Quantcast
Channel: Comments for Climate Etc.
Viewing all 148656 articles
Browse latest View live

Comment on Did human-caused climate change lead to war in Syria? by climatereason

$
0
0

Chief

Nice post

These are events from 3000 years ago concerning the Akkad empire

The poem is known as the curse of Akkad, a great civilisation thought to have been eventually destroyed by a disastrous change in climate causing drought that lasted for centuries;

” For the first time since cities were built and founded,
The great agricultural tracts produced no grain,
The inundated tracts produced no ostriches,
The irrigated orchards produced neither wine nor syrup,
The gathered clouds did not rain, the masgurum did not grow.
At that time, one shekel’s worth of oil was only one-half quart,
One shekel’s worth of grain was only one-half quart. . . .
These sold at such prices in the markets of all the cities!
He who slept on the roof, died on the roof,
He who slept in the house, had no burial,
People were flailing at themselves from hunger.[56]

It has recently been suggested that the regional decline at the end of the Akkadian period (and of the First Intermediary Period that followed the Ancient Egyptian Old Kingdom) was associated with rapidly increasing aridity, and failing rainfall in the region of the Ancient Near East, caused by a global centennial-scale drought.[39][40]

H. Weiss et al. have shown “Archaeological and soil-stratigraphic data define the origin, growth, and collapse of Subir, the third millennium rain-fed agriculture civilization of northern Mesopotamia on the Habur Plains of Syria. At 2200 B. C., a marked increase in aridity and wind circulation, subsequent to a volcanic eruption, induced a considerable degradation of land-use conditions. After four centuries of urban life, this abrupt climatic change evidently caused abandonment of Tell Leilan, regional desertion, and collapse of the Akkadian empire based in southern Mesopotamia. Synchronous collapse in adjacent regions suggests that the impact of the abrupt climatic change was extensive.”.[41] Peter B. deMenocal, has shown “there was an influence of the North Atlantic Oscillation on the stream flow of the Tigris and Euphrates at this time, which led to the collapse of the Akkadian Empire (wki) ”

Tonyb


Comment on Week in review – science edition by Rhyzotika

$
0
0

Biotic Interactions Mediate Soil Microbial Feedbacks to Climate Change. Claims microbial respiration amounts to 7.5-9x the human annual CO2.
“Decomposition of organic material by soil microbes generates an annual global release of 50–75 Pg carbon to the atmosphere, ∼7.5–9 times that of anthropogenic emissions worldwide. This process is sensitive to global change factors, which can drive carbon cycle–climate feedbacks with the potential to enhance atmospheric warming. Although the effects of interacting global change factors on soil microbial activity have been a widespread ecological focus, the regulatory effects of interspecific interactions are rarely considered in climate feedback studies. We explore the potential of soil animals to mediate microbial responses to warming and nitrogen enrichment within a long-term, field-based global change study. The combination of global change factors alleviated the bottom-up limitations on fungal growth, stimulating enzyme production and decomposition rates in the absence of soil animals. However, increased fungal biomass also stimulated consumption rates by soil invertebrates, restoring microbial process rates to levels observed under ambient conditions. Our results support the contemporary theory that top-down control in soil food webs is apparent only in the absence of bottom-up limitation. As such, when global change factors alleviate the bottom-up limitations on microbial activity, top-down control becomes an increasingly important regulatory force with the capacity to dampen the strength of positive carbon cycle–climate feedbacks.”
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2015/05/14/1502956112

Comment on Did human-caused climate change lead to war in Syria? by Chief Hydrologist

$
0
0

You’re so clever. You always look at the right thing. Truth is that where and how much rain falls in so unutterably complex that much of it might as well be completely random. That said the influences for the Mediterranean are the north Atlantic and the central Pacific – the usual suspects. Although I did see something about the Indo-Pacific. Probably the warm pool. 90% of rainfall just about anywhere comes from the oceans.

I am expecting – without actually predicting because the whole damn thing is so damnably dynamically complex – La Nina to exert itself over the next couple of centuries bringing rain to Australia, India, Africa, etc. Good for Syria but perhaps not so good for California.

Although it’s likely that Ulrich will opine well before that and say I’ve got the whole thing totally arse about – and Springer to chime in with I know you are but what am I?

Comment on Did human-caused climate change lead to war in Syria? by Chief Hydrologist

$
0
0

It’s a nice map of the basin – but here’s the nilometer.

Comment on What can we do about climate change? by Punksta

$
0
0

D.J. The environmental and health costs of coal are so overwhelming that it’s not difficult to make the case for its elimination

Yes, the politics of environmental and climate issues have indeed long been settled. And impressively well in advance of any robust and credible science on the matter too.
An accomplishment owing much to politically-funded scientivists like Jamieson acting as science enforcers of the politically-settled conclusions.

Comment on Did human-caused climate change lead to war in Syria? by Chief Hydrologist

$
0
0

I thunk and thunk and rewrote it – now I am a bit confused. I was having fun comparing Obama with Joseph. Nice poem.

Comment on Did human-caused climate change lead to war in Syria? by David Springer

Comment on Week in review – policy and politics edition by brentns1

$
0
0

wrt Shell and Arctic wells:
Oil council: Shale won’t last, Arctic drilling needed now
March 27, 2015
WASHINGTON — The U.S. should immediately begin a push to exploit its enormous trove of oil in the Arctic waters off of Alaska, or risk a renewed reliance on imported oil in the future, an Energy Department advisory council says in a study to be released Friday.
The U.S. has drastically cut imports and transformed itself into the world’s biggest producer of oil and natural gas by tapping huge reserves in shale rock formations. But the government predicts that the shale boom won’t last much beyond the next decade.
In order for the U.S. to keep domestic production high and imports low, oil companies should start probing the Artic now because it takes 10 to 30 years of preparation and drilling to bring oil to market, according to a draft of the study’s executive summary obtained by the Associated Press.
“To remain globally competitive and to be positioned to provide global leadership and influence in the Arctic, the U.S. should facilitate exploration in the offshore Alaskan Arctic now,” the study’s authors wrote.
http://eaglefordtexas.com/news/id/149156/oil-council-shale-wont-last-arctic-drilling-needed-now/

Shell’s boss claims the world will face a massive energy crisis if fossil fuel production scaled back

“We will need sustained and substantial (oil) investment to support economic growth,” Mr van Beurden told shareholders gathered in The Hague, Netherlands.
He warned that if there was no further investment in oil production then the world could face a catastrophic 70 million barrel per day (bpd) shortfall in crude by 2040 because of the decline in existing production coupled with rising energy demand.
http://business.financialpost.com/news/energy/shells-boss-claims-the-world-will-face-a-massive-energy-crisis-if-fossil-fuel-production-scaled-back


Comment on The method of multiple working hypotheses by Punksta

$
0
0
<i>Judith: there is no agreement as to what percentage is man-made and what percentage is natural. </i> Complexity and intertwining notwithstanding, can this nevertheless <i>in principle</i> not be resolved with more and better measurements? eg 1, a robust measurement of radiation energy in and out, viewed in relation to (uncontroversial?) CO2 levels. Even alone, would that not be clear evidence one way or the other on the CO2 effect? eg2, ocean heat content. If Yes to all the above, should climate funding not be strongly realigned in favour of empirical measurements at the expense of other areas?

Comment on Week in review – policy and politics edition by Punksta

$
0
0

So given the large nuclear contribution, how does the per-capita CO2 creation of France compare to that of other industrialised nations?

Comment on Week in review – policy and politics edition by genghiscunn

$
0
0

So, add to your list:

8. No tolerance for protestors preventing access to/construction in nuclear sites. Such activities have caused major delays in coalmines and gas recovery in Australia.

Comment on Week in review – policy and politics edition by genghiscunn

$
0
0

I saw an article in the last day or two (can’t locate it) which said that dams for hydro in Nepal were problematic because of earthquake risk.

Comment on Week in review – policy and politics edition by Peter Lang

$
0
0

Punksta,

Per capita CO2 contributions are comprised of CO2 from electricity and contributions from all other sources. Electricity contributes around 30% of CO2 emissions globally but varies greatly from country to country depending on the emissions intensity of electricity in each country. Electricity is a large contributor globally and, technically, it is the easiest contributor to make early large cuts to global emissions. Therefore, my focus is on the emissions intensity of electricity, rather than the emissions intensity of the whole country or the emissions per capita of the whole country. If you want the emissions intensity or emissions per capita of the whole country, either by production or consumption (big difference) and the ranking of countries, Global Carbon Atlas is an excellent source: http://www.globalcarbonatlas.org/?q=en/emissions

Regarding the emissions intensity of electricity then we need to be careful to compare like with like. In Australia we report emission intensity on a sent out basis (i.e. after all losses from self-use in the power station and we included fugitive emissions. I understand EU does not include fugitive emissions.

Now for some comparisons. Slide 10 here http://canadianenergyissues.com/2014/01/29/how-much-does-it-cost-to-reduce-carbon-emissions-a-primer-on-electricity-infrastructure-planning-in-the-age-of-climate-change/ has a chart plotting CO2 emissions intensity of electricity versus electricity prices in selected OECD countries that have high proportions of nuclear and high proportions of renewable energy. Here are four examples of emissions intensity (kg CO2/MWh):

Germany 468
Denmark 385
Ontario 113
France 77

The chart shows that the countries with the highest proportion renewables have the most expensive electricity and the highest emissions intensity of electricity.
http://image.slidesharecdn.com/ecerpmatrixpresentation-150107095405-conversion-gate01/95/electricity-generation-infrastructure-planning-in-the-age-of-climate-change-10-638.jpg?cb=1420624747

Slide 14 says:
What do Quadrant II jurisdiction have in common?
Answer:
– National emphasis on supporting “renewable” energy: mostly wind and solar
– Small or declining amounts of nuclear.

Does this answer your question?

Comment on Quantifying the anthropogenic contribution to atmospheric CO2 by Ferdinand Engelbeen

$
0
0

Salvatore,

From that link:

The strong dependence on internal properties indicates that emission of CO2 from natural sources, which accounts for 96 per cent of its overall emission, plays a major role in observed changes of CO2.

Yes, “internal properties” like temperature and drought in the tropical forests as result of ENSO play a huge role in the year-by-year variability, where Bart’s whole idea is based on. But it plays only a marginal role in the trend (+/- 1 ppmv around the trend): the trend is currently 110 ppmv above steady state, of which 70 ppmv after 1960. That is NOT caused by the influence of temperature on vegetation, as vegetation is a net, increasing sink for CO2 with increasing temperatures and CO2 levels.

Thus whatever the nice correlation between the variability of temperature and CO2 variability, the fourfold increase in rate of change of CO2 over the past 55 years is not from the same process that caused the variability.

The influence of temperature on the trend is not more than 0.5 ppmv, or less than 0.1 ppmv/year for the 0.6°C temperature increase per Henry’s law. That is all. The rest is caused by human emissions which were twice the observed increase…

The rest of that comment is also questionable, but not the subject of this discussion…

Comment on Week in review – policy and politics edition by ordvic

$
0
0

That there is a shortage of nuke articles and preponderance of renewables would not surprise me. After Chernobyl and Japan nuke is a dirty word and will have a hard time recovering. OTOH renewables are probably viewed as very benign but trendy. Combine that with hatred for big oil and there you go. You have your work cut out for you Peter.


Comment on Week in review – policy and politics edition by Peter Lang

$
0
0

ordvic,

You have your work cut out for you Peter.

It’s not me who has their work cut out for them. It’s those who advocate for reducing global GHG emissions but oppose nuclear power (or don’t advocate for it) who have their work cut out for them. My work is to advocate for economically rational policies, i.e. least cost energy. As far as I am concerned, if fossil fuels are cheapest, then that’s what we should use. However, those who want to reduce global GHG emissions have no viable way to achieve it unless nuclear plays a large part, and it can’t unless its is low cost than fossil fuels – because 99% of the world’s population will oppose it. I am with the 99% of the world’s population who is economically rational – least cost energy is what they want.

Comment on Week in review – policy and politics edition by krmmtoday

$
0
0

I had the same issues with the IMF subsidy numbers as in the VOX article.
Only a bit disturbing that the author seems to bow down to the IMF ideas in the last sentence.

On the subsidy file it is noteworthy that energy is different since any value is ultimately energy related. Cost is probably the best estimator of the necessary energy input to create something (and the mix is still overwhelmingly fossil). The claim that energy use is subsidized by energy is somehow circular.

Shifting resources to remedy these issues would divert investment and reduce consumable output.
But that won’t sell because of the fight against poverty, inequality etc..
If you want to create the same output without (some of) those “cost” you would have to put in even more energy.

Comment on Week in review – policy and politics edition by Joshua

$
0
0

Perhaps, Judith, you’ll read this before you use Taleb’s ideas to support your alarmist activism about climate alarmism?

Comment on Did human-caused climate change lead to war in Syria? by David Springer

$
0
0

A record which you immediately broke with a 3 minute retaliatory bombing. I just can’t win.

Comment on Week in review – policy and politics edition by Punksta

$
0
0
Yes thanks. I did realise your focus was on electricity generation, but implicitly wondered if <i>all else is equal</i> in France, so that their overall CO2 emissions are also lower as a result of a lower electricity component.
Viewing all 148656 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images