Bishop Hill Kevin Anderson gets shirty
May 13, 2013 Climate: Parliament Energy: gas Greens Kevin Anderson, the Tyndall Centre's uber green worrier-in-chief has written a heated riposte to Peter Lilley's Spectator piece about shale gas. It's pretty strange stuff.
The immediate source of his ire appears to be Lilley's description of him as the "Ayatollah of the green movement". It's hardly how you'd like to be introduced to your prospective mother-in-law, but it's not exactly the most cutting insult around, particularly in the climate debate. However, Anderson seems to take considerable umbrage. In particular, the fact that his name only appears once in the article - in connection with a wish to keep shale gas in the ground - seems to have escaped him, and he leaps to the conclusion that every criticism made by Lilley is directed at him. Much huffing and puffing ensues, and on Twitter, dark accusations of "lies and half truths".
Last time an university bod went off on one like this, I wondered out loud about the lack of professionalism within the academy. It was Doug McNeall, I think, who said "welcome to academia".
Reader Comments (112)
Thanks Mike - much appreciated.
Given the demands of my day job - I haven’t time now to go through a detailed account of why I think climate change is important, but suffice to say even if the lower climate sensitivity suggested previously on Bishop Hill and elsewhere - say 1.5C - turns out to be correct then current emission rates suggest somewhere between 700 and 1000ppmv by 2100; i.e. ~3C to 4C this century. If climate sensitivity is higher then obviously higher temperatures will likely occur - unless carbon cycle and other feedbacks negate the warming (& as far as I can tell the net feedbacks are likely to add to the warming - not least CH4 from permafrost).
In the end there remains considerable uncertainty as to the climate sensitivity and non-linear feedbacks – but unless the assumption is that the former is much less than 1.5 (or perhaps that there is no link to CO2) then I can't see how under ~3C to 4C can be avoided without stringent mitigation. However, if you consider ~3 to 4C (and the risk of higher temperatures) is not a problem – then mitigation is fairly pointless.
Whether it's a climate sensitivity issue, that feedbacks will negate warming, that 3-4C is fine – or whatever, I’d be pleased to hear your arguments.
Kind regards
Kevin
Levelgaze
I've reread Anderson's arguments about three times. I think the blog post post suffers from very poor framing. Anderson proposes several points on which, as he notes, several BH commenters would not disagree with him (without getting too UK-specific about the details as I am in the same boat as you). But he claims he has been forced to defend points that he never made, when Lilley says no such thing.
Do you not find the whole thing bizarre?
You can listen to the talk John Shade links to above. Anderson says we should all hold our governments responsible for keeping their word of making the '2C target'.
Do you remember having a public debate about 2C? Did anyone run on the '2C' mandate? Is there any world government that presented, in democratic fashion, to its citizens, these so-called targets which subsequently having become a public issue moved them to act in a certain way?
To the best of my knowledge, the 2C figure was pulled out some nether regions by people in the PIK, the Tyndall Centre's sister concern (or should I say, cousin concern), propagandized by the loudmouths at WWF and other pressure groups, was *never* presented at any IPCC plenary or such, where national unelected, bureaucratic representatives - not elected ones mind you - show up to protect their self-interests. To confuse this with a mandate reflects unclear thinking.
Dr Anderson
Going by the best estimates, significant global climatic shifts have been observed over the past 1000 years, probably of an order of magnitude similar to the proposed upcoming Armageddon. Nothing bad (in an overall sense) really happened. Humankind is likely much more resilient now, even as it stands.
Secondly, the point of dealing with what's to come, is dependent on the science that claims to know what's to come. This science operates, for all practical purposes, in this fashion: if outcomes fall below predictions, fudge factors and adjustments are introduced which rescue the theory. If outcomes are above predictions, ta da, its 'worse than we thought'. In both instances, the theory has failed to operate as a scientific one would. Why believe it? And hang humanity's coat on it? Let's not waste our energies on Sisyphean fantasist tasks - most of the developing world needs fossil fuels and 'carbon' will be put into the atmosphere, and the climate system doesn't behave like we think it does, nor does it seem amenable to being 'controlled'.
@KA
'even if the lower climate sensitivity suggested previously on Bishop Hill and elsewhere - say 1.5C - turns out to be correct then current emission rates suggest somewhere between 700 and 1000ppmv by 2100; i.e. ~3C to 4C this century'
Ummm
If the sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 is 1.5C, then getting to 800ppm this century would take us to +1.5C compared with today. (Today ~ 400ppm to 800ppm = doubling).
No idea how you magic up '3C to 4C' from these numbers. Please explain.
May 14, 2013 at 12:38 PM | Unregistered CommenterKevin Anderson
That post at least admitted to uncertainties in the results of all the modelling being conducted. It is the suppression of any doubt amongst many in the field of climate science, that has been hungrily seized upon by policy makers, that has infuriated the sceptical side of the argument. A bit more self doubt and introspection amongst those that currently have the ear of our gullible leaders would not go amiss.
Lat
I think the '4C' is relative to pre-industrial baseline. Beats me why such a global average is a desirable target.
Kevin
If ECS is 1.6 then we hit 1.6 above preindustrial midcentury. On your figures we hit second doubling early next century. Let's say we hit 3C end of century.
If we are growing at 2% a year, then GDP will have more than tripled by the end of the century. We then have to reduce that by the effect of the warming. 3C above preindustrial is 2.2C above where we are now. The effect on GDP is roughly nil (central tendency) and at worst a 8% decrease (Tol 2009, Fig 1).
Given that this is a century away, the case for technological solutions is much stronger than the "trash-the-economy, trash-the-countryside" panic-driven approach currently adopted.
(I've converted into figures relative to now because that's how the way the graph reports the figures).
First, Londonistan, now the Ayatollah of Green.
Mr. Anderson should be honored to be part of the cutting edge.
@shub and others.
Ok, I did my bit pleading for some courtesy at the start of all this, and I do not for one minute resile from that stance.
However...
I then listened to part of Prof. Anderson's broadcast but gave up and resorted to the full transcript. A bit better, not much. As a diatribe, brilliant. As a lecture, abysmal. Content dense, sophistication zero. If I were less than my normal charitable nature, I would have suspected an amphetamine influence. He was all over the place.
I suppose it deserves more serious re-reading, but my initial impressions (which I doubt will change much) are:
1. It is almost entirely about rising CO2 levels, and this is not contentious.
2. He assumes the highest climate sensitivity, without any empirical evidence. This is extremely contentious.
3. At no point does he consider actual measured temperatures to date. He could have taken his pick from a variety of series on offer. (I myself prefer the uncontaminated satellite record which shows essentially no warming in nigh on a quarter century.)
4. He appeals, pari passu, to authority from the ruminations of international insurance companies, when it is comon knownedge that the only risk these companies consider is the one to their profits.
I could go on, and I might at a later date. Earlier I had invited some actual quotes from the good professor, not being previously aware of him, and here we have them in spades, right from his mouth. Yes, he is an uber-warmist, and a catastrophosist, and a theoretical rather than a practical scientist to boot. One wonders when he lost his faith in engineering.
Anyone who ignores observed reality doesn't really deserve any respect, in my judgment. But they still deserve some common, if pitying, courtesy.
LevelGaze,
Totally agree with your comments, especially this,'Anyone who ignores observed reality doesn't really deserve any respect, in my judgment. But they still deserve some common, if pitying, courtesy.'
My objection to many climate scientists is their absolute certainty in an hypothesis which is leading to some of the most far-reaching and invasive government policy ever enacted. Given the consequences of the policies built on their work are they really that sure of their ground? Or is it the case that, having set the ball rolling, they can't be seen to express any doubt.
Professor Anderson, I am an academic who has made a long journey from "concerned environmentalist" to climate sceptic.
This journey has been driven mainly by my reading of the published literature concerning climate change and the increasing disconnect I find between what the IPCC, The Tyndall Centre and other "concerned" groups state and what is happening in the real world.
Thus, in no particular order and not meant to be exhaustive:
1) Global Temperature records are contantly "adjusted" upwards without robust rationale.
2) Climate models fail to predict reality- until they are revised to match. So no predictive value.
3) Climate "disasters" such as hurricanes, floods, droughts accelerating sea level rise are simply not happening.
4) Climate reconstructions are shown to be statistically flawed and rely on a posteriori data selection
5) Global primary productivity is increasing
etc. etc.
Then we hear increasingly shrill demands for ever more sacrifice to "stop climate change".
And what is the result? We hike up energy costs with absurd "carbon" taxes and ludicrously large subsidies for "renewables" which means we outsource our industry to places like China which is meeting demand by building one new coal-fired power station/week.
Very much a case of "out of sight, out of mind". But hardly "scientific" or sensible.
What are your thoughts on this?
Mike, Don, Shub, LA and others. Kevin won't engage believe me, he may come back for one more visit, but he will eventually back off discussing it with us, or anyone else who'd challenge his ideas. We've seen this before, I'm not saying Kevin is thinking this at the moment, but some scientists are so cut off from the real world (Rob) that they believe they're going to come on here and run rings around the denizens of this and other sceptical blogs. Maximum engagement one more time I promise.
Kevin A says we are on track to hit 700 - 1000 ppmv of CO2 by the end of this century.
I took a look at the Mauna Lol record: levels have risen by around 80 ppm over the past 50 years and the annual figure has been around 2 ppm/year for the past decade.
Maybe I am missing something but how does Kevin expect it to jump by a further 300 - 600 ppm over the next 87 years?
A while back there was a comment on WUWT (I think) to the effect that projections of future emissions can be misleading if they are based on historic ratios of GDP : emissions. China and other modernising nations are jumping on well up the learning curve so historic ratios are not relevant. For example, China is at the leading edge in the design of ultra-supercritical power plant and very large gen sets.
Like many who have engaged in this thread, I abhor bad manners. But that cuts two ways, and if Prof Anderson behaves here on the assumption that everyone on this thread has 'sided' with Peter Lilley, I can only assume (after some decades of patrolling school playgrounds and keeping order in classrooms) that his resultant semi-coherent hissy fit is rather less than than the mature response one would expect from a scientist who holds himself in considerable regard.
Peter Lilley is vice-chairman of oil company Tethys Petroleum.
BH assumes in his calculation that the 21st century CO2 increase will be a linear continuation of the 20th century pattern. Since the industrial production rate is accelerating faster than a linear model would predict, and there is no gaurantee that the CO2 sinks will not saturate, an exponential rate of increase might be a more accurate prediction.
The idea we are going to hit 700 ppm in the next 100 years is as credible as the claims we will see 3 meter slr by the end of the century: not at all.
With all due respect to Dr. Anderson, he is confusing an SF b movie plot with reality.
" an exponential rate of increase might be a more
accurate prediction."
Most models predict population will stabilise around 2050. Just this information would cast a massive doubt on exponential growth after that date at least.
'Peter Lilley is vice-chairman of oil company Tethys Petroleum.
May 15, 2013 at 12:04 AM | Unregistered CommenterEntropic Man'
Just for balance, because I know you insist on balance, could you list the financial/commercial interests of the following or their spouses/close relations:
PM David Cameron
Dep PM Nick Clegg
Tim Yeo MP
Lord Deben (AKA John Selwyn Gummer)
There are others but that will do for now.
OT slightly but I think that this encapsulates why more people are becoming sceptical.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/14/in-retrospect-we-predicted-global-warming-would-slow/
Despite a sustained production of anthropogenic greenhouse gases, the Earth’s mean near-surface temperature paused its rise during the 2000–2010 period1. To explain such a pause, an increase in ocean heat uptake below the superficial ocean layer2, 3 has been proposed to overcompensate for the Earth’s heat storage. Contributions have also been suggested from the deep prolonged solar minimum4, the stratospheric water vapour5, the stratospheric6 and tropospheric aerosols7. However, a robust attribution of this warming slowdown has not been achievable up to now.
Here we show successful retrospective predictions of this warming slowdown up to 5 years ahead…
“retrospective predictions”!!!
I guess what these bozos mean is that hindsight is 20/20.
And they expect us to take climate psience seriously!
Over the next few days I will try and find time to distill some numbers from BH posts and use these to develop BH emission scenarios and then link to BH ECS figures to give temperatures. So basically use as much BH input as I can to produce emission growth scenarios with a range of what I'll try and fairly reflect as BH-based assumptions. It'll all be simple back of envelope stuff and with additional info on non-Annex 1 growth etc - but will at least provide some potential common ground to unpick/build-on; though it will be premised on there being a link between temp and CO2 - at the BH ECS level.
Kind regards
Kevin
I shall be interested to see Professor Anderson's calculations but it would be useful to know what his baseline relationship between temperature and CO2 is.
Historically temperature rise has preceded CO2 increase; the "consensus" seems to be that (in spite of that) increased CO2 also appears to cause warming but only logarithmically; the best estimate for a doubling of CO2 (absent any forcings, feedbacks or other tweaks to the models to obtain the required* result) is about 1.2C; to date there has been no evidence that feedback is positive and only the models show that it is (probably because they have been told to); if the feedback is as positive as claimed there should have been runaway global warming when the CO2 concentration was 10 times what it is now.
That will do for a start.
*required = the minimum scary figure necessary to keep the grants coming. (Sorry, but over the years my scepticism has become tinged with cynicism aka an increased knowledge of human nature!)
Why resort to 'back of the envelope' stuff, when the super computer models are failing?
Perhaps it is time to check the assumptions of extreme sensitivity, high end range assumptions, and most of all assumptions of the level of understanding of the climate system.
Add to that a review of the so-called cures: mitigation, 'renewables', carbon tax.
Mike Jackson
I think you mean pre-historically. The current glacial/interglacial cycle is driven by orbital changes which raise and lower temperature by about 1C. These drive changes in CO2 which amplify the temperature changes in a positive feedback cycle producing a 5C variation.
Before this cycle began some 2 million years ago the planet was in a stable high CO2 , high temperature regime.
We are presently in a rather unusual situation. Human intervention has pushed CO2 concentration well beyond normal interglacial levels. The result is CO2 levels not seen since the Pliocene.
These are combined, at least for the present, with much lower than Pliocene temperatures.What the ensuing feedbacks will do to temperatures is what the whole climate change discussion is about.
Mike Jackson
Based on laboratory measurements of radiative forcing, Stephan- Boltzmann calculations of surface temperature variation with incoming radiation and energy flow observations around the world; this is how most of those in the field expect the direct effect of doubling of CO2 to change temperature.
change in radiative forcing(W/M^2)= 5.35*ln(final CO2/initial CO2)
For a change from 280 ppm to 560ppm this is 5.35*ln(560/280) = 3.71W/M^2
Using the IPCC AR4 figure for the effect of radiative forcing on temperature (3.7W/M^2), the direct effect of a CO2 doubling would be just over 1C.
Add in the secondary effects that produce the actual equilibrium climate sensitivity (whatever that is!) and you get the total amount of warming expected.
" So basically use as
much BH input as I can to produce emission growth scenarios"
There is no such thing as BH input. As you are the main feature of this thread and contributed to it you are best off using your own input. Otherwise you can quote particular people specifically. Don't make the mistake of saying things like 'sceptics day's or 'Bishop Hill bloggers say...' as it is against basic scientific principals. It is just as bad as saying "Science says...." or "warmists say...."
We are all individuals. ie I'm a bit of a peak oiled and also think there is something to say about sustainability if the question is framed properly, which might put me in a minority viewpoint here.
Entropic man
"Before this cycle began some 2 million years ago the planet was in a stable high CO2 , high temperature regime"
Really? Do tell. Over what timescale?
In any case you have drowned the alarmist cat.
What about high CO2 levels and their (alarmist) linkage to "tipping points" and "runaway greenhouse"?
Hardly "stable" :-)
EM - again
"Add in the secondary effects that produce the actual equilibrium climate sensitivity (whatever that is!) and you get the total amount of warming expected"
Love it! These "secondary effects" which miraculously provide the "expected" answer.
Climate psience at its best :-)
Rob Burton
Professor Anderson.may indeed find it difficult to find useful information here. I find myself that most of what I read on BH is BS.
May 15, 2013 at 3:55 PM | Entropic Man
I disagree. I think Bishop Hill has a very high level of content and comments considering the subject matters. Some subjects interest me much more than others, but I just tend to just ignore those posts.
May 15, 2013 at 3:55 PM | Entropic Man
I also think I know a lot more about Kevin Anderson's character from his few posts here than before when I had never heard of him
... from the various comments I'm not so sure it's worth spending much time on developing scenarios as I get the impression that regardless of anything I may produce the responses from some BH contributors are already set in stone. Lurker assumes only he and a few enlightened folk like himself have the foresight to question assumptions around climate models and our understanding of the climate, whilst others assume after years of training most climate scientists have given up any semblance of integrity and adjust their results so they can get cash to develop climate models they all know are wrong.
I am highly and openly critical of the IAMs in particular - but by and large most of the folk I've come across working in the science area do so with the responsible mix of circumspection and integrity (most of the model runs I'm aware of do use an envelope of ECS that includes the 1.5C level - typically the 1.5 to 4.5 range) . As climate research moves from the GCMs to the IAMs I am much more sceptical of inputs and outputs - but in many respects this is only to be expected as the GCMs are essentially science projects and the IAMs much more about economics and politics.
Despite the pre-determined ridicule, I'll play with a few numbers and post them up for the likes of Lurker, Don & geronimo to snigger at (at least such scenarios can provide a social service) - but hopefully I'll get some of the higher level BH feedback that Rob refers to.
Kind regards
Kevin
Entropic Man.
This should help your Malthusian angst
CO2 fertilisation has increased maximum foliage cover across the globe's warm, arid environments
Geophysical Research Letters 2013 DOI: 10.1002/grl.50563
Satellite observations reveal a greening of the globe over recent decades. The role in this greening of the ‘CO2 fertilization’ effect – the enhancement of photosynthesis due to rising CO2 levels – is yet to be established. The direct CO2 effect on vegetation should be most clearly expressed in warm, arid environments where water is the dominant limit to vegetation growth. Using gas exchange theory, we predict that the 14% increase in atmospheric CO2 (1982–2010) led to a 5 to 10% increase in green foliage cover in warm, arid environments. Satellite observations, analysed to remove the effect of variations in rainfall, show that cover across these environments has increased by 11%. Our results confirm that the anticipated CO2 fertilization effect is occurring alongside ongoing anthropogenic perturbations to the carbon cycle and that the fertilisation effect is now a significant land surface process.
Dear Professor Anderson.
Nick Lewis is a regular contributor here. I trust that you are aware of his recent paper on climate sensitivity.
I just wanted to help you avoid Lurker, geronimo and I sniggering :-)
Journal of Climate 2013
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00473.1
An objective Bayesian, improved approach for applying optimal fingerprint techniques to estimate climate sensitivity
I didn't really want to comment again on this thread, but Professor Anderson's comments are hard to ignore. The example below defines the professor as a waspish, ego-driven individual;
'despite the pre-determined ridicule, I'll play with a few numbers and post them up for Lurker, Don and geronimo to snigger at;'
The factor that determines the reaction here to the professor's statements is the record of his previous public statements. I would suggest that given his history of uttering ridiculous statements, uttering more such statements makes ridicule of him inevitable.
May 15, 2013 at 3:55 PM | Entropic Man
See foot ... shoot!
Bishop Hill
Kevin's proposal to come up with Bishop Hill emissions scenarios will make a very interesting debating point - but I wonder if we could save him the trouble of working these out himself, and ask you to propose a scenario yourself?
For example, you are clearly a supporter of fossil fuels over renewables. Could you put this together with a reasonable assumption of population and economic growth (eg: you mentioned 2% a year above) and suggest what this translates into in terms of emissions?
eg: If your views on energy policy were enacted, would this translate into global emissions staying at current levels, or increasing - and if the latter, by how much? Doubling of global emissions by 2050 and tripling by 2100? Something more or less than this? Or would you anticipate a levelling off of emissions at some point, for reasons other than climate policy?
It would be really interesting to see what you think.
Don Keiller
Sounds like good news. I'd like to look at your data.
Could you confirm the link, please. I got a message that Windows could not find the address. "Please check spelling and try again."
Dr Betts -
I think that predicting anything* out to 2100 is an exercise in hubris. Technology is too mutable. Last week I had the pleasure of listening to (former US Energy Secretary) Dr Steven Chu, who was enthusing about the cost trajectories of household-size batteries and solar panels, predicting that within 10 years it would be cost-effective -- with no subsidies! he insisted that alternative technology had to be less expensive without subsidy -- to supply the majority of one's electric power at home. He pointed out that many white goods have been getting ever more efficient, thereby reducing electricity demand.
So while it may be an interesting academic exercise to project emissions, based on an increasing-but-leveling-off population and a generally increasing standard of prosperity, it is a chimera, because we just don't know what energy mix will evolve. One might as easily try to predict what personal computers will look like in 2100.
*anything -- I exclude purely physical phenomena such as eclipses &c. Context is human activities.
Might I suggest that (a) Kevin's scenarios are set out in a separate post and (b) the post's thread focuses on the content of those scenarios rather than individuals' character and behaviour.
Hi Richard – good to hear from you.
The widespread BH view that concern over emissions and climate change is misplaced, presumably is premised not just on a low ECS, but also on an assumption of future emission levels (along with other issues). I have asked for examples of such emission scenarios before but didn’t receive a response; however I’d be only too pleased to consider whatever BH folk are using as a basis for developing mine now.
In producing an informative emission scenario it’s necessary to justify the envelope of emissions growth – from which cumulative CO2 emissions and air borne fractions permit ppmv levels to be estimated (no modeling here). In this regard I think the 2% p.a. figure noted by Richard and proposed earlier by the BH post is not a reasonable reflection of BAU (particularly one where climate change is considered relatively unimportant).
CO2 emissions growth since 2000 has meaned about 3.1% p.a., and this during a time of very significant economic downturn in the west and relatively high fossil fuel prices. More importantly, it’s occurred when many non-Annex 1 nations are only in the very early phases of development, and hence their levels of emissions growth doesn't yet really play out at the global level.
If 1) the OECD nations broadly return to pre-downturn levels of economic growth, 2) the poorer nations economic growth gradually puts their emissions at levels sufficient to impact global figures and 3) shale gas, tight oil, oil sands and other unconventionals, along with further coal development, suppress relative fossil fuel prices then emissions growth of 4 or 5% p.a is not unreasonable as an upper end.
Consequently, if the point is to understand what a no-mitigation emission scenario may look like (and assuming no other major events undermining longer-term historical growth and innovation trends) then I suggest an envelope of emissions growth of 3% to 5% p.a. is reasonable. I also think it wise to extend this at least to 2030 and probably 2050 if a fuller understanding of non-Annex 1 economic development is factored in (virtually all IAMs fail to appropriately consider the latter point).
NB. One potential disagreement with the above framing relates to the availability of ‘affordable’ fossil fuels – and certainly here the peak oil arguments may be considered important. Personally, I have never considered fossil fuel availability a significant issue – as we have substantial unconventional reserves, there is plenty of cheap coal (of mixed grades), and through fischer tropsch coal can readily be converted to oil. On top of this, to date recovery rates from wells seldom exceeds 30-35% - and historically was much lower – but newer techniques are pushing this towards 50-60%. Add to this is our acceptance of over $600/barrel at the pump – with only marginal impact on fuel economy (the US is roughly the same $/km as the EU once lower mpg is factored in) – and it is evident we (at least in Annex 1 nations) are fairly inelastic to rising production costs (and anyway price can be adjusted by iterating the high tax levels on fossil fuels). The point of all these rambles is is to suggest that there is plenty of financial potential for further development of enhanced recovery techniques (& hence recovery rates) along with arctic, deeper water and more hostile exploration. All of which leads me to conclude affordable fossil fuel availability is unlikely to be a constraint on growth for at least the next few decades.
Ps. Harold - I agree on longer term details of technology - but historical rates of change are fairly well understood, including the occasional disruptive technology (jets from reciprocating engines etc). As for efficiency, this again is well understood in the aggregate - but really needs to be considered alongside rebound - again relatively well understood (look at Steve Sorrel's work - based in the Energy Group in Sussex). It's also worth bearing in mind that the CO2 that some of us are concerned with still principally arises from old technologies - Parson's 1880 turbine, Diesel's 1890s IC engine and Whittle's 1930s jet engine.
Regards
Kevin
... sorry RichieRich - our posts crossed (I was welcoming Richard Betts' contribution). However, I agree with you that focussing on the substance of the scenarios and any disagreements with the assumptions, numbers, etc is the best way forward.
Kevin
EM The link (DOI: 10.1002/grl.50563) works- I've just tried it If not try this
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/grl.50563/abstract
(The article is paywalled)
While you are at it you might wish to look at
Bhatt, R.K., Baig, M.J. and Tiwari, H.S. 2007. Growth, biomass production, and assimilatory characters in Cenchrus ciliaris L. under elevated CO2 condition. Photosynthetica 45: 296-298.
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11099-007-0048-7#page-1
As Cenchrus ciliaris, to quote Bhatt et al., is "the most important fodder grass species grown in arid and semi-arid tropics." these are highly beneficial changes.
There are literally dozens of papers-all saying the same thing. A high [CO2] world is a more productive world. With or without temperature change.
" we just don't know what energy mix will evolve."
How about kitchen sink cold fusion generators in most homes by 2067. We would at least need to factor in the probability of it happening :-)
Hi Don,
I don't think there is much/any disagreement with the concept of CO2 fertilisation - certainly I was aware of it being considered and commonly factored in to analysis many years back. However, as with most things it's a matter of scale (level and rate of change). What is your reading of the ppmv level of a high CO2 world? - and also what's your understanding of the impacts on ocean ecosystems where presumably acidification may offset benefits to a degree (or even land ecosystems away from impacts on specific species). This is not my area so given you've read the relevant papers any summaries reflecting the breadth of views for different ppmv ranges and rates of change would be appreciated.
Thanks
Kevin
Rob,
Agree for 2067 - but given the rate of emissions growth allied with choice of ECS - 2067 is probably not that important. In addition, there is a wealth of literature analysing numerous new technologies - and with virtually no exception (or so I'm told by the 'experts') the rate of penetration of new ideas/technologies is in the order of decades (see Frank Geels stuff for a good grasp of technical transitions).
Calder Hall nuclear station opened in 1956 - heralding "too cheap to meter" (& v.low carbon) power; despite this emissions have continued to grow - along with nuclear generation (I think about 13% of the global total). Fossil fuels are such a versatile energy source/carrier and with an embedded physical, institutional and financially lock-in infrastructure that in the absence of wider policies I think your kitchen sink cold fusion generator is unlikely to usurp fossil fuels in a timely fashion. But as you say we don't know for that far in advance - which is one of the reasons I think it irresponsible for virtually all low-carbon emission scenarios to include negative emission technologies. As I noted before the principal energy technologies remain based on designs of 80 or more years ago – with just incremental changes (probably meaning around 0.5 to 1.5% efficiency improvements per annum).
So for emission scenarios I would suggest using existing plus state of the art (& perhaps full scale demonstration) designs – rather than more speculative technologies – but all with some efficiency improvement – and here the historical trends are surprisingly robust (as per the 0.5 -1.5 figures above).
Kind regards
Kevin
So this debate is starting from the following assumptions.
That CO2 is a main driver of global warming — an assumption that, as I pointed out yesterday, lacks empirical evidence.
That feedbacks are positive to the extent that a doubling of CO2 will result in a global temperature increase of the order of 3C — an assumption that is being increasingly challenged by researchers not wedded to the output of computer models.
I note also that we are to use the word "acidification" for the marginal reduction in alkalinity of the oceans, a demand that of itself throws the whole rationale for this discussion into doubt because the use of the word is blatantly dishonest. Unless, of course, Professor Anderson has some expertise in oceanography and marine biology of which I am unaware.
I see no reason to challenge the UN's assessment that the global population will peak at ~9 billion by mid-century and start to decline from around 2080 — always assuming that we allow the poor of this earth to drag themselves out of their poverty. However, if we allow the admirers of that serial failure Ehrlich (among others) to have their way than we are going to continue to attempt to condemn sub-Saharan Africa and parts of Asia and South America to perpetual poverty (see Oppenheimer's notorious quote: "We have to stop these Third World countries right where they are.")
So with that in mind, are we planning to halt the development of "these Third World countries" and thereby potentially produce the very result that Professor Anderson presumably does not want, an ever-burgeoning population deprived of most of the basic essentials of a decent human existence, adequate nourishment, clean water, and secure accommodation?
And all of this in the name of a dubious belief that 400ppm of what is an essential trace gas has the power to influence the earth's climate to any meaningful extent.
And if we are going to have a meaningful debate can we dispense with the other "push button" phrases (like "ocean acidification"), including "peak oil" (we have enough for 1,000 years and if you care to read Ridley's speech to the HoL yesterday you can read about coal gasification as well), "Arctic ice melt" (used glibly to scare the sheeple into thinking that "since records began" means something a lot longer than 34 years), and others.
PS I agree with RichieRich — would this not be better in a Discussion thread?
Richard, Kevin
Thanks for your comments. Re emissions scenarios, this is not an area I've ever looked at. I take the IPCC emissions scenarios as a given.
Kevin, if you want to post your own thoughts, can I suggest a dedicated thread? This will enable me to accompany it with loud threats to unruly commenters and to post it at a time where I can moderate tightly. Drop me an email if this is the way you want to go.
Kevin, briefly this
(http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1469-8137.2004.01224.x/full)
is probably as good a place to start and reviews a number of studies using up to 600ppm CO2
Ainsworth, E.A. and Long, S.P. (2005).
What have we learned from 15 years of free-air CO2 enrichment (FACE)? A meta-analytic review of the responses of photosynthesis, canopy properties and plant production to rising CO2. New Phytologist 165: 351-372.
This (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167880910003154)
takes us up to about 1800ppm
Schubert, B.A. and Jahren, A.H. 2011. Fertilization trajectory of the root crop Raphanus sativus across atmospheric pCO2 estimates of the next 300 years. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 140: 174-181.
From these articles you can probably see why I am relaxed about bioproductivity in a high [CO2] world.
Much has been said about the dangers of ocean acidification (actually a slight drift towards a more neutral, but still alkaline pH), without an understanding that many organisms, particularly calcifying ones, have lived through periods when atmospheric [CO2] was considerably higher than today or, indeed, future projections. Again the worriers appear to have overlooked the facts. Thus scleractinian (hard) corals evolved during the Triassic some 250 to 200 million years ago, when atmospheric [CO2] was some 5 x higher than todays.
McCulloch, M., Falter, J., Trotter, J. and Montagna, P. 2012. Coral resilience to ocean acidification and global warming through pH up-regulation. Nature Climate Change 2: 623-627.
and
http://medseaclimatechange.wordpress.com/2012/03/31/resilience-of-cold-water-scleractinian-corals-to-ocean-acidification-boron-isotopic-systematics-of-ph-and-saturation-state-up-regulation/
and
Growth of Western Australian Corals in the Anthropocene, Science 3 February 2012: Vol. 335 no. 6068 pp. 593-596. DOI: 10.1126/science.1214570
Hope this helps.
Mike,
Rushing off for my day job so excuse typos & hasty text (my responses are preceded with **)
So this debate is starting from the following assumptions. That CO2 is a main driver of global warming — an assumption that, as I pointed out yesterday, lacks empirical evidence.
**WRONG - I've not said or asserted this here - I will simply use the ECS from BH - which does relate to CO2
That feedbacks are positive to the extent that a doubling of CO2 will result in a global temperature increase of the order of 3C — an assumption that is being increasingly challenged by researchers not wedded to the output of computer models.
**WRONG - I said I would use the BH 1.6C from earlier post (happy also to use your 1.2 I think it was)
I note also that we are to use the word "acidification" for the marginal reduction in alkalinity of the oceans, a demand that of itself throws the whole rationale for this discussion into doubt because the use of the word is blatantly dishonest. Unless, of course, Professor Anderson has some expertise in oceanography and marine biology of which I am unaware.
**"Throws the whole rationale..." - a bit baby and bathwater. Various oceanography experts use that term - I'm just using it here for short hand, as you note it’s not my expertise (if it's yours then I'm happy to accept your summary of the breadth of expert positions on the issue). I'm aware there has only been a small ph change in the surface oceans - if you say this is not an issue even at much higher ppmvs perhaps you're right - but some other experts I think would disagree? So I have no problem accepting there is a lot of uncertainty here - and you may be right - or not. But dismissing everything I may say on the basis of my use of one word is a little unreasonable (or perhaps I misunderstood your post).
I see no reason to challenge the UN's assessment that the global population will peak at ~9 billion by mid-century and start to decline from around 2080 — always assuming that we allow the poor of this earth to drag themselves out of their poverty.
**I have no intention of challenging the UN's assessment. The 9 billion estimate seems fine by me. Why did you bring this up here?
However, if we allow the admirers of that serial failure Ehrlich (among others) to have their way than we are going to continue to attempt to condemn sub-Saharan Africa and parts of Asia and South America to perpetual poverty (see Oppenheimer's notorious quote: "We have to stop these Third World countries right where they are.")
**I think you'll find I'm repeatedly on the record noting that reducing welfare improvement in non-Annex 1 nations is wrong. I want to see their emissions of CO2 rise - see my criticisms of UK carbon budgets and also my Phil Trans paper of 2011.
So with that in mind, are we planning to halt the development of "these Third World countries" and thereby potentially produce the very result that Professor Anderson presumably does not want, an ever-burgeoning population deprived of most of the basic essentials of a decent human existence, adequate nourishment, clean water, and secure accommodation?
**Not sure where you got any of this from - I think my written work and oral presentations (not edited reports and misquotes from journalists) are explicit about my position and it's almost polar opposite to what you presume! (I've just submitted evidence to a new select committee inquiry on carbon budgets that makes the equity point very strongly - I'll look out for your submission along similar lines)
And all of this in the name of a dubious belief that 400ppm of what is an essential trace gas has the power to influence the earth's climate to any meaningful extent.
**Where has this comment come from? I'm not greatly worried by 400ppmv - I'd rather we had not got to this level as it's part of pathway to higher levels that I am concerned with - mitigation is about reducing the increase (or halting it at some point).
And if we are going to have a meaningful debate can we dispense with the other "push button" phrases (like "ocean acidification"), including "peak oil" (we have enough for 1,000 years and if you care to read Ridley's speech to the HoL yesterday you can read about coal gasification as well), "Arctic ice melt" (used glibly to scare the sheeple into thinking that "since records began" means something a lot longer than 34 years), and others.
**I don't think peak oil is an issue - as I pointed out at some length earlier - and I didn't make any reference to Arctic ice melt in my previous posts.
Where has all this dislike of things I either didn't say, have agreed with you on or sensitivity to particular short hand language come from?
**Please let’s stick to what we say and not what we presume others are thinking – or if we do lets at least have the courtesy to caveat such statements.
**If you and others think it is a waste of my time producing any emissions scenarios based on various BH inputs and of your time looking at them – I’d much rather not bother as I could be out rock climbing or walking up Kinder.