, and
    2) Restructure regulatory, financial, and fiscal regimes to discourage carbon emissions.

    3) And keep assessing 1& 2–only operational experience will make clear what does and doesn’t wowork in the real world–not to mention discovering what else may need to be done.

    Comment by Kevin McKinney — 3 May 2014 @ 3:06 PM

  276. DIOGENES, I appreciate your ideas and intellect on what to do about the Climate situation. I’m not sure what you intend to do with all of that here. It seems to me it has to be implemented by people with the capacity to get it done. In the mean time, you’re sucking all the air out of the room by repeating yourself end over end. I love dialogue and debate but this has become the “DIOGENES SHOW”, yet again.

    Take a hint man! When the moderators have to dedicate a “personal thread” to your comments it’s getting serious. (I wouldn’t take that as a complement either.)

    “The secret of a good sermon is to have a good beginning and a good ending; and to have the two as close together as possible.” ― George Burns

    “Writing is 1 percent inspiration, and 99 percent elimination.” ― Louise Brooks

    And my personal favorite, probably because it’s short:

    “Be sincere, Be brief, Be seated.” ― Franklin D. Roosevelt

    Comment by Chuck Hughes — 4 May 2014 @ 6:02 PM

  277. Chuck Hughes #276,

    “I love dialogue and debate but this has become the “DIOGENES SHOW”, yet again…..Take a hint man! When the moderators have to dedicate a “personal thread” to your comments it’s getting serious”

    I have difficulty responding to comments such as yours. They are vague and completely non-specific. If there is a post, or series of posts, to which you object, please identify them and state your objections as specifically as possible. Then we have a tangible basis on which to conduct a discussion.

    I don’t know why the moderators allowed the March thread to continue, and neither do you. I would guess our speculations as to why would be far different. My posts are deadly serious, to match the deadly serious problem that we face. There is much misinformation and disinformation being disseminated about the nature of the problem and the nature of the solution required, and it is not limited to sites like WUWT. My posts tend to challenge the promulgators of disinformation to substantiate their views, including those who do not provide the full truth. Many people are unhappy with such a posting philosophy; that’s why many of the comments made on my posts have nothing to do with the substance, but are general personal attacks.

    If you don’t like my posts, don’t read them.

    Comment by DIOGENES — 5 May 2014 @ 5:00 AM

  278. “#273–A pompous way of admitting that you’ve been arguing a strawman, then; I’ve never claimed that renewables are anything like a ‘panacea.’”

    Re-read #273; nowhere do I state that you, Kevin McKinney, made that claim.

    “Those two points would be the leading items on my ‘action plan’–if anyone were to ask me, that is. 1) Implement clean energy as quickly as possible, which right now means renewables backed with some nuclear power and lots of efficiency measures, and
    2) Restructure regulatory, financial, and fiscal regimes to discourage carbon emissions.”

    A ‘tag team’ member who posts recommendations that he will stand behind; will wonders never cease? Have I become your Role Model?

    A few questions on your recommendations. What targets (peak temperatures and/or concentration profiles, etc) will they achieve, and what will be their specific contributions toward these targets? What specific regulations and financial regimes would you propose to discourage carbon emissions; mandating elimination of all non-essential fossil fuel expenditures, for example?

    Comment by DIOGENES — 5 May 2014 @ 8:59 AM

  279. Please, please, use the dedicated topic our hosts keep open:

    … the UV Mar 2014 thread open for more Dio …

    Click the link. Go there. Do that.

    Coloring outside the lines is freedom, in kindergarden.
    Driving outside the lines is *icide, in traffic.
    In conversation, it’s courtesy to try to keep yourself focused.

    Worth the effort you put into it. Focused means findable later.

    Comment by Hank Roberts — 6 May 2014 @ 10:24 AM

  280. Pete Best #69 – May 2014 – Unforced Variations,

    “Something very political is going on and although its advised by science it’s not the science that is truly represented but a ghost of it, one that gives hope to politicians but is not based on reality.”

    Very true; what’s political going on is politicians listening to their constituents and carrying out their wishes. Their constituents are saying: We want more, more of everything, more consumption. And, this holds true for the developing nations, such as India and China, and the developed nations, such as the USA and UK. Until we accept that this is the problem, we will never be able to solve it.

    Are there enablers; yes, indeed? The large energy companies, all the industries associated with them, and individuals like the Koch Brothers as well. But, they are enablers, not prime drivers. And, I don’t see how to turn the ship around. The desire for more ‘things’ has become part of our fibre, and the people of this planet are voting with their feet on how they are willing to make the tradeoff between having it NOW and protecting the future of their grandchildren.

    Comment by DIOGENES — 7 May 2014 @ 11:12 AM

  281. @252 SecularAnimist

    Recent research by Ken Olson suggests that some skepticism is in order with regards to the claims of the Rodale Institute regarding the potential for soil sequestration:

    https://www.soils.org/discover-soils/story/researchers-question-published-no-till-soil-organic-carbon-sequestration-rates

    Comment by OnceJolly — 7 May 2014 @ 6:22 PM

  282. OnceJolly #281,

    Interesting point about the potential for no-till soil organic carbon sequestration, and parallels some recent papers on the young trees/mature trees differences in sequestration during reforestation. Doesn’t mean we shouldn’t use both; we should. It does mean we need to place prime emphasis on what we know will work: the most stringent reduction in demand we as a society can tolerate! We need ALL OF THE ABOVE, AND MORE!!!

    Comment by DIOGENES — 8 May 2014 @ 5:19 AM

  283. Re #280 – I dont know how it will be turned around in time to avoid 2C (probably not to be fair) and hence its a 3 to 4C world we will need to aim for. All that we can hope for is that these climate talks that have been going on since 1992 will by 2015-2020 agree what is to be done and indeed can be done.

    Personally just to see an end to coal would be the easiest technical win as base load power is the easiest to replace and lots of energy solutions await their chance to replace coal. Coal produces the most Co2 and is the most polluting and hence technically and medically it is a good one to target. However, political and economic forces might think differently as it changes a lot of issues for them including costs, growth, impact and not to mention those vested interests. Coal though will need to be the first to go.

    Comment by Pete Best — 8 May 2014 @ 7:05 AM

  284. See “… the UV Mar 2014 thread open for more Dio …”

    Comment by Hank Roberts — 8 May 2014 @ 11:12 AM

  285. OnceJolly wrote (#281): “Recent research by Ken Olson suggests that some skepticism is in order with regards to the claims of the Rodale Institute regarding the potential for soil sequestration.”

    With all due respect, I suggest you read the Rodale white paper more closely.

    The article you linked to, which discusses Ken Olson’s research, begins with this:

    For the past 20 years, researchers have published soil organic carbon sequestration rates. Many of these findings have suggested that soil organic carbon (SOC) can be sequestered in soil, or stored long-term, simply by switching from conventional tillage to no-till systems.

    But a growing body of research indicates that no-till systems in corn and soybean rotations without cover crops, small grains, and forages may not be increasing SOC stocks at published rates.

    What the Rodale white paper is talking about — “regenerative organic agriculture” — is NOT “simply switching from conventional tillage to no-till systems”.

    As the Rodale paper explains:

    Regenerative organic agriculture is comprised of organic practices including (at a minimum): cover crops, residue mulching, composting and crop rotation … these practices minimize biota disturbance and erosion losses while incorporating carbon rich amendments and retaining the biomass of roots and shoots, all of which contribute to carbon sequestration by photosynthetic removal and retention of atmospheric CO2 in soil organic mattter … This long-term integrated approach builds soil health, providing nutrients, pest and disease resistance.

    The paper also notes that “reduced or no-till is only a boon to greenhouse gas emissions reduction when it is practiced within organic systems”.

    Skepticism is always in order, but it sounds to me like Ken Olson’s research supports Rodale’s findings rather than calling them into question.

    Comment by SecularAnimist — 8 May 2014 @ 1:52 PM

  286. @285 SecularAnimist

    Olson’s work is about both problems with defining what soil organic carbon (SOC) sequestration means and issues around how it’s measured. Unless the Rodale Institute (and the previous studies that they reference) were exempt from the issues that Olson identifies, I don’t any justification for your claim that he is somehow supporting the white paper. For example,

    “Comparison studies with one treatment as the baseline (usually conventional tillage) or control and other tillage such as no-till as the experimental treatment should not be used to determine SOC sequestration if soil samples are only collected and tested once during or at the end of the study,” Olson said. The comparison method assumes the conventional tillage baseline to be at a steady state and having the same amount of SOC at the beginning and at the end of the long-term study, and this may not be true. No-till as the experiment treatment needs to be compared to itself on the same soils over time to determine if SOC sequestration has really occurred.

    http://news.aces.illinois.edu/news/new-protocol-recommendations-measuring-soil-organic-carbon-sequestration

    Comment by OnceJolly — 8 May 2014 @ 4:17 PM

  287. OnceJolly #281/286,

    For a broader perspective on the issue of soil and vegetation management for carbon sequestration, I have appended some recent references (titles only). What strikes me about these peer-reviewed papers (and many others I have read) is the relatively large uncertainty about the potential benefits of the various approaches, based on a large number of actual experiences across the planet. There will certainly be benefit from improved soil and vegetation management practices, but it would be very risky to place too many eggs in this basket at this time for mitigation planning purposes. Our first priority must be what we know will work, supplemented by the improved soil and vegetation management practices.

    That’s my main problem with Hansen’s plan, as stated in his recent Plos One paper. He couples the level of demand reduction starting NOW to the level of reforestation for the period 2030-2080. It is risky in the extreme to depend on commitments fifteen years out (and fifty years following that) being honored to the letter, and even if they are honored, the level of benefits is highly uncertain based on today’s knowledge. I am somewhat amazed that his many co-authors bought off on such a plan. In my plan, I have placed highest priority on implementing what we know will work NOW (the most stringent demand reduction starting NOW), and second highest priority on implementing carbon sequestration starting NOW (not in 2030).

    SOIL AND VEGETATION MANAGEMENT PAPERS FOR CARBON SEQUESTRATION
    Global soil carbon: understanding and managing the largest terrestrial carbon pool
    A synthesis of change in deep soil organic carbon stores with afforestation of agricultural soils
    A wide view of no-tillage practices and soil organic carbon sequestration
    Aboveground productivity and soil carbon storage of biofuel crops in Ohio
    Accumulation of carbon and nitrogen in the plant-soil system after afforestation of active sand dunes in China’s Horqin Sandy Land
    Agricultural activities and the global carbon cycle
    Anthropogenic changes and the global carbon cycle
    Balancing the global carbon budget
    Breeding crop plants with deep roots: their role in sustainable carbon, nutrient and water sequestration
    Carbon accumulation in agricultural soils after afforestation: a meta-analysis
    Carbon and greenhouse gas mitigation through soil carbon sequestration potential of adaptive agriculture and agroforestry systems
    Carbon emissions from land use and land-cover change
    Carbon losses from soil and its consequences for land-use management
    Carbon sequestration studies in agroforestry systems: a reality-check
    Carbon sequestration via wood harvest and storage: An assessment of its harvest potential
    Changes in organic carbon stocks upon land use conversion in the Brazilian Cerrado: A review
    Comparison of carbon sequestration potential in agricultural and afforestation farming systems
    Conservation Agriculture and Soil Carbon Sequestration: Between Myth and Farmer Reality
    Deep Soil Horizons: Contribution and Importance to Soil Carbon Pools and in Assessing Whole-Ecosystem Response to Management and Global Change
    Dynamics of decadally cycling carbon in subsurface soils
    Effect of soil reclamation process on soil C fractions
    Effectiveness of the strategies to combat land degradation and drought
    Enhancing ecosystem services with no-till
    Enhancing soil carbon storage for carbon remediation: potential contributions and constraints by microbes
    Food security, climate change, and sustainable land management. A review
    Forest management and soil respiration: Implications for carbon sequestration
    Global potential of soil carbon sequestration to mitigate the greenhouse effect
    Greenhouse gas mitigation with agricultural land management activities in the United States-a side-by-side comparison of biophysical potential
    Historical and future perspectives of global soil carbon response to climate and land-use changes
    How strongly can forest management influence soil carbon sequestration?
    Impact of global warming on soil organic carbon
    Impacts of organic matter amendments on carbon and nitrogen dynamics in grassland soils
    Is soil carbon disappearing? The dynamics of soil organic carbon in Java
    Large-scale sequestration of atmospheric carbon via plant roots in natural and agricultural ecosystems: why and how
    Long-term impact of farming practices on soil organic carbon and nitrogen pools and microbial biomass and activity
    Long-Term Impacts of Organic and Inorganic Fertilizers on Carbon Sequestration in Aggregates of an Entisol in Mediterranean Turkey
    Long-term tillage effects on soil carbon storage and carbon dioxide emissions in continuous corn cropping system from an alfisol in Ohio
    Management opportunities for enhancing terrestrial carbon dioxide sinks
    Managing soil carbon for climate change mitigation and adaptation in Mediterranean cropping systems: A meta-analysis
    Managing Soils and Ecosystems for Mitigating Anthropogenic Carbon Emissions and Advancing Global Food Security
    Managing soils for a warming earth in a food-insecure and energy-starved world
    Mechanisms of carbon sequestration in soil aggregates
    No-tillage and soil-profile carbon sequestration: An on-farm assessment
    Opportunities and Challenges of Soil Carbon Sequestration by Conservation Agriculture in China
    Organic carbon stocks in Mediterranean soil types under different land uses (Southern Spain)
    Organic matter stabilization in soil microaggregates: implications from spatial heterogeneity of organic carbon contents and carbon forms
    Physical and chemical protection in hierarchical soil aggregates regulates soil carbon and nitrogen recovery in restored perennial grasslands
    Projected changes in soil organic carbon stocks of China’s croplands under different agricultural managements, 2011-2050
    Reducing greenhouse gas emissions and adapting agricultural management for climate change in developing countries: providing the basis for action
    Sensitivity of soil organic carbon stocks and fractions to different land-use changes across Europe
    Sequestering carbon in soils of agro-ecosystems
    Sequestration through forestry and agriculture
    Soil carbon change and its responses to agricultural practices in Australian agro-ecosystems: A review and synthesis
    Soil carbon management and climate change
    Soil carbon sequestration to mitigate climate change
    Soil carbon sequestration to mitigate climate change and advance food security
    Soil carbon sequestration: an innovative strategy for reducing atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration
    Soil carbon: A measure of ecosystem response in a changing world?
    Soil information in support of policy making and awareness raising
    Soil profile carbon and nitrogen in prairie, perennial grass-legume mixture and wheat-fallow production in the central High Plains, USA
    Soils and food sufficiency. A review
    Spatially-explicit regional-scale prediction of soil organic carbon stocks in cropland using environmental variables and mixed model approaches
    Special Issue: Soil as a Source & Sink for Greenhouse Gases Foreword
    Stability and saturation of soil organic carbon in rice fields: evidence from a long-term fertilization experiment in subtropical China
    Strategies for carbon sequestration in agricultural soils in northern Europe
    The contribution of switchgrass in reducing GHG emissions
    The cost of mitigation strategies for agricultural adaptation to global change
    The depth distribution of soil organic carbon in relation to land use and management and the potential of carbon sequestration in subsoil horizons
    The effect of the tillage system on soil organic carbon content under moist, cold-temperate conditions
    The knowns, known unknowns and unknowns of sequestration of soil organic carbon
    Tillage System and Cover Crop Effects on Soil Quality: I. Chemical, Mechanical, and Biological Properties

    Comment by DIOGENES — 9 May 2014 @ 10:19 AM

  288. Walter,

    “iow Diogenes radical plans and ideas are closer to a realistic solution than any other known to man at this point.”

    There’s somewhat of a redundancy with use of the word ‘radical’. ANY plan whose goal is to avoid the impending climate Apocalypse must of necessity be ‘radical’. The targets are challenging to the extreme, and ANY actions taken to meet them must be far from the ordinary. The reason the actions in my plan seem radical is that the preponderance of plans/proposals posted on this blog have no chance of meeting the required targets for averting the climate Apocalypse, and therefore the actions in these plans are relatively mild.

    There are basically two components to any climate change amelioration plan for avoiding the Apocalypse: MASSIVE demand reduction and MASSIVE carbon removal. That’s it! Period! The demand reduction component has two sub-components, one weak and one strong. The weak component is substitution of low carbon and energy efficient technologies for fossil and less efficient technologies; the strong component is eliminating all non-essential uses of fossil energy NOW, and sharply reducing consumption.

    There are three plans of which I am aware that offer a CHANCE of avoiding the climate Apocalypse, assuming that a CHANCE is still available: Hansen’s, Killian’s, and mine. Hansen’s requires massive reforestation for carbon removal, and quasi-massive demand reduction. It has a fundamental flaw, in my estimation. The level of demand reduction required starting TODAY is determined by the amount of reforestation starting in 2030, and continuing for fifty years. To base one’s actions TODAY on commitments for decades out is an unabashed formula for disaster!

    I have not seen Killian’s plan in a format where I can compare with mine, Anderson’s, Hansen’s, etc (temperature and/or concentration peak targets, major categories of actions required and how each will contribute to achieving the targets), but the general actions proposed appear to be massive doses of the two required components. My plan REQUIRES the strongest possible demand reduction starting as soon as possible, and the strongest possible carbon removal starting as soon as possible. Anything less (e.g., Hansen’s plan) only increases the risk of an already highly risky situation.

    Comment by DIOGENES — 12 May 2014 @ 4:58 AM

  289. The new Ding et al. paper “Tropical forcing of the recent rapid Arctic warming in northeastern Canada and Greenland” is a fine illustration of why, in climate science, one must constantly think both globally and locally. As the discussion here says

    New research suggests that about half of the recent rapid warming seen in the atmosphere above Greenland and northeastern Canada over the last 30 years can be traced to changes in sea surface temperature in the tropical Pacific Ocean.

    and said sea surface temp (SST) changes are evidently taken to be unforced natural variation. But discussion here indicates that these SST changes may be forced by humans after all. RC’s Eric Steig is a co-author. I hope we may hear his take on this.

    Qinghua Ding, John M. Wallace, David S. Battisti, Eric J. Steig, Ailie J. E. Gallant, Hyung-Jin Kim & Lei Geng
    Tropical forcing of the recent rapid Arctic warming in northeastern Canada and Greenland

    [Response: I must say that I was very surprised to see the claim made that because some pattern isn't common to the CMIP5 simulated response, it must therefore reflect natural variability. This is of course not valid scientific reasoning. Just as plausible is the scenario that the models are not capturing an important forced dynamical response of the climate. We of course discussed that possibility specifically with regard to forced SST changes in the tropical Pacific, in this previous RealClimate piece based on our 2009 Science article. -mike]

    Comment by Pete Dunkelberg — 12 May 2014 @ 9:57 AM

  290. Pete Best @ 283
    >just to see an end to coal would be the easiest technical win

    Less technically:
    http://rabett.blogspot.com/2014/05/the-day-they-red-dogged-coal.html

    Comment by Pete Dunkelberg — 12 May 2014 @ 10:12 AM

  291. DIOVERFLOW

    Comment by Hank Roberts — 12 May 2014 @ 10:16 AM

  292. Pete Dunkelberg #290,

    According to the EIA forecast (see URL below), coal consumption will increase by 50% annually in the next three decades. People can spin this all they want, and quote from isolated disinvestments, but as long as the public wants what the product provides, it will be delivered. Renewables/nuclear?? We’ll get them along with the coal (aka all of the above).

    “http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/ieo/coal.cfm”

    Comment by DIOGENES — 12 May 2014 @ 10:49 AM

  293. This recent paper in Science amplifies my statement in #287 about uncertainties in carbon removal that improved soil and vegetation management can provide.

    http://www.sciencemag.org/content/344/6183/508.abstract

    “Faster Decomposition Under Increased Atmospheric CO2 Limits Soil Carbon Storage ”

    “Soils contain the largest pool of terrestrial organic carbon (C) and are a major source of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2). Thus, they may play a key role in modulating climate change. Rising atmospheric CO2 is expected to stimulate plant growth and soil C input but may also alter microbial decomposition. The combined effect of these responses on long-term C storage is unclear. Combining meta-analysis with data assimilation, we show that atmospheric CO2 enrichment stimulates both the input (+19.8%) and the turnover of C in soil (+16.5%). The increase in soil C turnover with rising CO2 leads to lower equilibrium soil C stocks than expected from the rise in soil C input alone, indicating that it is a general mechanism limiting C accumulation in soil.”

    Comment by DIOGENES — 12 May 2014 @ 11:38 AM

  294. Recommended reading:

    China could start to cut its consumption of coal by 2020
    Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment
    12 May 2014

    China’s consumption of coal could reach a peak by 2020, or even earlier, as part of its plans to pursue more sustainable economic growth, according to a new report published today (12 May 2014) by the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment and the ESRC Centre for Climate Change Economics and Policy at London School of Economics and Political Science.

    The policy paper by Fergus Green and Nicholas Stern notes that discussions are already taking place in China about the possibility of setting a target for ending the rise in its annual consumption of coal before the end of its 13th Five-Year Plan, which will cover the period from 2016 to 2020.

    The paper states: “China could intensify its efforts to reduce its reliance on coal, in the form of a plan to peak its coal consumption by 2020 (or earlier), as has been suggested as a possibility in some discussions occurring in China, and phase it out thereafter”.

    The paper, which is based on a presentation by Lord Stern to the China Development Forum in March 2014, points out that limiting coal consumption could have substantial benefits for China’s economy, including a cut in the risk of shocks to the supply of energy, reduced pressure on its water supplies, an improvement in air quality, and the mitigation of climate change.

    Phasing out the use of coal could be achieved through clear planning regulations and a coal tax, which could potentially raise revenue equivalent to between 7 and 9 per cent of China’s GDP to invest in low-carbon innovation and infrastructure, to protect poorer people from the impacts of the transition to low-carbon economic growth, and to reduce other taxes.

    The Green & Stern policy paper, “An Innovative and Sustainable Growth Path for China: A Critical Decade”, is available as a 52-page PDF.

    Comment by SecularAnimist — 12 May 2014 @ 12:24 PM

  295. > According to the EIA forecast (see URL below), coal consumption will increase by 50% annually in the next three decades.

    News flash: there is not that much coal in the world. ;)

    OK maybe you mean only one (1) 50% increase. But do you believe the EIA implicitly?

    Comment by Pete Dunkelberg — 12 May 2014 @ 1:31 PM

  296. Pete Dunkelberg #295,

    “OK maybe you mean only one (1) 50% increase. But do you believe the EIA implicitly?”

    Correct! It increases modestly each year, and in about three decades, the annual coal output is about 50% larger than ~2010. But, since we’re out of carbon budget NOW, this is overkill to the extreme.

    It should be obvious to you by now that I believe almost no one in this climate change amelioration game explicitly or implicitly. Due to political/financial pressures, we’re getting almost complete spin from all the players. The question comes down to what makes sense beyond all the spin I’m getting. I see no precursors or early warning indicators of any type that would tell me we’re veering away even a small amount from business as usual. I look at candidates being elected, I look at polls related to climate change, I look at investments in fossil extraction, conversion, and distribution facilities, I listen to my family/friends/neighbors, and the one conclusion I come to is there will be no deviation from the fossil path until the resource is essentially unavailable.

    The EIA projection of about 50% increase within three decades sounds about right, but whether it actually comes out to 50% or 70% or 30% or 10% is irrelevant in the bigger picture. For a straight-line increase for thirty years, a 10% end-point increase translates into 31.5 years FTE of today’s coal consumption, and a 50% end-point increase translates into 37.5 years FTE. Both are so far above what we can afford that they will lead to similar disaster.

    Comment by DIOGENES — 13 May 2014 @ 4:34 AM

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Close this window.

0.844 Powered by WordPress