another kick at the climate change cat ... 34

[rb1957]

i think the problems with burning fossil fuels are that we're returning carbon to the atmosphere at an unnatural rate, and that there was a very long interval between when the carbon was deposited from the atmosphere and when it's getting returned to it.

the second problem is meant to say that bio-fuels, which take from and return to the atmosphere over a short timescale, probably won't have the same effect on the global climate as compared to fossil fuels. Though, of course, once we start doing this on a global scale and derive meaningfull amounts of energy this way then there'll be unforeseen side effects.

i think it's reasonable to say that the global climate is changing; and that this would be happening even without mankind's contributions.

i think it's reasonable to say that atmospheric CO2 levels change with climate. i think the record shows that previously (say before the 20th century) that CO2 increased sometime after the global temperature increased.

i think it's reasonable to say that the amount of carbon we putting into the atmosphere has the potential to affect global climate. this is i think too wishy-washy "for the masses" so we're being told carbon is changing the climate ... maybe a simple message but one that has divided those wanting more explanation.

once you say that then i think it's reasonable to ask is this a bad thing, ie do we want to change ? We have to acknowledge that energy is the means to developing our economies. adding hydro, geo-thermal, wind and solar power aren't bad things ... there's a cost and a benefit associated. clearly there are some places that can really benefit for these (because of sustained sunlight or wind or water resources or etc). becoming more efficient in our energy consumption is clearly a good thing, though i suspect that won't gain us significant relief. i worry that developing economies are progressing along the same energy path that the developed countries have used, and that maybe there are "better" choices today.

we can't (won't) stop burning fossil fuels, we need the cheap energy. we can be a little smarter and make power stations more efficient but essentially we're dependent on fossil fuels. we're reluctant to persue the nuclear option, though i wish more research money was being directed at fusion power which i see as the only truly long term option.

it is IMHO nonsense to talk about reducing CO2 production to 1990 (or 2000 or whatever) levels principally because developing economies (China in particular, and probably India as well) are going to be burning more and more fossil fuels. carbon sequestration is also IMHO a nonsense technology unless you're talking about growing trees (and biomass). it is also IMHO nonsense to talk about sustainability ... truly sustainable energy would mean using energy resources at the same rate as they're being created (ie no fossil fuels or nukes) or available (solar, wind, hydro, geo-thermal). but then maybe that's one answer to the question, and we'll make truly huge investments in these "green" energies so that we'll increase the fraction of energy we derive from these sources, maybe enough to significantly reduce the carbon output.

if we're going to pay taxes on carbon (through whichever scheme you choose) ... where's the money going ? what's it doing to fix the "problem" ?

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

 

[cranky108]

I think the CO2 taxation would stop global warming is a leap of faith myself. It's a requirment of every religon (blessed be the mighty gas cloud).
And I base this on the fact that no other solutions seem to be acceptable.

I also think this is a splenter group of all goverment is good, and higher taxes are better.

And yesterday I was reminded of the book 'Silent Spring' which has never been shown to be anything other than fiction, and was statest to be one of the corner posts of the enviromental movement.

 

[rconnor]

beej67, if you want to argue semantics, with regards to “CO2 taxation” in the list, it should have been “and/or”. It’s inclusion was referring to the conversation regarding BC’s carbon tax, where TGS4 stated:

Some people can point to Canada’s BC as an example – but guess what – their CO2 emissions have INCREASED, coincident with their GDP – in spite of this tax. Well, that accomplished, ummm, nothing…

It was flat out wrong. I provided an analysis of the real world data to prove it. I suppose you forgot about my post at 27 Nov 13 15:37 where I ran through a summary of the figures and provided statistical refutations against counter arguments. Read up.

GregLocock,
Well, I’ve got some good news for you! We can save that $10 billion dollars because your ideal physical experiment is exactly what climate science is doing already.

If as you suggest the climate community has always been interested in a heat based model then why has every single IPCC report emphasised a global temperature sensitivity?

I don’t suggest, it’s how it’s done already. It’s a “heat based model” where the output chosen to present to people is global average temperatures. It could be kW gained/year or whatever energy metric you want.

Consider a control volume around the earth at an altitude of 100-200 km (for example)…Energy incoming-energy radiated+energy generated internally+change of internal energy=0

Right away your talking about a model (or at least a computer program used to calculate an output when feed specific inputs) using empirical data from physical testing as it’s input. That’s how it’s done already.

The first two can be measured via satellites. The first can also be predicted fairly well, on average.

That’s how it’s done already.

The third is easy, just all the man made and natural sources of heat and EM waves that get converted to heat.

That’s how it’s done already. It’s negligible in comparison to the first term.

4.1)Other
4.2)KE and temperature of oceans
4.3)KE and temperature of atmosphere
4.4)KE and temperature of molten core of earth
4.5)strain energy in crust
4.6)PE of various system components
4.7)Chemical/radioactive (fuel) energy of various system components

That leaves 4.1 4.2 and 4.4 which are unknown, huge and poorly measured and not modellable, and huge and not measurable or modellable respectively.

4.1 - Any guesses as to what it would be? Some massive heat sink or source that we are unaware of? Maybe there’s a teapot orbiting the far side of Mercury that is causing all this extra heat to show up? Without any plausible hypothesis on what this massive heat sink or source might be, it’s an argument ad ignoratiam.

4.4 – What would this have to do with the recent changes in climate? Not much changes in the molten core on the time scales we’re talking about. As stated in term 3, any heat addition to the system is negligible in comparison with term 1. Maybe this article from NASA would help? Volcanoes, if that’s what you’re getting at, have a short term effect on climate change. Explain to me how you’d propose constructing a physical experiment that would help with our ability to predict volcanoes?

4.2 - Remember when you were talking about OHC and you talked about surface (0-700m) OHC and I gave you data for deep (700m-2000m) OHC? Then you said, deep OHC isn’t deep enough, so I gave you data for abyssal (2000+) OHC? Remember that? Argo floats, ring a bell? We have good data coming in from OHC.

As for ENSO, it is short term and has no observed mechanism that could act as a long term forcing. All research and observations into ENSO events leads us to believe it is inherently stochastic yet oscillates between positive and negative periods. So, yes, it’s not predictable but long term effects on climate trends are weak. Furthermore, how would/could a physical experiment of a short term, oscillating, inherently stochastic event help with our ability to predict it?

So not only have you just described how we currently measure and simulate our climate, you offered nothing with regards how you’d want to create a physical experiment to study the INTERACTIONS between the different aspects. This is the tricky part. We currently do this with models and then compare that with observations. When we see discrepancies, we don’t toss out the models, we look for a scientific explanation behind the difference. Once we understand that, we adjust the models and re-review the validity of the theory. That’s how science works.

Are there discrepancies? Of course. Do any of these discrepancies, when we understand the reason behind them, offer a knock-out blow to the anthropogenic climate change theory? No - if you disagree, name one; keep in mind the “pause” has been discussed 13 times. Actually, the best scientific explanation for the discrepancies usually helps solidify the theory more. The “pause” is a great example of this.

 

[beej67]

beej67, if you want to argue semantics

No, I don't want to argue semantics, that's what you're doing. I want you to link me to a "peer reviewed study" that says carbon trading or carbon taxing will arrest or reverse global warming. I anxiously anticipate the entertainment value of reading it.

I also want you to acknowledge that a climate model that erroneously doubles the net effect of one warming source, while erroneously halfing the net effect of another warming source, can give "good" results if the two sources are in reality equal contributors to warming. And since this sort of error is inherent to the "calibration" process in modeling, the models cannot be used to prove causation from a correlation simply because their results are "good."

I'll leave whether or not the current results are "good" for someone else to argue, but I would like to point out (again) that the equilibrium climate sensitivity shown in AR5 is actually about half what the IPCC says it is, purely based on an objective analysis of their own studies.


Hydrology, Drainage Analysis, Flood Studies, and Complex Stormwater Litigation for Atlanta and the South East -

http://www.campbellcivil.com