Do the maths tour: Bill McKibben coming to Australia

Great news: Bill McKibben – noted environmentalist, founder of 350.org and author – is coming to Australia to speakHe’ll be here in June – dates here.

I highly recommend his 2012 essay in Rolling Stone, one of the most important essays of the past decade (that’s not hyperbole either):

Scientists estimate that humans can pour roughly 565 more gigatons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere by midcentury and still have some reasonable hope of staying below two degrees. (“Reasonable,” in this case, means four chances in five, or somewhat worse odds than playing Russian roulette with a six-shooter.) 

This idea of a global “carbon budget” emerged about a decade ago, as scientists began to calculate how much oil, coal and gas could still safely be burned. Since we’ve increased the Earth’s temperature by 0.8 degrees so far, we’re currently less than halfway to the target. But, in fact, computer models calculate that even if we stopped increasing CO2 now, the temperature would likely still rise another 0.8 degrees, as previously released carbon continues to overheat the atmosphere. That means we’re already three-quarters of the way to the two-degree target.

I’ve booked my tickets.

Other videos  for those viewers requesting something more substantial: Bill McKibben and Alex Epstein square off on fossil fuels — do they make the planet a worse place to live or a better place to live?” (November 8 2012 debate)

About these ads
Tagged , , ,

63 thoughts on “Do the maths tour: Bill McKibben coming to Australia

  1. Bruce scott says:

    Bill mckibben said on Q and A (ABC TV) that he was a Methodist sunday school teacher,has he never read the book of revelations regarding the coming apocalypse and destruction of this earth at the 2nd coming of Jesus.Revelations indicates that the environment will be the least of our worries.

  2. Gregory T says:

    People, just remember that Eric is the man who’s disclaimer on his web site states

    “Referencing this site
    I am not an academic researcher and hence have no need for formal references. However, if you’ve found this site useful, an informal ‘mention in dispatches’ and a Web link wouldn’t go amiss.
    This cuts both ways, however: The algorithms used on this site have not been formally peer reviewed and hence should not be used unverified for academic publication (and certainly not for policy- making!). This site is only intended to help find interesting directions for further research to be carried out more formally.”

  3. […] 2013/04/07: WtD: Do the maths tour: Bill McKibben coming to Australia […]

  4. Nick says:

    I’m sorry,but I looked…Andrew Bolt has fired off an anti-McKibben piece in his typically nuanced style; McKibben apparently has ‘crazy eyes’ and thus is a ‘talking lemur’…devastating stuff,Andy. Emboldened by his companion-in-dimness Delingpole,no doubt,and fresh from a big suck-up to Uncle Rupert who probably assured him his job was safe despite falling numbers.

  5. john byatt says:

    Adding up the cost of coal subsidised by proxy

    do the maths

    http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Environmental_impacts_of_coal

  6. john byatt says:

    eric , keep on debating your own strawman and let us know who wins

    ” I don’t have to wrap up everything in one blog post to point out there are substantial issues with the theory that solar emissions cannot have a substantial effect on global climate.”

    • Nick says:

      Gawd, indeed another strawman, THERE IS NO theory that “solar ‘emissions’ cannot have a substantial effect on global climate”….FFS,all the IPCC ever does is present ATTRIBUTION studies about all past current and projected future forcings. The discussion of solar factors is extensive within and without the IPCC. The consensus is not upset by one E.Worralls wishful thinking.

  7. Eric Worrall says:

    Hilarious – Mann caught out lying by the cover of his own book. You don’t even have to turn to page 2.

    http://climateaudit.org/2013/04/07/clearly-distinguished/

    • john byatt says:

      you will have to explain it, must be a denier thing ?

      • Eric Worrall says:

        Fair enough, took me a few seconds to get it.

        Mann:-

        No researchers in this field have ever, to our knowledge, “grafted the thermometer record onto” any reconstruction. …

        The front cover of Mann’s book makes no distinction between the instrumental and proxy record.

      • john byatt says:

        My god i am rolling around on the floor splitting of my sides and almost shitting myself in laughter,

        Your joking right?

      • Eric Worrall says:

        I’m happy to entertain the argument that Mann was simply too careless to notice that his publishers put a misleading graph on the front of his book.

      • Eric Worrall says:

        After all, someone who claimed for years to be a recipient of the Nobel Prize might not have been lying – he might have believe it to be true, without bothering to check the rules, because of his sloppy approach to fact checking.

        http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/11/02/the-ipcc-weighs-in-on-the-mann-nobel-dilema-and-throws-him-under-the-bus/

      • Nick says:

        Oh Eric,you and your friends are so thick! Thick AND mendacious! Mann means that no one has mixed combined data without acknowledging and defining the individual sources….geez,how long are we going to put up with you and your comprehension-challenged organ-grinders?

      • Nick says:

        Mann has never plumbed McIntyre’s depths….Wegman anybody? You do know,Eric, what McI did to support his claim that MBH’s technique mined for HSs? He directed his replication code,which was not even a true replication of MBH,to mine the biggest HSs in his test run of artificial data,and then presented those as typical of the process. The code is damning. This was settled years ago,which is why the scientific community ignores McI as much as possibl.

        Only lazy gits like yourself buy the McI bluster. And Wegman,who did not check McI’s work,and reproduced the lie….along with plagiarising significant amounts of other text.

    • Sou says:

      This one is a fail, Eric as well as for Steven McIntyre, Jean S and Anthony Watts.

      1. It’s the thick line that represents the reconstruction and it stops at the end of the reconstruction. The reconstruction is not grafted onto the modern record it stops at the end of the thick line. The oval is over the instrumental record not the paleo reconstruction.

      2. It’s a drawing on a book cover, which is more evidence deniers can’t tell the difference between a book cover and a scientific paper and deniers can’t read a chart. Explains a lot.

      3. The reaction from deniosaurs provides more evidence that deniers are either ignorant in the extreme and/or tell fibs to people who they just know won’t check.

      4. It also shows deniers haven’t read the original and subsequent papers, on which the drawing was based or 1. would have been obvious, even if they didn’t notice the reconstruction stopped well before Jean S’s oval.

      The stupid it burns.

    • Another McIntyre lie. Hey ho.

  8. john byatt says:

    No eric your graph is nonsense compared to reality

    • Eric Worrall says:

      My point stands. Your excuse for why the world hasn’t warmed since 1997 is that the ocean swallowed the heat. But when I turn that argument to suggest that the post 1980 heat spike could have been the ocean yielding its heat, you completely deny the possibility – even though you expect me to believe that the ocean swallowing heat now is storing up trouble for the future.

      Your argument does not make sense.

      • john byatt says:

        The story so far from eric

        the sun is cooling but the heat from the ocean is compensating and keeping the temperature constant ( do not look at graph) bit more heat must have come out this year as temperature has gone up again

        this ocean hear will be all used up within the decade and then we go into the little ice age.

        forget the 2013 solar peak and neutral enso while figuring it all out

        got it mostly as you believe eric?

      • john byatt says:

        You also have to explain how solar variation effects the TOA energy balance eric

        you need to include that bit into your hypothesis

      • Eric Worrall says:

        Solar variation has a substantial effect on the Thermosphere. Although TSI is rather small, the effect of solar variation on extreme ultraviolet emissions is substantial. And EUV has a direct and pronounced effect on the temperature of the Thermosphere – so it is not much of a stretch to suggest it could affect other components of climate.

        http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2010/15jul_thermosphere/

        In any case, I don’t have to wrap up everything in one blog post to point out there are substantial issues with the theory that solar emissions cannot have a substantial effect on global climate.

      • Nick says:

        Hand waving Eric…you DO have do justify your attempt to relate the Thermospheric temperature gradient to the atmospheric layers below. What is the significance Eric!? You make insinuations,now flesh them out!

      • john byatt says:

        no the first one may be closer as it shows giss above Hadcrut

      • Eric Worrall says:

        Its a little difficult to know what you are trying to show, given your conflation of GISS dTs, mean Hadcrut, and unsmoothed SIDC.

        Maybe if you explain a little more, I might be able to help you present your point in its best light.

      • zoot says:

        Let me translate for you. Eric means:
        All you have to do is eschew any use of renewable energy sources and join me in advocating nuclear (and only nuclear) and I’ll agree with you.

        Right, Erric?

      • Eric Worrall says:

        Hey I still think alarmist science is a joke. But my main reason for opposing your fantasy is the harm it is likely to do to my quality of life, and the life of my little girl. If it didn’t have such a potential to impact me in an adverse way, I couldn’t care less what you believe.

      • Nick says:

        ‘Alarmist science is a joke’ says the man who quotes comedians and jesters A.Watts,Monckton and McI,plus Montford and the cartoonist whose name eludes….you could not make it up. Yes,Eric,the ‘sceptic’ ‘substance’ against climate science amounts to snark with incompetence.

        Where is their science? Why are they not exchanging papers in the conversation of science? Why are they using cartoons and caricature?

  9. john byatt says:

    Think we proved this point

    john byatt says:
    April 7, 2013 at 9:21 am
    Notice that the dullards want to add on the warming contribution from solar activity earlier in the twentieth century but not recognise the negative contribution from the later twentieth century

    seems that the claims solar variation now causing an impeding ice age is another example of a lack of any cohesion in their muddled minds

    solar only adds to warming in their world of ignorance

    A solar maunder minimum would be the equivalent cooling from a drop in atmospheric CO2 level of about 25 ppm , would hardly notice it over long term

  10. john byatt says:

    Notice that the dullards want to add on the warming contribution from solar activity earlier in the twentieth century but not recognise the negative contribution from the later twentieth century

    seems that the claims solar variation now causing an impeding ice age is another example of a lack of any cohesion in their muddled minds

    solar only adds to warming in their world of ignorance

  11. Steve says:

    It is good that Bill McKibben is coming to Australia, but slightly disappointing that he isn’t coming to South Australia this time.

    The essay you linked to is very important.

    I found the video extremely difficult understand. I have enough trouble understanding speech even without competing noise. The video has background music at the same time as narration; this made it very difficult for me to understand.

    • Watching the Deniers says:

      Agree Steve – SA would have been good. I’ll post a better video.

      Note: see the above Steve.

      M

    • Mike from 350 in Melbourne here – Perth and Adelaide will now be getting a live stream of the June 5 Canberra event. There’s an event already organised for Perth and someone in Adelaide is just lining up a screening now. Come if you can!

  12. Eric Worrall says:

    Since we’ve increased the Earth’s temperature by 0.8 degrees so far, we’re currently less than halfway to the target.

    According to Phil Jones, head of the CRU, anthropogenic forcing did not dominate the climate until around 1950, because prior to 1950, humans had simply not produced enough CO2 to make a significant difference.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8511670.stm

    Since 1950, there has only been around 0.6c of global warming, according to Hadcrut 4 figures.

    So isn’t suggesting humans were responsible for 0.8c of warming in itself a math fail? Surely natural forcings were responsible for at least some of the pre-1950 warming – for example, the period between 1860 – 1880, according to Phil Jones, saw global warming of 0.163c / decade, which must have been from natural forcings, because there simply wasn’t enough anthropogenic CO2 back then to make a difference.

    So even if you believe anthropogenic CO2 is responsible for 100% of warming since 1950, surely this means that it is only responsible for around 0.6c of global warming which we observe today?

    • Nick says:

      That is a simple way of looking at it Eric. You might consider that anthropogenic aerosols and human landuse changes to albedo have provided a varying but cumulatively negative forcing over the period.

      You cannot say all 0.2C prior to 1950 is natural just because CO2 was less dominant. Jones according to you said ‘did not dominate'; that does not mean ‘did not contribute’,eh?

      .

      • zoot says:

        Don’t worry , all we have to do is advocate nuclear and only nuclear and Erric will stop pettifogging around with his piddling little arguments.
        Won’t you Erric?

      • Eric Worrall says:

        Not so – I still think alarmist science is a joke. But my main reason for opposing your fantasy is the harm it is likely to do to my quality of life, and the life of my little girl. If it didn’t have such a potential to impact me in an adverse way, I couldn’t care less what you believe.

  13. Sou says:

    Done. Thanks for the tip.

Comments are closed.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 772 other followers

%d bloggers like this: