I have mentioned these before, but I think we should take a very serious look at Small Modular Reactors. These are nuclear reactors small enough to be manufactured as industrial goods like turbines and transported to their final locations. There they can be buried underground and remain sealed. When their fuel runs out, they can be collected and recycled.
These reactors would be a godsend for Africa, as they would provide power to communities without having to build a national power grid. They can be built with fuel cycles that do not create fissionable material so there are no proliferation concerns. In developed countries with proper nuclear safeguards you can build them as breeder reactors and regenerate fuel and greatly limit high-level waste. They can’t melt down.
Why isn’t the green movement jumping all over this technology? Our big risk in the future is the growth of CO2 emissions in China, India, and other developing countries. These reactors are a great solution for them. Those countries already have nuclear energy, so they have suitable controls and safeguards in place or the capability to establish them.
One more comment about natural gas, just to put some numbers to it: The amount of CO2 emitted per kWh from coal ranges from 2.08 lbs to 2.18 lbs. For natural gas, it’s 1.22. That’s a HUGE reduction in CO2. Going to all natural gas electrical generation would give you the same reduction as replacing 40% of the current fossil fuel infrastructure with solar power. So WHY is there so much opposition to fracking? The DOE and the EPA have both ruled it safe, but just the other day the Daily Show did an anti-scientific hit piece against it, and the ‘green’ movement is still anti-fracking. What the hell?
And even if it wasn’t totally safe, it certainly doesn’t risk global catastrophe. If global warming is a civilization-threatening phenomenon, isn’t it worth a little local pollution to stop it?
What I have seen from the fracking issue is that the evidence is that the pollution happens many times from the mishandling of chemicals and contamination that is coming from the surface, when I see the ones doing the fracking telling others that fracking is safe as the contamination only happens “deep underground”. It is mostly what I would call the very specific denial of what many have encountered in the surface. (Link to TVtropes only used to explain the concept of the specific denial, it is IMHO a deceptive move)
However, I do go for the recommendation from the EDF and point that if contamination is controlled and the easier scrubbing of CO2 is done (compared to the many other noxious materials that comes from coal and oil) then I see no problem on using natural gas.
I notice in your quote from the scientist that there’s no mention of the benefits of mild global warming. If that’s a fair and balanced overview of the issue, how come that’s left out? In fact, the benefits are so great that warming under 2-2.5 degrees C may be a net economic gain for the global economy. Also note that many of those benefits take the form of reducing our need for energy - warmer winters in the cold populous countries, opening of arctic sea lanes that will make our sea travel more energy efficient, longer growing seasons in the food belt which reduces our need to farm in areas where we need more fertilizers and irrigation, etc.
I also noticed that you point out that the evidence says that global warming should increase extreme weather events - not that it’s doing so NOW. And in fact, the effect of warming on extreme weather is still one of the least understood aspects of climate change. For example, if the warmer climate changes the pattern of el nino or la nina events, it might actually make the weather less severe. And some models show fewer extreme events but greater energy in the ones that occur, while other models show the opposite. So this is not slam-dunk science. And Pielke’s main point is correct - in the short term (20 years or less) the warming signal is swamped by variance so there’s just no way to tell - especially so because the data set is very small (there aren’t that many extreme events and our historical record before satellites is weak).
No they aren’t, and who are the ‘same ones that minimize the effects of CO2?’ And why does that matter? I like to let the science speak for itself. That’s why I directly reference the IPCC and not some editorial claiming to speak for the IPCC, written by someone with an axe to grind.
And how much will that cost? So now you want to scrub CO2 from the natural gas output? Well, forget it then. In other words, you’ll welcome natural gas so long as it’s extracted and burned in a way that makes it less economical than current energy sources.
This is not a serious proposal. And this is what pisses me off - you claim that AGW is a potential global catastrophe, but the only good solutions we have are only acceptable if they too come under your regulatory thumb in such a way as to make them non-cost-effective - thereby ensuring that the status quo will just continue chugging along. And in any event, I believe you are in the minority, because fracking is still a big bogeyman in the environmental movement.
As for the other risks of fracking, such as wellhead fires and chemical spills - these are the kind of accidents that can happen at any large industrial installation. I’ve seen no evidence that fracking significantly increases these risks. And in the meantime, the ecological footprint per BTU from fracking is WAY lower than it is for coal.
The bottom line is that if all the coal plants were replaced with natural gas plants fueled from fracking sources, the environment would be cleaner, there would be less localized ecological damage, and the CO2 footprint of our energy would be cut almost in half. And in fact, natural gas from fracking is so cheap that it’s already displacing coal, so we don’t need to pass laws and compel people to do it - they’re doing it voluntarily and growing the economy in the process. It’s a big win-win for the economy and the environment. This is a major win for AGW prevention, and it’s the main reason the U.S. is one of the only countries to actually meet the Kyoto targets, even though it didn’t sign the treaty. You should be celebrating it and championing it as-is, instead of sacrificing the good at the altar of the perfect by saying, “Well, we might support it if you solve all these problems - oh, and figure out how to sequester CO2 and still have fracking make economic sense.”
Not much support for that. (Also a quick search shows that that point is being used by our old contrarian and hot air pushers from the National Review and Watts up with that) We also discussed the costs of unrest that was made worse thanks to the droughts in the middle east and central Asia, IIRC the problem here is that the mild rise in temperature depends on the control of our emissions as the mild change is already “baked” in the future, unfortunately we are bound to pass what mildness that could be good very quickly and with unrest added on, no wonder some do call it the bottleneck years.
In short, the negatives are likely to be more than what the positives.
Well, I’ve suggested solutions that run on market forces, and several that do not rely on the grid. And in the long run, if electricity gradually comes from different sources, people won’t even notice.
Less consumption? Sure. Move into a microhome. Adopt a vegan diet, ride to and from work on a bike or electric scooter, and you’ll have a rather small carbon footprint. But I mean for my suggestions to be voluntary- invest in solar because you’ll make money; move into a microhome because it is cheap. Not everyone will be persuaded, and I am not out to force these solutions.
I’m resigned to the fact that we can’t stop some of “whatever is coming”. I do think it is a matter of degree, and it will be worse if not addressed.
This kind of self-interested behavior also causes people to seek a profit. If/when green energy becomes cheaper, why wouldn’t anyone want it?
And, yanno, Al Gore won the Nobel Peace Prize, cite. That doesn’t say ‘most people’ to me.
Yah well I am not lecturing anyone. It is a message board with a thread asking a specific question. I’ve humbly submitted a few suggestions. They’re all voluntary.
I guess the difference between climate science and church is that, if you go to the right church anyway, some guy will tell you the Earth is 6,000 years old, and people get possessed by demons, but 2000 years ago there was a guy who could cast the demons out and into pigs. He got murdered, but since he was/is actually God it is okay, he came back and basically so can you, if only you believe all this. (Yes, I know that was a horribly unsympathetic interpretation. I’m just making a point)
Climate science is essentially observation and math. See what I mean?
Prevent? No. Mitigate? Yes.
Yah, I know. But this is flooding by the sea. The Al Gorre cite above goes over the IPCC’s findings on melting ice that is raising sea levels, among other things. Here is a decent examination of the issue in Bangladesh.
There are a range of estimates, yes. Still, if the ocean drives millions of people out of their homes, and if that leads to conflicts, is ACC among the causes of those conflicts or not? Would it not behoove us to mitigate effects like this, since they will happen to some degree all over the world, and wars are damnably expensive? Even if it doesn’t cause wars, it sure looks set to cause a tremendous amount of suffering, no?
Did you read that entire article? In case you didn’t, let me cover some of the high points:
the process mentioned works with coal, not natural gas. They’re working on similar techniques for natural gas, but there are issues.
The scrubbing process reduces the efficiency of the plant from 47% to 38%, meaning that for the same power output you’ll have to mine and burn significantly more coal. That increases the environmental footprint from mining and transportation.
The real cost isn’t in the scrubbing, but in the collection, transportation, and sequestration of the CO2. Their current plan is to inject 350 million tons of CO2 per year into rock formations under the North Sea. Are you cool with that? Do you think the environmental movement will be cool with it once they discover the magnitude of the CO2 storage required? It’ll be like fracking multiplied by a factor of 10. If the U.S. adopted this, it would have to transport and sequester more than 5 billion tons of CO2 every year. That’s a huge problem, and expensive.
The article mentions the cost of transportation and storage to be anywhere from forty to several hundred Euros per ton. That’s about $55 to maybe $400 per ton in USD, assuming the same costs hold (probably be more in the U.S. because of the greater distances involved, but much would depend on access to underground reservoirs and pipeline construction). The U.S. generates about 5.5 billion tons of CO2 per year, so that’s somewhere between $302 billion dollars and perhaps as much as 2.2 trillion dollars per year. And the cost would go up every year as the easiest storage locations fill up.
That doesn’t include the cost of the scrubbing, which would raise energy prices by at least 20%, and probably more.
That’s assuming the numbers in that article are correct. If they are, this doesn’t seem like a reasonable global solution at all. China produces 7.7 billion tons of CO2 per year, and that number is growing rapidly. Think they can afford a minimum of $400 billion dollars per year to sequester their CO2?
The article also doesn’t mention the energy required to transport all that CO2. If you can do it with pipelines it might not be too bad. But if you have to do it by rail, you’d better lower your BTU efficiency even more, which means even more fracking and coal mining.
These are really hard problems. They aren’t cost-effective today or feasible. Being able to do this in a small pilot plant is a far cry from building an infrastructure to sequester and store billions of tons of gas per year. The storage problem will probably take decades just for the environmental impact studies and lawsuits.
CCS today should be classified as a solution that looks promising and might one day work for us, but which is no where near the level of development where we can plan on it being a reasonable part of our CO2 reduction plan for at least several decades, if ever. And you keep saying we don’t have several decades to wait.
So, are you going to hold up the transition to natural gas while we wait for this? Is that what you advocate?
No, the reality is that Natural Gas is already here and a reason why coal is on the way out, so as EDF tell us doing it the right way includes the development of technologies that are not imaginary (capturing CO2 from coal is harder, the point of the cite was that for natural gas the development of the capturing technology is easier in the case of gas) and no, it does not mean that we have to wait decades for it. Only that the development of cleaner natural gas plants has to be also subsidized or incentives like prices and tax breaks for the development and use of cleaner technology on them has to be considered.
As usual the Republicans that see no problem coming or present will not worry about that.
Absolutely. One of the reasons I like hybrids (and particularly series hybrids) is that it starts the process of disconnecting our transportation infrastructure from fossil fuels without disruption. People are voluntarily buying these vehicles in increasing numbers, and the auto makers are responding by building hybrid technology in ways that actually improve the driving experience and ‘cool factor’ of the car. Buying a hybrid no longer signifies that you’re a granola-eating hippie. Not that there’s anything wrong with granola eating hippies, but they’re a small market.
Ideally, we get to the point where car makers incorporate the electric drivetrains into the platform, with the choice of generator for the series hybrid being just like the choice of engines we make today. And ideally, they’d be dealer-changeable. So you buy your sports-hybrid with a 160 HP gas engine, and then gas gets too expensive so you pay for a swap to an extended range battery in the same space where the engine was, or you put in a fuel cell, or a smaller engine, or whatever.
The point is that when the crunch hits, we can transition the infrastructure to electric within a few years instead of a couple of decades. And the balance of electric to gasoline vehicles can more quickly shift to follow energy prices, making the whole market more efficient.
I think we are almost at that tipping point with passenger cars. There are an awful lot of hybrids sneaking into the market out there. And they are improving in quality very quickly. I don’t think we need anyone mandating or subsidizing or taxing carbon to drive this change - it’s happening anyway.
Small Modular Nuclear reactors are like the cell towers of energy - they’re a way for developing countries to do a quantum jump over the era of physical infrastructure to power a modern economy. Cell phones allowed the developing countries to skip the expensive physical telephone networks that we paid for. Some of those countries have better cell phone adoption than we do. And better service. In the same way, Small Modular Nuclear allows you to skip right over the large, very expensive electrical grid you have to build out to otherwise support a 1st world population.
I could get behind a global plan to speed development and deployment of SMR in developing countries. If we could accelerate a global regulatory framework for them, the U.N. would actually be useful in mediating that discussion and enforcing the details. I would even be supportive of doing this as a global foreign aid program, where we wealthy countries pick up the check for much of this. Let’s do a big uplift, and help avoid that giant bulge in CO2 emissions growth that’s otherwise coming.
Let’s give villages in Africa better water and malaria control. But while we’re there, let’s give them access to freaking nuclear power, too. I can’t think of any faster way to end poverty and avert global warming. Maybe we can bribe a few rat-bastard leaders out of some of those poor countries while we’re at it.
Absolutely agreed again. And I think natural trends are already moving in that direction. The ‘microhome’ movement is growing. And I even understand it - in an increasingly online world, just how much house do you really want to pay for and maintain? I spend 90% of my waking hours in a 10 X 10 office, or outdoors. And I’ve really noticed the younger generation is no where near as materialistic as mine was. They don’t seem to yearn for cars, or spend a lot of money going out with friends. They come home from school, they go online. And they do that pretty much all night, for all but maybe one or two nights per week. Just how much house are they going to want?
I think the softness in the current housing market is a sign of this. The boomers are downsizing, and the generation below them isn’t buying that big. That’s caused prices to fall or fail to grow. That may not be great for the economy, but it’s good news for CO2 emissions.
And this is the thing: There’s no evidence that the market is particularly broken here. In fact, it looks to me like huge amounts of money are being spent on these issues. Our markets are a good proxy for where our real values are, and as markets respond to this issue, companies are responding back. I’ve been shocked by the rate of development in auto technology in the past decade. It’s really amazing. And much of it is aimed at economy and safety.
And to be honest, the government has probably played a positive role here through fuel economy mandates and such. I didn’t think they would have as much effect as they have: There have been a lot of breakthroughs in economy recently, and the companies are on record as saying that the mandates had a significant effect on their choice to invest in it. Maybe there’s a lesson in there on how to do government regulation properly.
But anyway, the the breakeven point for green energy may come faster than we thought, because we never really consider the system effects when we estimate how long a until new tipping point is reached. But improvements in everything from the use of high strength steel and titanium to new engine designs and transmissions, all these things make it easier for electric or other green choices to become cost-effective or more desirable.
Or for example, the widespread adoption of LED lighting will happen when people actually prefer it over incandescent light. Then you can sell it on the merits and the market will explode. And that time is just about now. LED’s have gotten very good, very fast. Well, it’s much easier to power an LED house with solar panels. These things all help enable each other.
If we want to be proactive, we should be proactive in helping to find superior alternatives to our current power sources and sinks, rather than trying to just stop current consumption. That will never happen, because it will cost people real money. That’s just how the world works. Let’s work on a better alternative.
What what actions “can” be taken are deeply dependent upon the milieu in which any decisions are undertaken, including why we believe things and how we proselytize for them.
A failure to understand that is one of the reasons no substantive action can be taken against ACC.
What is required to ameliorate the currently predicted consequences is immediate and widespread diminution of energy consumption. This is unlikely to happen because it would scale back our lifestyle too severely, and we like our lifestyles.
There is no forseeable diminution in the growth of world CO2 output for at least 20 years.
The time it would take to literally swap out fossil fuels for renewables is considerably longer than that. Most renewable energy added to the grid will simply expand the total pool of energy, and the demand will still be beyond fossil fuels and renewables combined.
Taxing fossil fuels in an effort to curb consumption is not realistic. Oil prices have roughly quadrupled in the last 20 or 30 years; the demand curve nonetheless rises. Fossil fuel consumption goes down in real terms only when there is a real recession. Real recessions cause real pain with real sacrifice, and the evidence that we are willing to tolerate that kind of sacrifice for any reason is very weak.
Nuclear power is problematic on a number of fronts, including how rapidly it could be scaled up even if it were more widely accepted as a less toxic alternative.
What will actually happen is a lot of chatting, resolutions and hand-wringing, combined with a modicum of relatively disconnected initiatives actually executed to completion. We’ll muddle through, and if over the next 20 or 30 years we see a series of accurately predicted and obviously harmful catastrophes, we’ll ratchet up our efforts. If we don’t, or if we see that it’s less painful to mitigate as we go, then we’ll keep kicking the cost down the road.
There is no realistic solution to the rise in CO2 over the next two or three decades, and as the conversation shifts to keeping consequent damages to a minimum (“let’s try to go for 2 degrees instead of 4 degrees”), the fuzziness of the goal will further blur any lines that are attempted to be drawn in the sand.
It would be extremely hoove if we behaved differently from the way we do. But we don’t, and we won’t, any more than we did to deter an obviously predictable problem of too many people living in Bangladesh.
I’m not trying to be obstreperous; I’m just making an observation of human nature. I can’t think of a single war that reasonable people could not have avoided, were they in charge, knew what would happen, and had both authority and mechanism to take action early enough.
That’s a lot of ifs, though, and in real life it doesn’t happen.
AGW is a consequence of too many people wanting to live well. 45 years ago Paul Ehrlich predicted a very proximate disaster (mass starvation). He only got one thing right: there are too many people. He was wrong about timeline and wrong about the most immediate negative consequence (starvation). But his gut was right. The coming amount of people is unsupportable.
AGW and ACC are like that. Our gut might be right. Our scientific efforts might be scientifically sound (versus making up a faith-based axiom). But we are not good at predicting what will actually happen and in any case the ability to execute a solution is not available.
For the moment, let ACC go and shift your enthusiasm to Overpopulation as the problem you find urgent. If you accept that overpopulation of the world is a fundamental driver for so many sustainability problems, what would you do about it?
See? There just aren’t any good answers. We’ll just have to wait and see what happens, and muddle through. So it is with the Cause du Jour, ACC.
More explanations about the problem and no solution, just useless and out of the point rhetoric from you as usual; as pointed before this is a problem caused by out technology, and once we identify the issue and the causes history has shown that we can control the problem. As pointed before if you were correct then issues like acid rain would had been impossible to control as in the USA the population and consumption increased.
Once the problem of acid rain was identified and regulations and technology was changed it was shown that the issue can be controlled.
Do you have a personal best estimate of what total global CO2 emissions will be in 2035 versus what they are today? If you are willing to post it, I’ll bow out here.
I don’t see voluntary/market driven efforts being enough, and I don’t see a worldwide government consensus. Individual publics won’t put future good ahead of present comfort.
I totally get it that me sitting on the sidelines saying, “Not gonna happen” is irritating. I suppose I’m feeling extra reluctant to endorse the possibility of government doing anything substantive because in my own little world (healthcare) the government just kicked Medicare SGR (budget control effort, 1997) down the road for about the 17th time since the late 90’s. While they were doing it, they delayed implementation of a giant initiative (hundreds of millions of dollars spent against a 10/14 deadline) about a month after Marilyn Tavenner (CMS Administrator) more or less guaranteed the deadline would not be extended. Among the tricks used was to do some accounting shifting for 2024/25…far enough out that nobody really cares.
For me, that’s a better index case than is acid rain of how we approach problems with solutions that cause real pain (in this case, fiscal pain).
Acid rain not only has a better marketing name; it has a very specific chain of cause and immediately observable effects, along with a very specific technical remedy assignable to very specific responsible agents. Moreover, the pain of mediation is not felt directly by the broad public.
And as explained, the costs of the mediation and adaptation are less than what the alarmists claimed; and you are missing the point, you continue to deny that humans are indeed capable of controlling an issue regardless of the population increase and levels of concern from the public, in fact acid rain remains less of a worry than other pollution issues like CFCs and the ozone layer and global warming. And yet there is no big effort now going on to stop doing anything about acid rain.
As pointed before the main reason why there is less of a concerted effort has to be blamed on the current lawmakers in Washington.
How in the world did that become the central question, and how is that productive? The productive approach here is not to claim mystical clairvoyance on matters that are both political and international and virtually impossible to predict, it’s to understand the physical science and how its effects will impact the climate system and the ecosystem. That’s what the Representative Concentration Pathway scenarios are. The IPCC, in keeping with it role to be policy relevant without being policy prescriptive, is essentially saying that here is what will happen at different levels of success or failure to mitigate carbon emissions. The objections and hysteria from assorted cynics, politicians, and random denialists about what they are willing to do or what they think anyone else is willing to do doesn’t change the laws of physics and doesn’t change the facts. I understand that this discussion is about what can be done, but an important prerequisite to that is what must be done and what consequences we will face if it’s not done. That’s what the IPCC WG2 addresses, in fairly specific terms. It’s the natural precursor to WG3 which discusses mitigation.
I’ll remind you that my original comment was in reference to your statement that (direct quote of your statement) “It has recently been shown that greenhouse gas sensitivity is significantly lower than it was calculated in the 90’s and 00’s”. I clearly explained that (direct quote of my response) “The main difference between the 2007 AR4 and the present AR5 is the likely range has changed from 2.0 to 4.5 in the AR4 to 1.5 to 4.5 in the AR5 and the probability density functions look almost exactly the same. I would hardly characterize this as “significantly lower”. I would characterize it as almost exactly the same.”
Frankly all you’ve done here is doubled down on the incorrect information and still provided no evidence. Let me lay it out for you simply.
It is, quite simply, incorrect to state that climate sensitivity estimates have been reduced over recent decades as you claim; look at the very first IPCC report from 1990. The range it gives based on the best evidence of the time was 1.5 to 4.5. Sound familiar? Yep – exactly the same range as the IPCC AR5, five reports and 24 years later!
In the IPCC third and fourth assessments, the range was reduced slightly to 2.0 to 4.5, then additional uncertainties assessed in the AR5 brought it back to 1.5 to 4.5 again. As stated on the Government of Australia Department of the Environment website, “The IPCC Fifth AssessmentReport (AR5) has slightly revised the climate sensitivity estimates from the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report in 2007. However the range of estimates has been broadly consistent across three IPCC reports over the past 12 years.”
You refer to several papers, one of which (Andrews and Allen 2008) I’ve never heard of and isn’t part of the evaluation in either the AR4 or the AR5. Of the other two, the Gregory and Forester estimate is on the low side of contemporary estimates and isn’t even used in the AR5, and Aldrin et al. is a complete outlier. The IPCC estimates aren’t based on one or two papers or methodologies, but on dozens of different peer-reviewed sources of contemporary observational and paleoclimate data and the entire CMIP5 intercomparison suite of at least 25 different AOGCMs.
The whole point of the IPCC asssessments is that they are an expert review of the contemporary literature, not one or two papers that happen to suit your argument. And, to repeat, the climate sensitivity range estimated in the current Fifth Assessment report is exactly the same as it was 24 years ago in the very first assessment report. So with all respect, your claims about climate sensitivity revisions are completely contrary to the facts, especially when you gratuitously throw in phrases like “significantly lower” which quite frankly makes me seriously wonder where you get your information.
Once again, stated completely without basis and contrary to the facts – in fact pretty much exactly backwards: the ECS probability density function is a highly skewed distribution with a long tail well beyond the likely high end, which puts both the median and the mean well above the mode and makes high values much more probable than in a normal distribution. It’s true that observationally derived estimates have tended to conform to the lower end (they always have), but it’s equally truethat AOGCMs have tended to conform to the higher end. Both methodologies have their strengths and weaknesses and neither is more valid or more credible than the other. In particular, it is absolutely false to suggest – as you have done – that there is “new” evidence that makes the lower end more likely. Again, see my comments above.
You probably mean WG1 or WG2 as WG3 isn’t out yet. But my question is quite specific. You just claimed in a previous post that you were reading both the AR4 and AR5 reports. If you’re going to make the extremely dubious claim that either of the currently released AR5 reports is somehow “less alarming” than the previous one, despite the deteriorating condition of the climate, I think it’s reasonable to ask on what basis you make that claim. Especially after you also incorrectly claimed that climate sensitivity estimates had been “significantly” lowered.
The Bladeglider is an unconventional electric car with a very narrow front wheel track, and with an extreme weight distribution of about 70/30 back to front. Apparently, this pays off huge dividends - handling is much improved and apparently very fun. The weight of the car goes down, making it accelerate better. The electric motors can be put on the rear wheels and batteries in the back as well, giving the car the traction of an AWD car without the complexity and weight of an AWD system. With the motors in the wheels, no transmission is required. The whole configuration allows you to build an EV car with decent range and high performance. And probably with significant cost savings - maybe even enough to make the EV car competitive in price with a regular car.
This is exactly the kind of development we need to transition to electric cars. Give us something you can’t get with a gas car, that actually might be a better sports car than the alternative traditional layout. Now you can actually charge a premium for the car and still sell oodles of them.
Don’t force electric on people with mandates or push them into electric with subsidies. Just make better electric cars. The market will respond all on its own.
Yes, and it was a big deal during the AR4 that it went from 1.5-4.5 to 2.0-4.5 and it was considered a big increase. Why? Because that makes it at the very least an additional 81% warming (at the extreme low end) at the 2.0 mark and at the 1.5 mark it makes it (at the extreme low end) only an additional 36% warming.
Do you understand what the ECS even means if you don’t get that a drop of upto 50% of sensitivity at the low end isn’t huge?
Gee. It’s almost like the IPCC is a synthesis of a whole bunch of data that’s been generated since 2007.
That’s actually wrong. The AR3 release kept the 1.5-4.5. The AR4 release was the one that clicked it up to 2.0-4.5, to big hoopla. And, six years later, it’s back down to where it used to be. This is a good thing because, as I said, it means we might not burn horribly in 2050.
I said there were more. If you want, I can go pull roughly 30 papers, but I thought those would be most accessible and I consider them most relevant. I’m so sorry I grabbed relevant papers that went into the exact topic I was discussing. It’s almost like I stay up on the science. Silly me.
And, to repeat since you didn’t bother to comprehend it the first time: I have been reviewing the AR5 report and comparing it with the AR4 report. My apologies for mistyping WG3 instead of 2. Feel free to do the same and the come with your own opinion of what it says.
Actually, it’s perfectly valid to note that they have altered their ECS again to include a range that they explicitly dropped at the low end. It would also be valid if they had widened it to 1.5-5.0 instead of leaving the high end intact. As for the statistical distribution, it is far more likely that the range will be somewhere in the 2-3 range and they concentrate on the 1.5-2.5 range. However, adding that back into the error bars is just as significant now as when they took it out in the first place. And thank you for statistics 101 and Bayesian distribution.
And I didn’t suggest that the lower end was “more likely” I said it was in the realm of consideration again and I was happy that it didn’t mean, by default, that we would burn by 2050 (and also squelch a bunch of statements on going about how this or that science wasn’t included, as was much fuss given about almost nothing back in 2007’s release.)
As I said, I make that claim based upon the AR5. Predictions were far more specific in the AR4 about the Amazonian rain forest, Asian glaciers, water shortages, high costs, and other such fun things. The new reports are far more vague about consequences such as softening rainfall shortages, some of their cyclone predictions are also more vague and, most pointedly, the actual anticipated costs. This is because we have given a lot more money to actual climate research since 2008 in addition to additional funds to technologies and such.
The same low chances that we will get the low end of 1.5 or the high end of 4.5 are the same. As pointed before, uncertainty is not your friend.
The most likely thing we will get around, if very little is done, is that at the the last quarter of the century we will most likely get what was reported in many papers and surveys, around 3 degrees. And more increases in the land and the poles.
