Earth's Energy Imbalance and Implications

Improving observations of ocean heat content show that Earth is absorbing more energy from the sun than it is radiating to space as heat, even during the recent solar minimum. The inferred planetary energy imbalance, 0.59 \pm 0.15 W/m2 during the 6-year period 2005-2010, confirms the dominant role of the human-made greenhouse effect in driving global climate change. Observed surface temperature change and ocean heat gain together constrain the net climate forcing and ocean mixing rates. We conclude that most climate models mix heat too efficiently into the deep ocean and as a result underestimate the negative forcing by human-made aerosols. Aerosol climate forcing today is inferred to be 1.6 \pm 0.3 W/m2, implying substantial aerosol indirect climate forcing via cloud changes. Continued failure to quantify the specific origins of this large forcing is untenable, as knowledge of changing aerosol effects is needed to understand future climate change. We conclude that recent slowdown of ocean heat uptake was caused by a delayed rebound effect from Mount Pinatubo aerosols and a deep prolonged solar minimum. Observed sea level rise during the Argo float era is readily accounted for by ice melt and ocean thermal expansion, but the ascendency of ice melt leads us to anticipate acceleration of the rate of sea level rise this decade.Comment: 39 pages, 18 figures; revised version submitted to Atmos. Chem. Phy

Climate Forcing Growth Rates: Doubling Down on Our Faustian Bargain

Rahmstorf et al 's (2012) conclusion that observed climate change is comparable to projections, and in some cases exceeds projections, allows further inferences if we can quantify changing climate forcings and compare those with projections. The largest climate forcing is caused by well-mixed long-lived greenhouse gases. Here we illustrate trends of these gases and their climate forcings, and we discuss implications. We focus on quantities that are accurately measured, and we include comparison with fixed scenarios, which helps reduce common misimpressions about how climate forcings are changing. Annual fossil fuel CO2 emissions have shot up in the past decade at about 3/yr, double the rate of the prior three decades (figure 1). The growth rate falls above the range of the IPCC (2001) 'Marker' scenarios, although emissions are still within the entire range considered by the IPCC SRES (2000). The surge in emissions is due to increased coal use (blue curve in figure 1), which now accounts for more than 40 of fossil fuel CO2 emissions

Response to Comment on 'Prevented Mortality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Historical and Projected Nuclear Power'

Sovacool et al.'s analysis of our paper contains numerous errors, misinterpretations, and dubious assumptions. For instance, we make no presumption in our paper that nuclear power is the only major option to replace fossil fuels nor have we in the past, as evidenced by our other peer-reviewed publications. Furthermore, all of our results are based on complete fuel cycle analysis and are presented as mean values along with their ranges. Thus it is incorrect to claim that we single out the worst estimates for coal mortality. Contrary to Sovacool et al.'s assertions, our only bias is our belief that humanity's best chance of success for mitigating the daunting challenge of climate change is to utilize all available and proven means

Response to Comment by Rabilloud on 'prevented Mortality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Historical and Projected Nuclear Power'

The critique by Rabilloud-whose only listed professional affiliation is an antinuclear activist groupis grossly biased and contains numerous misleading, hyperbolic, and erroneous claims about our paper2 and about nuclear energy in general. The nature of his comments bears a striking resemblance to the fallacious reasoning commonly employed by climate change deniers to try to undermine public concern about the climate crisis. Specifically, he resorts to cherry-picking of information and diversionary (red herring) arguments, demands unrealistic exactness, and cites untrustworthy sources. None of his claims undermine any of the key results of our paper, most notably our conclusion that nuclear energy has prevented, and can continue to prevent, a very high number of fatalities and very large greenhouse gas emissions due to fossil fuel burning. It follows that, as uncomfortable as it is for many well-intentioned environmentalists to admit, efforts to undermine nuclear energy also undermine mitigation of climate change and air pollution, with a heavy cost in human lives and potentially disastrous future climate change

Prevented Mortality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions From Historical and Projected Nuclear Power

In the aftermath of the March 2011 accident at Japan's Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant, the future contribution of nuclear power to the global energy supply has become somewhat uncertain. Because nuclear power is an abundant, low-carbon source of base-load power, it could make a large contribution to mitigation of global climate change and air pollution. Using historical production data, we calculate that global nuclear power has prevented an average of 1.84 million air pollution-related deaths and 64 gigatonnes of CO2-equivalent (GtCO2-eq) greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions that would have resulted from fossil fuel burning. On the basis of global projection data that take into account the effects of the Fukushima accident, we find that nuclear power could additionally prevent an average of 420 0007.04 million deaths and 80240 GtCO2-eq emissions due to fossil fuels by midcentury, depending on which fuel it replaces. By contrast, we assess that large-scale expansion of unconstrained natural gas use would not mitigate the climate problem and would cause far more deaths than expansion of nuclear power

Climate Sensitivity, Sea Level, and Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide

Cenozoic temperature, sea level and CO2 covariations provide insights into climate sensitivity to external forcings and sea-level sensitivity to climate change. Climate sensitivity depends on the initial climate state, but potentially can be accurately inferred from precise palaeoclimate data. Pleistocene climate oscillations yield a fast-feedback climate sensitivity of 3+/-1deg C for a 4 W/sq m CO2 forcing if Holocene warming relative to the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM) is used as calibration, but the error (uncertainty) is substantial and partly subjective because of poorly defined LGM global temperature and possible human influences in the Holocene. Glacial-to-interglacial climate change leading to the prior (Eemian) interglacial is less ambiguous and implies a sensitivity in the upper part of the above range, i.e. 3-4deg C for a 4 W/sq m CO2 forcing. Slow feedbacks, especially change of ice sheet size and atmospheric CO2, amplify the total Earth system sensitivity by an amount that depends on the time scale considered. Ice sheet response time is poorly defined, but we show that the slow response and hysteresis in prevailing ice sheet models are exaggerated. We use a global model, simplified to essential processes, to investigate state dependence of climate sensitivity, finding an increased sensitivity towards warmer climates, as low cloud cover is diminished and increased water vapour elevates the tropopause. Burning all fossil fuels, we conclude, would make most of the planet uninhabitable by humans, thus calling into question strategies that emphasize adaptation to climate change

Pengaruh Profitabilitas, Ukuran Perusahaan, dan Risiko Keuangan Terhadap Perataan Laba

ABSTRAK Laba merupakan salah satu komponen penting dalam laporan keuangan yang dapat dijadikan sebagai alat ukur dalam menilai kinerja suatu perusahaan. Perusahaan yang memiliki laba yang berfluktuasi dinilai memiliki kinerja yang kurang baik. Perataan laba adalah strategi yang digunakan oleh manajemen perusahaan untuk menghindari laba yang berfluktuasi dengan cara menurunkan atau meningkatkan laba yang dilaporkan agar laba terlihat stabil sesuai dengan apa yang telah diperhitungkan sebelumnya oleh perusahaan. Perataan laba diproksikan menggunakan Indeks Eckel (1981). Variabel yang digunakan dalam penelitian ini menggunakan dua jenis variabel, yaitu variabel independen (profitabilitas, ukuran perusahaan, dan risiko keuangan) dan variabel dependen (perataan laba). Tujuan dari penelitian ini adalah untuk mengetahui pengaruh variabel Profitabilitas (ROA), Ukuran Perusahaan (UP), dan Risiko Keuangan (DER) terhadap perataan laba. Dalam penelitian ini objek yang digunakan pada perusahaan sektor property, real estate, dan konstruksi bangunan yang terdaftar di Bursa Efek Indonesia (BEI) tahun 2013 sampai dengan tahun 2017. Dalam penelitian ini menggunakan metode kuantitatif. Pengujian hipotesis dalam penelitian ini menggunakan analisis statistik deskriptif dan analisis regresi logistik dengan menggunakan software SPSS 25.0. Teknik pengambilan sampel dalam penelitian ini menggunakan teknik purposive sampling sehingga menghasilkan 35 sampel perusahaan dalam kurun waktu lima tahun yaitu sebanyak 175 unit sampel data. Metode analisis data yang digunakan dalam penelitian ini adalah analisis regresi logistik yang diolah menggunakan software SPSS 25. Berdasarkan hasil penelitian, dapat ditarik kesimpulan bahwa adanya pengaruh antara variabel profitabilitas, ukuran perusahaan, dan risiko keuangan secara simultan terhadap perataan laba. Secara parsial hanya risiko keuangan (DER) yang memiliki pegaruh positif dan signifikan terhadap perataan laba, sedangkan profitabilitas (ROA) dan ukuran perusahaan tidak berpengaruh signifikan terhadap perataan laba. Bagi investor, hasil dari penelitian ini dapat menjadi salah satu informasi serta diharapkan lebih berhati-hati dalam pengambilan keputusan dalam berinvestasi pada perusahaan. Investor disarankan agar memperhatikan terhadap tingkat risiko keuangan yang tinggi, karena risiko keuangan memiliki pengaruh terhadap perataan laba khususnya pada perusahaan sektor property, real estate, dan konstruksi bangunan periode 2013-2017. Kata kunci: Perataan laba, Profitabilitas, Ukuran Perusahaan, Risiko Keuanga

Implications of energy and CO2 emission changes in Japan and Germany after the Fukushima accident.

Following the March 2011 nuclear power plant accident in Fukushima, Japan, nuclear power production declined sharply in that country as well as Germany. Despite widespread media coverage of CO2 emission increases in the first few years afterward, subsequent energy and emission changes and their implications are not well-studied. Here we analyze energy, electricity, and CO2 emissions data for both countries through 2017. We also quantify the human health and CO2 implications of two simple yet illuminating scenarios: What if both countries had reduced fossil fuel power output instead of nuclear? And what if the US and the rest of Europe eliminate their remaining nuclear power? We find that emissions increased after Fukushima until 2013 but decreased thereafter due to record-high renewable energy production and lower total energy use. However our “what if” scenarios demonstrate that these two countries could have prevented 28,000 air pollution-induced deaths and 2400 MtCO2 emissions between 2011 and 2017. Germany can still prevent 16,000 deaths and 1100 MtCO2 emissions by 2035 by reducing coal instead of eliminating nuclear as planned. If the US and the rest of Europe follow Germany's example they could lose the chance to prevent over 200,000 deaths and 14,000 MtCO2 emissions by 2035

Target atmospheric CO2: Supporting material

Additional material supporting the article "Target atmospheric CO2: Where should humanity aim?"Comment: 27 pages, 21 figures; final version accepted by Open Science Atmospheric Journal; main article separately submitted to arXiv as "Target atmospheric CO2: Where should humanity aim?", arxiv:0804.112