They've outed the leaker in chief. "This was unconfirmed officially until Trump himself seemingly let it slip while speaking in Israel on Monday, ironically while attempting to defend himself on the issue to the media."
Strange that it's accelerating if that's the case. Stranger still that it was falling until about 150 years ago... if isostatic rebound is playing a role near the arctic, possibly it's because we're in a period of rapid deglaciation in that region?
They are comparing two different sets of instrumentation that should conceptually show the same quantity, but don't. Then calling the difference "acceleration". That's nuts.
Wrong. Check the link again. The acceleration is seen in the satellite data: The research also finds the rate of global mean sea level rise increased by 0.8 millimeters (.03 inches) per year during the second half of the satellite period.
And both the satellites and the tidal gauges show more sea level rise than can be accounted for by known ice melt plus ocean thermal expansion plus aquifer pumping minus impoundments.
Again, read the link:
the new study reconciles this gap and shows the satellite measurements are accounting for all potential factors influencing sea level rise.
"The mean sea level trend is 2.39 millimeters/year with a 95% confidence interval of +/- 0.43 mm/yr based on monthly mean sea level data from 1931 to 1981 which is equivalent to a change of 0.78 feet in 100 years. "
Since 1993 (the beginning of the satellite record) we've seen global mean sea level increasing by about 3 millimeters per year or about 1 foot in 100 years.
Over the second half of that period, global mean sea level rose by 3.8 mm/year or about 1 1/3 feet over a century. At this rate by 2050 we should expect about 6mm/year or 2 feet per century. And by 2100, 10 mm/year or over 3 feet per century.
You could extend the life of coal a few years by letting them dump waste water into streams, reducing worker safety regulations, etc, but at some point the falling cost of renewable energy will overcome even the most lenient worker safety and environmental policies. The question is, how far shoudl a government go to prop up a dying industry? What is the opportunity cost of clinging to the 19th century while others embrace the 21st?
If a town has to import bottled water because a coal company is allowed to pump waste water into streams then you have set up some kind of subsidy, although indirect. How far should a country go to prop up a dying industry? What is the opportunity cost for being the last country to embrace the 21st century?
Coal accounts for over 40% of electric generation in the US
That was once true, but no longer is . "Coal-fired electricity generators accounted for 25% of operating electricity generating capacity in the United States and generated about 30% of U.S. electricity in 2016." - https://www.eia.gov/electricit... . If you look at this graph you can see that coal has been replaced by natural gas and non-hydro renewables. Since the renewables are only getting cheaper as the technology improves, there is no reason to suspect that their trend will not continue to accelerate upwards.
for all your hyperbole about living in trees or jumping out of buildings; your argument comes down to this?
Nonsense. A carbon tax adds sanity to the tax code by reducing sales and income tax. And it works!
"As a result, B.C. now has the lowest income tax rates in Canada for individuals earning up to $122,000. The general corporate income tax rate in B.C. is among the lowest in North America and the G7 nations, and since 2001, B.C.’s small business income tax rate has been reduced by 44 percent." - http://www.fin.gov.bc.ca/tbs/t...
"Further, the resulting decreases in fuel consumption did not harm economic growth; on the contrary, the province has outperformed the rest of Canada’s since 2008" - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Economists, as a rule, don't know... How should the tax on CO2 emissions be calculated
It's not possible to nail down the social cost of carbon to a tenth of a penny, but it is quite certain that the cost we've assigned now ($0) is much wronger than a modest price of $20/metric ton. This could be implemented at a net cost to tax payers of $0 by making the tax revenue neutral. Income and sales (two things we ought to be encouraging, not taxing) tax can be reduced to compensate for the carbon tax. Win win! And much better than your plans to either live in trees or jump out of windows (alarmist much?!).
Just rewatched Tim's lecture. As luck would have it, he also addresses TFA in his Q+A. He says:
"People often cite spraying sulphur dioxide into the stratosphere which creates these sulphate aerosols that reflect sunlight back to space as if that is a complete countermeasure to global warming. But you have to remember that the problem of greenhouse gas emissions is a problem to do with trapping the infrared energy from the surface and that is not physically the same as reflecting more visible sunlight back to space. Where this mismatch will potentially create issues is in trying to understand, not so much the direct global temperatures but what happens to the water cycle. What will happen to the monsoons. What will happen to the moisture that feeds the rain forests. It's quite conceivable, for example, that you meight end up choking the supply of moisture to the rain forest which would then stop absorbing carbon dioxide. You would inadvertently have increased the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere - completely in the opposite direction. So the potential for unforeseen consequences is enormous."
It sounds like something we should only consider if we have complete confidence in the climate models, and the models show that there would be no net negative consequences.
"Climate" is the integrated effect of "weather." If the former is chaotic, the latter has bigger error bars than you think it does.
You have the relationship between climate and weather exactly backwards. Climate encapsulates the statistics of the system. Tim Palmer explains in this Perimiter Institute lecture: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Yes. Perfect. You'll probably die, but since I can't tell you about the state of your left shoe your still going to jump. That is probably a more perfect analogy than you realize.
But somehow I can still predict what will happen if you jump out of the 13th floor. There's no way I can capture all the relevant physics even with a super computer, but just on the back of an envelope I can get a pretty good idea of how hard you'll hit the ground.
As another reply above points out, this is about making predictions about specific behaviors and trends in a super-massively-chaotic system. The number of variables able to substantially change outcomes is staggering in a system as massively-chaotic as the Earth.
If it's really quite as chaotic as you say, then we should be very careful about any changes we make. Even the slightest change in initial conditions could result in drastic and unpredictable outcomes. Frankly I think you're being a bit alarmist.
When you're looking at climate, your looking at how the characteristics of the system change. Though the weather is chaotic and sensitive to initial conditions, the boundaries are not. Dr Gavin Schmidt (NASA) explains: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
This illustrates. Change Sigma and the system changes predictably. We can't predict the weather in New York 100 years hence, but we can know how the probabilities will change in a globally warmed world.
Not sure I can speak for alarmists, but hope you understand that back of envelope calculations are not meant to capture all relevant physics, just meant to give a big picture view. For a more refined analysis you can look to models - but models aren't necessary to understand whether action is required.
As I understand it, the biggest problem is NOT climate change or any other such disaster; the problem is human interference. They have channeled and canalled and levee'd and dredged the Mississippi output. The water -full of silt - that used to wash over the delta and deposit replacement dirt on the marshes and islands during heavy flow days (?) now is channeled along the river between high banks and well out to sea.
There are many factors. Sea level rise is one of them. As it is the one that is accelerating, it is likely to play an ever increasing role.
Slashdot Mirror
They've outed the leaker in chief. "This was unconfirmed officially until Trump himself seemingly let it slip while speaking in Israel on Monday, ironically while attempting to defend himself on the issue to the media."
Israel’s moves to restrict intelligence could be the shape of things to come in other corners of the globe. On the issue of intelligence-sharing, the Trump administration has proven erratic and unreliable—something that is increasingly alarming for U.S. allies.
Strange that it's accelerating if that's the case. Stranger still that it was falling until about 150 years ago... if isostatic rebound is playing a role near the arctic, possibly it's because we're in a period of rapid deglaciation in that region?
They are comparing two different sets of instrumentation that should conceptually show the same quantity, but don't. Then calling the difference "acceleration". That's nuts.
Wrong. Check the link again. The acceleration is seen in the satellite data: The research also finds the rate of global mean sea level rise increased by 0.8 millimeters (.03 inches) per year during the second half of the satellite period.
And both the satellites and the tidal gauges show more sea level rise than can be accounted for by known ice melt plus ocean thermal expansion plus aquifer pumping minus impoundments.
Again, read the link:
the new study reconciles this gap and shows the satellite measurements are accounting for all potential factors influencing sea level rise.
Maybe they should have put a bit more thought into approving building permits.
In some states they've legislated ignorance of sea level rise in order to appease developers.
"The mean sea level trend is 2.39 millimeters/year with a 95% confidence interval of +/- 0.43 mm/yr based on monthly mean sea level data from 1931 to 1981 which is equivalent to a change of 0.78 feet in 100 years. "
The half a foot rise over that period can mean the difference between being just above sea level at high tide instead of just below. But the big problem is the acceleration that's taking place.
Since 1993 (the beginning of the satellite record) we've seen global mean sea level increasing by about 3 millimeters per year or about 1 foot in 100 years.
Over the second half of that period, global mean sea level rose by 3.8 mm/year or about 1 1/3 feet over a century. At this rate by 2050 we should expect about 6mm /year or 2 feet per century. And by 2100, 10 mm/year or over 3 feet per century.
The UAE. Like where Dubai is, which has the worlds tallest building?
The folks in Dubai don't like The Flinstones, but the folks in Abu Dhabi do.
You could extend the life of coal a few years by letting them dump waste water into streams, reducing worker safety regulations, etc, but at some point the falling cost of renewable energy will overcome even the most lenient worker safety and environmental policies. The question is, how far shoudl a government go to prop up a dying industry? What is the opportunity cost of clinging to the 19th century while others embrace the 21st?
If a town has to import bottled water because a coal company is allowed to pump waste water into streams then you have set up some kind of subsidy, although indirect. How far should a country go to prop up a dying industry? What is the opportunity cost for being the last country to embrace the 21st century?
Coal accounts for over 40% of electric generation in the US
That was once true, but no longer is . "Coal-fired electricity generators accounted for 25% of operating electricity generating capacity in the United States and generated about 30% of U.S. electricity in 2016." - https://www.eia.gov/electricit... . If you look at this graph you can see that coal has been replaced by natural gas and non-hydro renewables. Since the renewables are only getting cheaper as the technology improves, there is no reason to suspect that their trend will not continue to accelerate upwards.
Happy to help. The question?
For what?
No. Reread.
for all your hyperbole about living in trees or jumping out of buildings; your argument comes down to this?
Nonsense. A carbon tax adds sanity to the tax code by reducing sales and income tax. And it works!
"As a result, B.C. now has the lowest income tax rates in Canada for individuals earning up to $122,000. The general corporate income tax rate in B.C. is among the lowest in North America and the G7 nations, and since 2001, B.C.’s small business income tax rate has been reduced by 44 percent." - http://www.fin.gov.bc.ca/tbs/t...
"Further, the resulting decreases in fuel consumption did not harm economic growth; on the contrary, the province has outperformed the rest of Canada’s since 2008" - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Governments are pretty good at collecting tax. They'll figure it out.
Economists, as a rule, don't know ... How should the tax on CO2 emissions be calculated
It's not possible to nail down the social cost of carbon to a tenth of a penny, but it is quite certain that the cost we've assigned now ($0) is much wronger than a modest price of $20/metric ton. This could be implemented at a net cost to tax payers of $0 by making the tax revenue neutral. Income and sales (two things we ought to be encouraging, not taxing) tax can be reduced to compensate for the carbon tax. Win win! And much better than your plans to either live in trees or jump out of windows (alarmist much?!).
You may be surprised to hear that we have more than those two options. Here's the one preferred by economists: http://www.npr.org/sections/mo...
"People often cite spraying sulphur dioxide into the stratosphere which creates these sulphate aerosols that reflect sunlight back to space as if that is a complete countermeasure to global warming. But you have to remember that the problem of greenhouse gas emissions is a problem to do with trapping the infrared energy from the surface and that is not physically the same as reflecting more visible sunlight back to space. Where this mismatch will potentially create issues is in trying to understand, not so much the direct global temperatures but what happens to the water cycle. What will happen to the monsoons. What will happen to the moisture that feeds the rain forests. It's quite conceivable, for example, that you meight end up choking the supply of moisture to the rain forest which would then stop absorbing carbon dioxide. You would inadvertently have increased the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere - completely in the opposite direction. So the potential for unforeseen consequences is enormous."
It sounds like something we should only consider if we have complete confidence in the climate models, and the models show that there would be no net negative consequences.
"Climate" is the integrated effect of "weather." If the former is chaotic, the latter has bigger error bars than you think it does.
You have the relationship between climate and weather exactly backwards. Climate encapsulates the statistics of the system. Tim Palmer explains in this Perimiter Institute lecture: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Yes. Perfect. You'll probably die, but since I can't tell you about the state of your left shoe your still going to jump. That is probably a more perfect analogy than you realize.
But somehow I can still predict what will happen if you jump out of the 13th floor. There's no way I can capture all the relevant physics even with a super computer, but just on the back of an envelope I can get a pretty good idea of how hard you'll hit the ground.
As another reply above points out, this is about making predictions about specific behaviors and trends in a super-massively-chaotic system. The number of variables able to substantially change outcomes is staggering in a system as massively-chaotic as the Earth.
If it's really quite as chaotic as you say, then we should be very careful about any changes we make. Even the slightest change in initial conditions could result in drastic and unpredictable outcomes. Frankly I think you're being a bit alarmist.
When you're looking at climate, your looking at how the characteristics of the system change. Though the weather is chaotic and sensitive to initial conditions, the boundaries are not. Dr Gavin Schmidt (NASA) explains: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
This illustrates. Change Sigma and the system changes predictably. We can't predict the weather in New York 100 years hence, but we can know how the probabilities will change in a globally warmed world.
It's basic physics man. This has been understood for over 100 years. Welcome to the 19th century.
Not sure I can speak for alarmists, but hope you understand that back of envelope calculations are not meant to capture all relevant physics, just meant to give a big picture view. For a more refined analysis you can look to models - but models aren't necessary to understand whether action is required.
I will eat a leather shoe if you can convince me that climate models
Climate models are not necessary. Basic back of the envelope physics shows the same: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
As I understand it, the biggest problem is NOT climate change or any other such disaster; the problem is human interference. They have channeled and canalled and levee'd and dredged the Mississippi output. The water -full of silt - that used to wash over the delta and deposit replacement dirt on the marshes and islands during heavy flow days (?) now is channeled along the river between high banks and well out to sea.
There are many factors. Sea level rise is one of them. As it is the one that is accelerating, it is likely to play an ever increasing role.