tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post8321963381865477502..comments2024-02-15T04:42:41.606+00:00Comments on James' Empty Blog: BlueSkiesResearch.org.uk: Costs of delaying action on climate changeJames Annanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04318741813895533700noreply@blogger.comBlogger23125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post-79661464515460203762019-02-05T12:38:05.873+00:002019-02-05T12:38:05.873+00:00I assume Eli was talking about the recent paper di...I assume Eli was talking about the recent paper discussing the "deadly" effects of a degree or two of warming, not 66000ppm CO2. James Annanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04318741813895533700noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post-28082614752285245392019-02-04T20:31:49.323+00:002019-02-04T20:31:49.323+00:00>"I don't really get the "impossi...>"I don't really get the "impossible" though"<br /><br />I think we should get away from "impossible" considerations more towards considering Earth's carrying capacity.<br /><br />"Dr. Peter Harper of Health and Safety Executive has determined that exposure to lower levels, starting at 84,000 ppm for 60 minutes or more, will also result in fatality."<br /><br />Just because it is still not impossible to live with scuba tanks and air tight CO2 regulated living areas, do you think Earth's carrying capacity isn't reduced by at least a couple of orders of magnitude? Or is 350 years to prepare still the dominant factor?<br /><br />Not sure I see the point contemplating this, the effects are too devastating and restrictive on the future to contemplate even if the GDP is expected to be higher going down such a route. I doubt a sensible economic analysis would reach that conclusion.crandleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15181530527401007161noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post-55164573096800143782019-02-03T19:50:59.388+00:002019-02-03T19:50:59.388+00:00
Impossible means that metabolic heat dissipation ...<br />Impossible means that metabolic heat dissipation would become impossible and thus the areas would become unsuitable for human habitation. That only need be for even small parts of the year to effectively lose major swathes of territory for year-round habitability.EliRabetthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07957002964638398767noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post-1875777491615024562019-02-03T17:16:48.929+00:002019-02-03T17:16:48.929+00:00Thanks, I knew I'd seen better pics than the o...Thanks, I knew I'd seen better pics than the one I pasted at the top. Again, of the "trajectories consistent with a budget" variety rather than the "trajectories arising from a delay" I was interested in.<br /><br />I don't really get the "impossible" though. This argument started with someone showing maps of "deadly" temperatures that were in fact already regularly encountered and survived by very large populations. I don't doubt it will get more unpleasant in those areas though.James Annanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04318741813895533700noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post-69358444805837374402019-02-03T10:30:37.078+00:002019-02-03T10:30:37.078+00:00Glen Peters does a nice line in figuring out how t...Glen Peters does a nice line in figuring out how the start date for mitigation affects physical outcomes such as global temperature anomalies https://twitter.com/Peters_Glen/status/1074584527438274560 for example. Also at 66000 ppm you start pushing the emitting level from CO2 bands way into the stratosphere and if water vapor concentration follow then the tropopause disappears. Indeed you get planet B.<br /><br />So yes, there are catastrophic levels. If you want to actually confront the issue, at what levels of CO2 will there be significant parts of the year when living in the area between the Persian Gulf and Australia becomes impossible and when do we have to start mitigating so we don't reach that level. That may be one to two decades.EliRabetthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07957002964638398767noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post-90883270680891445312019-01-31T20:43:06.970+00:002019-01-31T20:43:06.970+00:00Chris, this version of the model only has a 1y til...Chris, this version of the model only has a 1y tilmestep so the details within that time scale are a bit imprecise. In fact the sink into deep ocean for the first year (after stopping emissions) won't see the atmospheric conc at all, whether it was +100 or -100 would make no difference. A shorter time step (but the same underlying equations) would change that just a fraction I think. <br /><br />Carbon equation has 3 time scales (and 20% of emissions stay in atmosphere for ever) so a simple exponential won't describe it well. Still 340ppm at 2350 in this scenario.<br /><br />Yes I did keep aerosols etc fixed, it would probably be more sensible to reduce them in proportion to emissions as a first approximation (even faster perhaps).<br /><br />I don't think 0.25c/decade is really an invitation to delay. We've only had 1C actual warming in the past century. Anyway I would rather know the number (together with some sensitivity analyses etc) than not.James Annanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04318741813895533700noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post-43918655564046410962019-01-31T19:59:35.543+00:002019-01-31T19:59:35.543+00:00Hi, and thank you for the numbers. 2.392 going int...Hi, and thank you for the numbers. 2.392 going into sinks looks to be just a little larger than in each of the past three years and wasn't what I was expecting. Much nearer to what you said, but I'm not sure either of us were expecting increase in that first year.<br /><br />Sinks of 1.0259 is less than 43% of the 2.392 in just 9 years. I would doubt that continues as an exponential decline.<br /><br />Not sure I believe the temperature profile you say is produced but that is because I would expect sulphur aerosols to reduce with coal production and we would likely get a rapid increase in temps for a year or two before settling to a slow rise as the ocean slowly catches up. I guess you left aerosols unaffected so that isn't a real criticism of what that model produced. Anyway sudden zero emissions are totally unrealistic.<br /><br />>"don't think we should just sit back and watch"<br />>"Again, it is what it is."<br /><br />I have no problem with you saying "it is what it is" But if you don't think we should just sit back and watch, then rather than leaving your post as rant suggesting we have more time if we wish, shouldn't you be framing your post more as it is the nature of the CC problem that we could always argue to wait a few more years until we get to the point where we can say it is too late now. e.g. Thwaites is in irreverible retreat which will lead to 80cm of sea level rise or whatever the first serious domino is.... And oops we have past that.<br /><br />Then can't tell when first serious domino will fall so there is no better time to start than now.<br /><br />Or is this still alarmist nonsense?<br />crandleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15181530527401007161noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post-1226461882757481472019-01-31T14:34:17.122+00:002019-01-31T14:34:17.122+00:00As for solar, no I don't think we should just ...As for solar, no I don't think we should just sit back and watch but I do expect to see PV continue to grow hugely in my lifetime. Have been meaning to blog about this for a while. Note that electricity is only a proportion of total energy consumption.<br /><br />Steve, I don't make a judgement about whether 0.025C/year matters. I just wanted to calculate the number (which doesn't greatly surprise me).<br /><br />I agree the economic modelling has...limitations. Again, it is what it is. If someone comes up with a better model to summarise the effects of climate change, I'd happily use it.James Annanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04318741813895533700noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post-17448871313248689982019-01-31T14:30:11.040+00:002019-01-31T14:30:11.040+00:00Hi Chris,
Ok here are results from a sudden stop ...Hi Chris,<br /><br />Ok here are results from a sudden stop in emissions. Cols are years, emissions in ppm CO2 equiv, atmosphere conc and the annual increment. The drop is immediate but modest and tails away fairly quickly. Which I think is what I said. I hope :-)<br /><br />The temp stays very flat, it actually drops a whisker for a few decades before increasing very gradually over the centennial time scale. Due to the deep ocean gradually warming.<br /><br />[159,] 2010 3.9877255 386.2585 2.04413596<br />[160,] 2011 4.0634923 388.3413 2.08285478<br />[161,] 2012 4.1406986 390.4636 2.12230999<br />[162,] 2013 4.2193719 392.6261 2.16251556<br />[163,] 2014 4.2995400 394.8296 2.20348574<br />[164,] 2015 4.3812312 397.0749 2.24523507<br />[165,] 2016 4.4644746 399.3626 2.28777833<br />[166,] 2017 4.5492996 401.6938 2.33113060<br />[167,] 2018 4.6357363 404.0691 2.37530726<br />[168,] 2019 4.7238153 406.4894 2.42032396<br />[169,] 2020 4.8135678 408.9556 2.46619665<br />[170,] 2021 0.0000000 406.5635 -2.39208398<br />[171,] 2022 0.0000000 404.7401 -1.82341108<br />[172,] 2023 0.0000000 403.1955 -1.54462036<br />[173,] 2024 0.0000000 401.8031 -1.39232590<br />[174,] 2025 0.0000000 400.5070 -1.29612394<br />[175,] 2026 0.0000000 399.2814 -1.22562982<br />[176,] 2027 0.0000000 398.1137 -1.16768541<br />[177,] 2028 0.0000000 396.9972 -1.11655029<br />[178,] 2029 0.0000000 395.9275 -1.06968026<br />[179,] 2030 0.0000000 394.9016 -1.02591050<br />James Annanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04318741813895533700noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post-68200573645967088522019-01-31T04:46:24.283+00:002019-01-31T04:46:24.283+00:00OK, you convinced me that the doomster was wildly ...OK, you convinced me that the doomster was wildly exaggerating; but I still get the feeling that this type of post runs the great risk of being read as political justification for not starting strong policy towards CO2 reduction.<br /><br />Your examples showed that on a certain hypothetical, consistent rate of reduction, it wouldn't make much difference if you start now or in ten year's time. <br /><br />It also showed that not starting til 2070 would lead to the pretty disastrous 3 degrees by mid next century. If we count that as close enough to "doom", then there is presumably some year between 2030 and 2070 which is the absolutely, last chance, if-we-can-do-this-at-two-per-cent-per-year-every-year-we-must-start-now year for avoiding the (pretty rapid) rise to 3 degrees.<br /><br />But doesn't that give political cover for "we've still got maybe 20 or 30 years before we get really serious?"<br /><br />The GDP graph is even worse: while glad to see you say that you can't measure everything by GDP, such graphing is exactly what the libertarian "we will just make ourselves rich enough to aircondition every building on the planet and it won't be an issue" twits use to justify not doing anything. Never mind the extinctions, the mass migrations of humans, the flooded cities, the increased natural disasters, the God knows what potential effects of acidification of the oceans. <br /><br />Isn't it high time that the Pindyck criticisms of the current economic modelling of climate change are taken to heart?<br /><br /><br /><br />Stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04108945551064939734noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post-53894970888439717792019-01-30T20:11:01.698+00:002019-01-30T20:11:01.698+00:00only "sort of not believing" ?!only "sort of not believing" ?!crandleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15181530527401007161noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post-52740696993035372512019-01-30T19:10:08.840+00:002019-01-30T19:10:08.840+00:00crandles,
So 7% (Solaw+Wind) times 35% equals 2.4...crandles,<br /><br />So 7% (Solaw+Wind) times 35% equals 2.45% of current 25,000 TWh/yr of total world energy demand ... <br />https://cosmos-magazine.imgix.net/file/spina/photo/14719/180407-solar-1.png<br />:/<br /><br />So, sort of not believing ~exponential growth of Solar+Wind of ~40% per annum through 2032. But let's assume 40% per annum growth until Solar+Wind = total world energy demand in year 2033, an additional year added onto this graph ... <br />https://cosmos-magazine.imgix.net/file/spina/photo/14717/180407-solar-3.png<br />or a doubling time of ~two years (~1.4^2 = 1.96). Very doubtful.Everett F Sargenthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00201577558036010680noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post-65182077364748055802019-01-30T18:24:23.633+00:002019-01-30T18:24:23.633+00:00hmm. post appears here but not on earlier posts. T...hmm. post appears here but not on earlier posts. Tried to post this in predictions thread:<br /><br />>"nothing has changed"<br /><br />You article 50 revocation odds mentioned of 5 have gone up to 10. Note that an extention means you lose this bet and with article 50 extension at 1.33, if you believe the probability implicit in that then perhaps you should prefer my suggested Brexit not before 2022 bet which has changed from 3.5 to 5.1.<br /><br />Nothing has changed except the odds??<br /><br />(Yeah I know all odds/probabilities are subjective and yours may have remained unchanged and nearer to some impossible perfect objective assessment.)<br /><br />>"any specific scenarios to test"<br />Well, we were discussing how much and how fast the sinks reduce on a sudden change to zero emissions. Does that Myhrvold and Caldeira equation give a sensible projection of CO2 levels following emissions being suddenly cut to zero?crandleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15181530527401007161noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post-18566794642376410192019-01-30T18:11:26.546+00:002019-01-30T18:11:26.546+00:00"Together, PV and wind currently produce abou..."Together, PV and wind currently produce about 7% of the world’s electricity. Worldwide over the past five years, PV capacity has grown by 28% per year, and wind by 13% per year. Remarkably, because of the slow or nonexistent growth rates of coal and gas, current trends put the world on track to reach 100% renewable electricity by 2032."<br /><br />https://cosmosmagazine.com/technology/solar-and-wind-will-replace-fossil-fuels-within-20-years<br /><br />If it seems to be happening anyway ..... should we just forget about the problem? ;)crandleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15181530527401007161noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post-64253329310429797092019-01-30T16:45:38.848+00:002019-01-30T16:45:38.848+00:00Yes there would indeed be a lot of warming in the ...Yes there would indeed be a lot of warming in the pipeline at that point, but I'm only running to 2350 (ie 500 years from the start). The temperature graph is basically a linear ramp for as long as emissions go up exponentially.<br /><br />If "doom" is 1.51 degrees of warming then of course that gets much more difficult for even a short delay - but this is already a discussion about degrees of impossibility at the outset, cos we are not actually going to halve emissions in 12 years. Even a immediate 2% pa decarbonisation wouldn't save us here unless we are lucky with a low sensitivity.James Annanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04318741813895533700noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post-82285532763109064362019-01-30T16:26:35.636+00:002019-01-30T16:26:35.636+00:00Nice post.
I suspect that some of the push to cla...Nice post.<br /><br />I suspect that some of the push to claim that we have N years to act or face doom is an effort to cast climate change into a problem that most humans can deal with. Climate change is slow.<br /><br />Your 66000 ppm scenario in the comments, that is about 8 doublings of CO2. Only 12 C warming? What am I missing? This is matches the fast warming of 1.5C per doubling from (DOI: 10.1175/2009JCLI3466.1), or "transient climate sensitivity" but isn't there going to be substantial "recalcitrant" warming as well by 2350? Such as in Figure 4, for a much smaller forcing?<br />Philhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07567197089095711546noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post-30327388720893393842019-01-29T15:49:00.067+00:002019-01-29T15:49:00.067+00:00Oops sorry yes the two-layer model. Was trying to ...Oops sorry yes the two-layer model. Was trying to track down the first ref to it....will edit the post.James Annanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04318741813895533700noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post-58674501357222076332019-01-29T15:04:13.651+00:002019-01-29T15:04:13.651+00:00Is your two-layer model from Winton, Takashi &...Is your two-layer model from Winton, Takashi & Held (2010) which, after a brief glance, seems to use a zero-dimensional, energy balance model, or is it the one presented in Held et al. (2010) - Probing the Fast and Slow Components of Global Warming by Returning<br />Abruptly to Preindustrial Forcing?...and Then There's Physicshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04758445533849376372noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post-22801732086107027842019-01-29T08:21:56.861+00:002019-01-29T08:21:56.861+00:00Well I suppose I can just do the 1.9% pa compound ...Well I suppose I can just do the 1.9% pa compound increase in CO2 emissions unabated, which gets us to 66000 ppm CO2 by 2350 with a temp rise of 12C and a GDP increase to only 600 times present (a little over half the results plotted). Scary enough for you?<br /><br />(I don't think the GDP result is particularly credible when extrapolated out to such a strong warming. 12C warming really would be the end of the world as we know it!)James Annanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04318741813895533700noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post-52553707924504266032019-01-29T02:20:49.421+00:002019-01-29T02:20:49.421+00:00You really do need a 'the end is nigh' sce...You really do need a 'the end is nigh' scenario. Something that involves a boiling flood well beyond biblical proportions.Everett F Sargenthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00201577558036010680noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post-24806273659391510032019-01-28T13:05:35.360+00:002019-01-28T13:05:35.360+00:00I have no problems getting a feed on both blogs (a...I have no problems getting a feed on both blogs (also via feedly). Wonder what is going wrong?<br /><br />Blueskies is the corporate face of Blueskies Research Ltd and thus is limited in scope, carefully manicured and stage-managed. The Empty Blog will publish any old rubbish. The duplication has been going on since day one so I hope it hasn't been too disconcerting for you to finally notice it :-)<br /><br />As for which is more real...you are the philosopher, I was hoping you could tell me!James Annanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04318741813895533700noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post-19138173711121743872019-01-28T12:27:13.041+00:002019-01-28T12:27:13.041+00:00Gosh this is confusing: the same post in two diffe...Gosh this is confusing: the same post in two different places.<br /><br />FWIW, this is the only one that Feedly tells me about. I tried to get it to tell me about the "direct" one, https://bskiesresearch.wordpress.com/2019/01/27/costs-of-delaying-action-on-climate-change/, but it wouldn't.<br /><br />Which one do you regard as the "real" post?William M. Connolleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05836299130680534926noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post-47464133949077097682019-01-28T09:31:23.578+00:002019-01-28T09:31:23.578+00:00In Britain it will be your money.
Brexit means B...In Britain it will be your money. <br /><br />Brexit means Broke.<br /><br />Remain!David B. Bensonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15914145623997712113noreply@blogger.com