CapitalistImperialistPig

Supposedly what scientists say is how much time we have to do something drastic about carbon emissions. It's a crock, but not because drastic climate change isn't happening.  To start with, a lot of climate change is already baked in the cake.  Even if we could stop emitting carbon tomorrow, or yesterday, or even last year,  oceans would continue to rise, the Arctic and Antarctic would continue to melt, and heat waves will continue to get worse. Of course the more carbon we emit, and the longer we continue emission, the worse it will get. So it's past time to start thinking about amelioration as well decarbonization. On a possibly more optimistic note, I recently drove through big chunks of the Mojave and Sonoran deserts.  One interesting thing I saw was hundreds or maybe thousands of acres of mostly new solar panels. Much of this land is very desolate, so solar panels don't crowd out any other human uses.  The Sun shines nearly every day there. The US...

You might recall that the satellite record is the "gold standard" for the CDS/Global Warming Skeptic community. Feb 2016 Satellite Temperatures. About that new slogan: It has been zero years and zero months since a temperature increase. Preliminary surface temps also show a big record for 2/2016. Even if human CO2 release went to zero tomorrow, there is still lots of warming already baked into the cake.

The Global Carbon Cycle by David Archer, is one of the excellent series of Princeton Primers in Climate. These are short, economically priced (in the paperback or Kindle editions), slightly technical discussions of aspects of climate. The carbon cycle is the movement of Earth's stock of carbon among its several reservoirs - the solid earth, the oceans, fossil fuels, the soils, the biosphere, and the atmosphere. The atmosphere is the smallest of these but it is also the one crucial for anthropogenic climate change and climate change more generally. The movements are complex, imperfectly understood, and, again, crucial for our understanding of the effect of carbon on the climate. Archer's book explains much of what is known, something about how it is known, and discusses those things that aren't known, all in concise fashion. I liked the book and learned a lot, but I still have a number of complaints. The Kindle version is cheap ($19.25) and easy to carry on my phone,...

Our lagomorphic guru seems increasingly convinced that the Kali age is upon us - or at any, rate, that the triumph of Mordor is at hand. In addition to plenty of hot Siberian air invading the Arctic, it seems that in some places wet bulb temperatures have been creeping dangerously close to the 35 C death zone - the temperature at which humans can no longer cool themselves without refrigeration. A heat wave just a couple of WBT degrees warmer might produce hundreds of thousands or millions of casualties. Svalbard might actually see liquid water precipitation next week. Oh well. No wonder I prefer to think about exoplanets.

People, and Governments, do a lot of dumb things to fool themselves into thinking they are doing something other than what they are actually doing. I've probably mentioned before how idiotic I think it is to protest against the Keystone pipeline. Preventing the pipeline from being built will not prevent the Athabasca tar sands from being exploited or reduce global carbon emissions. It will, in all likelihood, increase them by the amount of energy required to transport the oil across the ocean. Via Marginal Revolution, Valery Karplus writes in the New York Times about the similar stupidity of CAFE standards on fuel economy. Her studies, and those of her MIT colleagues, indicate that reducing emissions through CAFE standards costs the economy at least six times as much (likely more) than a similar reduction achieved through higher energy taxes. The way to reduce carbon emissions is to tax carbon emission (or extraction). Every other way is just a gimmick to avoid revealing the ...

Our lagomorphic friend has a post on new estimates of climate sensitivity from paleoclimate studies. The Earth, for those of us not old enough to remember the actual events (say 600 Myrs) or too old to remember our geology (somewhat less), has had an up and down climate history, temperature-wise. Right now is down, but appears to be going up fast, mainly because there is now more CO2 in the air than there has been for millions of years, and that CO2 is rapidly rising since we keep on burning gigatons of carbon. A very crucial question is how much temperature increase do we get from increasing CO2. Since the temperature effect of CO2 is nearly logarithmic, it makes sense to define this so-called climate sensitivity as the temperature increase due to a doubling of CO2. The estimates determined from the paleoclimate data, says Herr Rabett, are 2.2 C - 4.8 C. These numbers are pretty big compared to some previous estimates, and would produce dramatic shifts in our climate patterns.

I don't see the Keystone pipeline fight as an important one in the global warming battle. Whether it is built or not is highly unlikely to affect the development of Canadian tar sands. This is a largely symbolic fight, highly unlikely to do much to slow carbon emission and certain to energize opponents. If you want to slow carbon emissions, carbon taxes are the way to go. They won't be popular, but people aren't buying the gimmicks either.

The discovery of massive phytoplankton blooms in the Arctic hints at a possible unsuspected negative CO2 climate feedback. It appears that thinning Arctic ice may create ideal conditions for algal growth under the ice. It's at least conceivable that the algal growth is sufficient to suck up a significant amount of our CO2 emissions. NASA has revealed its discovery of a massive algae bloom under the slowly diminishing Arctic ice -- a finding that made scientists' eyes pop. But does this never-before-seen phenomenon change the fate of this microscopic algae? Not long ago, this crucial plant life -- which produces much of the world's oxygen -- was reported in a century-long tailspin. Here's the back story. The same year that NASA researchers launched the Icescape expedition to the Arctic -- the project that resulted in NASA's astounding new discovery -- there was a dire report on the world's phytoplankton. A Canadian team said in the journal Nature, as The...

At first sight, a lot. The oceanic reservoir of carbon is about fifty times as large as the atmospheric store, and much larger (ten times) than our available store of carbon in fossil fuels. So is there any reason to think that the ocean can't just go on packing away the excess CO2 we pump into the atmosphere? Well, yes. Most of that oceanic CO2 is stored in cold deep ocean water where it is largely isolated from the year to year or century to century exchanges with the atmosphere. The near surface waters, which do readily exchange CO2 with the atmosphere constitute a reservoir only 1/3 larger than the atmospheric reservoir (1000 Peta grams, AKA giga tonnes, vs 750 Pg.) It is this reservoir which largely controls the rate of exchange with the atmosphere. Other things being equal, we could expect new carbon contributions to the atmosphere to reach a quasi-equilibrium with this reservoir in which the proportions were similar. Other things are not equal, of course. For one t...

Over at Lumoville , an alleged professor of atmospheric science is claiming that a runaway greenhouse is impossible on Earth, so I thought I might try to discuss what the necessary and sufficient conditions for one are - Cliff Notes version. Opacity The atmosphere, or rather some of the gases in the atmosphere, are fairly transparent to incoming visible radiation but opague to outgoing thermal radiation. This one way transport warms the Earth a good deal beyond what its temperature would be in their absence. The most important such gas is water vapor. Water vapor is the key, but not the only, player in runaway warming. A tale of two feedbacks. The blanket of water vapor around the Earth warms it. Suppose we warm the surface. That increases the amount of water vapor entering the atmosphere and consequently tends to warm it. That's a positive feedback, people, and positive feedbacks are unstable - a little bit of warming produces more warming, which in turn produces still m...

Lumo writes on the subject of my previous post . I fear I left a somewhat intemperate comment. Nonetheless, should the great eraser strike, I repeat it here: CapitalistImperialistPig Ah yes, Comrade Stalin, you would fire every researcher who ever studied any question that might be dangerous to your cracked pottery. Your fear of reality suggests that there might be a hint of a scientist hiding somewhere in your fanatical mind, and that the fanatic is terrified that the scientist might wake and send your tower of lies tumbling down. A couple of points that you might have preferred to ignore: we already have one example of a runaway greenhouse planet in the Solar system: Venus. Also, 5000 ppm CO2 in the atmosphere may or may not have occurred in the past, but if it occurred more than several hundred million years ago, that experience might be irrelevant to today's hotter Sun conditions. Hardly anybody thinks that the runaway greenhouse is likely for Earth - but one guy ...

...the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up...2 Peter 3-10, KJV. Astrophysics and biblical prophecy agree - hot times are coming - really hot. At some point during the next two billion years, the gradual warming of the Sun as more and more helium "ash" accumulates in the center will cause a runaway greenhouse effect as more and more water vapor accumulates in the atmosphere until the oceans boil. At that point, it's game over. The temperature will rise to about 1400 C and stay there until nearly all the hydrogen in the atmosphere has been lost to space, at which point old Terra will become another carbon dioxide furnace like Venus - not as hot as 1400 C but still plenty hot. There is the question of when. Could we accidentally accelerate the day of doom into the present by dumping a heck of a lot of CO2 in the atmosphere? Jim Hansen thinks so, but ...

It's often neglected that one of the most convincing arguments for the link between atmospheric CO2 and global warming is the paleoclimate record. Yet another big event in that climate record has now given it's evidence. This article cites new research showing that the formation of the Antarctic ice sheet 34 million years ago followed a 40% drop in atmospheric CO2. On the plus side, this suggests that although the melting of Antarctica caused by anthropogenic emissions may flood big chunks of the world's population out of house and home, it may also open up a new continent for settlement. Of course the refugees may need to live in refugee camps for a few hundred thousand years during the transition.

I confess that I haven't been following the details of the dust up between climate study co-authors Richard Muller and Judith Curry. Their study, summarized in several papers submitted to Journals and released in preprint form was partially funded by some key climate skeptics. The results have been widely interpreted as confirming the climate consensus on several key points. Curry is now challenging lead author Muller in at least one crucial respect, however: A study published last week reveals the conclusions of a study led by Richard Muller from the University of Berkeley. The study claimed, with irrefutable evidences, that Earth’s average temperature has been raising with about 1 degree Celsius from 1950. ... Today, however, one of Muller’s main team members accused him of trying to manipulate the public opinion by concealing the study’s true conclusion: the global warming has stopped. ... Curry claims their studies have revealed that the average temperature hasn’t been...

Raypierre at Real Climate looks at the so-called Keystone XL pipeline and consequences for global warming. This pipeline is aimed at transporting oil from the Athabasca tar sands to Texas for refining, and is important because that tar sands is one of the worlds largest pools of hydrocarbons - large enough that its full exploitation is likely to tip the world over the 1 trillion tons of carbon injected into the atmosphere mark - enough, says Raypierre, to warm the Earth by about 2 degrees C. This has provoked some resistance by anti-AGW activists, but it's just a tactical battle in the larger fight against carbon. The other obvious energy source is coal. I hate to say it, but I think that these battles are lost. Billions of people are not going to choose starvation today, or even giving up their cars and private jets, because of warming a hundred or even twenty years from now. The world needs energy and wants it even more. The only ways to provide it without pumping far more...

Kevin Drum: Climate change is the public policy problem from hell. If you were inventing a problem that would be virtually impossible to solve, you'd give it all the characteristics of climate change: it's largely invisibile, it's slow moving, it's expensive to fix, it requires global coordination, and its effects will be disproportionately borne by poor countries that nobody cares about. That last item might seem like a harsh way of putting things, but it's pretty much the truth. And today, via Brad Plumer, we have a new OECD report that illustrates the problem starkly. It examines which cities will have the most residents vulnerable to coastal flooding due to storm surge and high winds in 2070, and as you can see on the map below, the risk is almost entirely concentrated in developing countries in Asia and Africa. New York and Tokyo have a small bit of exposure, leaving Miami as the sole rich city with a substantial exposure. The total number of vulnerable resi...

Sat next to a retired oceanographer at dinner last night. Another table companion, on learning his background, asked him if he was interested in participating in the "debates" on global warming in the local paper letters section. He replied that he didn't care to argue with those who didn't care about the data. That, of course, is precisely the problem with trying to argue with a denialist (the subject of their denial - evolution, nicotine addiction, HIV/AIDS, shape of the Earth - is largely irrelevant). They really don't care what the data says. Their's is an ideology based point of view, not a scientific one. I once asked one of our string theorist/climate denialist correspondents what facts would convince him of AGW. His answer was interesting - it would take a sudden temperature increase of magnitude that was completely incompatible with the theory and physics of global warming. If confirmation of the predictions of the theory, and contradiction of t...

My review. Additions and clarifications welcome. The Argument : A. Human activities put a lot of CO2 in the atmosphere B. The resulting increase in CO2 is large C. More CO2 makes the Earth warmer D. The effects are potentially dramatic (and mostly bad) Why it’s Complicated: A. The carbon cycle is complicated: there are several sources and reservoirs. B. Radiative balance is complicated. Many factors are in play and they interact. Several different gases contribute to the greenhouse effect. C. Calculation of the size of the effect is difficult, because feedbacks play a key role. D. Many aspects of the impact of climate change are uncertain. Kinds of Evidence: A. Measurements of CO2 produced and atmospheric CO2 We know two central facts: Human activities are putting a lot of carbon (CO2) into the atmosphere and the amount of atmospheric CO2 has increased dramatically since the widespread use of fossil fuels began. B. Physics of Radiation a. A relatively simple direct ...

OK, maybe not so much here in southern New Mexico, though I suppose you could get a sunburn if you left your shirt off too long outside - but Europe is having its third tough winter in a row and the eastern US is also in the fridge again. So what does it mean? Proof of global warming or disproof (I couldn't bring myself to say "a refudiation", but I was tempted). Judah Cohen, a commercial weather forecaster, offers a interesting meteorological theory in the NYT . Annual cycles like El Niño/Southern Oscillation, solar variability and global ocean currents cannot account for recent winter cooling. And though it is well documented that the earth’s frozen areas are in retreat, evidence of thinning Arctic sea ice does not explain why the world’s major cities are having colder winters. But one phenomenon that may be significant is the way in which seasonal snow cover has continued to increase even as other frozen areas are shrinking. In the past two decades, snow cover has ex...

What's the percentage in being a contrarian? Well, if you are pretty sure that the herd is stampeding off the cliff, it makes Darwinian sense to try to get out of the flow. Skepticism about the perceived wisdom is the intellectual equivalent of a biological mutation - the odds are very heavily against it, but when it pays off, it can win big. Contrarians don't necessarily lack the herd instinct, of course. They like to think that they are part of their own crowd. Thus the high school goths all congregate under the same tree, just as the jocks, nerds, and beautiful people each have their own territory. Thus it is also with climate skeptics. Via Brad DeLong , Ryan Avent wonders about the link with political conservatism. My question is why conservatives think it advances their purpose to continue this demonstrably wrong adherence to climate change denialism. This isn’t like, say, evolution. Scientific evidence of evolution is quite strong and will only continue to get stron...