Educated" opinions on climate change - Part 4 27

[jmw]

How do you define "significant"?

We may well have altered the composition of the atmosphere.

Not hardly as much as a good volcano, but yes.

Obviously we can measure the changes and the amounts of emissions we release but measurable isn't the same, in this context, as "significant".

"Significant" has to mean that the change has some impact on other parameters. That is what the AGW camp would have us believe and what the "deniers" deny.

Saying we have "incontrovertibly altered the atmosphere in a geological nanosecond" does not do anything but add more colourful and emotive language to the debate.

JMW

http://www.ViscoAnalyser.com

 

[moltenmetal]

No volcano in recorded human history has increased atmospheric CO2 concetnration by anything nearly 100 ppm. That's what we've done since 1832, based on the ice core CO2 data. Look at the curve- eruptions the size of Mt. St. Helens hardly register as a blip.

Don't believe the ice core data? OK, fine. We did about 80 ppm of that 100 ppm since 1960. That's not speculation, or model output, or measurements based on trapped samples of gas- those are EASILY PERFORMED DIRECT MEASUREMENTS of the atmosphere itself.

That's relative to a 2009 mean concentration somewhere in the range of 390 ppm.

Increasing a non-trace component of the atmosphere by some 35 percent is what I'd term significant. More significant than extincting a few hundred or thousand species, which we've also done.

Is the effect on climate as significant as our alteration of the forest cover on entire continents? I don't know- but we've done that too.

Still think humans are too puny to affect the earth's climate?!

 

[TPL]

Since 1832 atmospheric CO2 concetnration has increased by 100ppm

80 ppm of that 100 ppm increase has taken place since 1960

That's not speculation, or model output, or measurements based on trapped samples of gas- those are EASILY PERFORMED DIRECT MEASUREMENTS of the atmosphere itself

Can't dispute any of your numbers - not that I would try but what evidence do you have to show that these changes are wholly or partly attributable to human activity?.

 

[moltenmetal]

A clear hint is that the shape of the concentration versus time curve happens to map very nicely on anthropogenic CO2 emission estimates over the same time period.

There is a carbon cycle, with carbon sources and sinks of both natural and man-made variety, which have both steady state and dynamic dependences on numerous factors. But the basic carbon balance in the atmosphere is far easier to model than it is to model the overall climate. And the trend in both MEASURED atmospheric CO2 AND estimated total anthropogenic CO2 emissions is unmistakeable.

Those who don't buy that increased CO2 concentrations put us at risk of harmful effects on climate, or who argue that our best efforts to control our CO2 emissions won't be enough so why bother trying at all, or that Gaia will take care of it (or make it far worse) regardless what we do, or who argue that the whole climactic system is inherently too complex to predict any outcomes from so there's no point in taking mitigating action- those people I can at least understand their arguments, although I don't share their point of view.

Those who deny that humans are "big" enough to affect the earth's climate, I sincerely ask to give their heads a shake. I'm sorry, but I have a hard time respecting that position given the atmospheric CO2 concentration data.

The only question is, are we "big" enough to change it back? I have no definite answer to that question. The more I read here, the more depressed I get- the less likely it seems that humankind will even TRY, sincerely, to bring those CO2 emissions down, given the reluctance of even engineers to take a risk management approach to the problem like we do with just about everything else- things with far less consequence to human life than this issue could represent. No, too many of us want proof- of the smoking gun variety, first, before doing anything- proof we will NEVER EVER HAVE.

I am utterly convinced that we should be doing whatever we can to preserve those precious, finite and valuable fossil petroleum resources rather than squandering them, whether global climate impact is one of the unintended consequences or not. Indeed that is the very least we can and should do, regardless what the models tell us.

 

[TGS4]

moltenmetal - very insightful posts - much appreciated. Does the concentration of CO2 have a direct correlation to global temperature increase? Not a causal relationship, but a direct correlation - or is the earth heating from something else that coincides with an increase in CO2? Those are the questions that trouble me the most regarding AGW.

I don't doubt that humans put additional CO2 into the atmosphere, we have been burning a lot of carbon-based fuels, plus we have been cutting down a lot of trees. But, I don't see the relationship to temperature change.

 

[rhodie]

There are 6 billion +plus human beings walking the earth today.

500 years ago, there were 500 million people walking the earth.

In 1960, that number had increased to 2.97 billion.

From 1960 to now, the delta is at least 3.1 B people. Of course there is going to be atmospheric differences. Short of purging 52% of the world's population, that atmospheric data is going to show some change.

World Population Data Source

My statement reflects that the earth has endured significant changes in supported life; and yet it seems only in the past 15 years have we begun a concerted effort to understand that ability. And even still, the 'culprit' is being identified as the very mechanisms and techniques used to facilitate population growth.

It's not a climate issue, it's a sanctity of life issue. I see nothing but self-loathing being the tangible result.

 

[SomptingGuy]

"Of course"

The term oft used when there is no real evidence.

- Steve

 

[TPL]

A clear hint is that...
A hint?? A hint is not evidence, it's just a pointer to something worth investigating further

And the trend in both MEASURED atmospheric CO2 AND estimated total anthropogenic CO2 emissions is unmistakeable.
Estimated? How good is the estimate? Even if the estimate is really good, what does the trend tell us - probably no more than the atmospheric CO2 concentrations are going up - but without other evidence, it tells us nothing about the cause?

The only question is, are we "big" enough to change it back?
This is not the only question - any half decent RCA would consider all posibilities and then go through a process of elimination so that only the most likely causes are remaining - what has happened here is that far too many people have jumped on the man-made CO2 hypothesis because it represents a money making opportunity.
What about CO2 changes resulting from variations in the distance between the earth and the sun? What about the influence of vairations in Solar wind?

No, too many of us want proof- of the smoking gun variety, first, before doing anything- proof we will NEVER EVER HAVE
Being asked to believe without having any proof is a statement of religion. A good balance of probability would do for me, but I don't even see that in the man-made CO2 argument.

I am utterly convinced that we should be doing whatever we can to preserve those precious, finite and valuable fossil petroleum resources rather than squandering them, whether global climate impact is one of the unintended consequences or not. Indeed that is the very least we can and should do, regardless what the models tell us.
At last, something we can agree on - I am 100% with you on this

 

[rhodie]

@ SomptingGuy

My response is in reply to data that reflects atmospheric change. Short of making my head implode due to nested root cause, I'm not sure that your 'of course' comment is applicable...

 

[SomptingGuy]

rhodie:

I was just questioning your basic argument strategy/language. Phrases like "of course", "quite clearly" and "obviously" are aimed at slipping in a position sans evidence. No personal slur. No real position in this argument. Just being vigilant.

- Steve

 

[Laplacian]

This is just a general response not directed at anyone in particular.

This whole issue regardless of the side taken is not going to be solved by policy or politics or technology. Technology has just enabled population to increase. The population needs to stay warm in the winter, and wants to stay cool in the summer. The population must consume certain things to survive, and wants to consume frivolous things when survival is not thier top priority. A major catastrophy is the only thing that will cause the population to make a step change in required and desired behaviour.

I take the stance that I really don't care what happens as I have no control over the outcome. I can only worry about my immediate responsibilies of supporting my family. I will adapt or perish either way, as will my children. The more we conserve now only enables the population to grow further. I do not waste needlessly, but I don't obsess over conservation either. There is too much to enjoy in this life to allow issues such as these to taint one's soul.

 

[jmw]

I do think Man can have an influence on the environment.

Forget CO2.

Forget volcanoes and CO2.

Think instead that one good volcano can produce sufficient particulates to bring about a noticeable chilling.

9/11 saw global air travel shut down for a while.

The drop in particulates was measurable and possibly significant... the temp went up.

Of course, the temperature might have gone up because it was a weather thing, not a climate thing and not a pollution thing.

But we do know quite a bit about the effects of particulates on our weather and if we do something really big or keep it up long enough, just maybe we can even affect climate.
We have far fewer uncertainties with chilling.
Worse, we can get significant effects from comparatively small changes - e.g. fuel sulphur reduction. Maybe the shift from coal to oil and gas has so reduced particulates that we think we are seeing warming and really all we are seeing is less chilling.
Maybe chilling has been masking warming (Anthropogenic or not).

But particulates could be the Weather Nuke while CO2 is a damp squib.
That's why the ecoengineers want to go for artificial volcanoes - particulates!
And SOX in particular (no pun intended).

Of course, it could be these guys like the dramatic end of the reel finish: clip the blue wire or the green wire?

Or nuke the asteroid.

Of course, what they're proposing is pretty drastic and damned expensive.

BUT we're not 100% sure what the problem is we're supposed to be trying to fix.
A lot of people argue we are in a ice age, or coming out of one.
And solar activity is at a 50 year low; maybe the sort of low associated with the "Maunder Minimums." e.g. the little ice age.

So we do something really clever to stop global warming and bingo! we freeze our butts off.

The really scary thing is that IF we have caused global warming, we've done it over quite an extended period of time through a steady stream of pollutants.

These Jokers want a quick fix. The big bang and everyone a hero.

Think about about it.

WE don't have a good record of well-intentioned meddling and what we propose isn't a long term series of tinkering with a park where hopefully we put what we learned wrecking one park into saving a park that can be saved, we're going to fix an entire planet all in one go.

If I didn't think we could affect our atmosphere, our weather, and even our climate, not even if we really put our minds to it, "Fine" I'd say, "fine, go ahead and see if I care" - at least we'll still have a planet.

But these guys won't want to mess around for years with some incremental solution where at every step you pause, collect the data, consider what you've achieved (learn) and then adjust your response; these guys are going to want to go for the one time fix it big and fix it quick solutions.

Tell me where in all these fix it scenarios is the project plan with the KPIs and the milestones, the check and balances? When do we stop and take an objective look at the achievement so far? Is it in any of the plans? If we get it wrong, where is our recovery position? Where are the contingency plans if we discover CO2 is ineffective or hat we fired aup a few volcanoes we can't switch off and we are actually in a new little ice age.. even a little tiny one, coupled with our AGW plans could see an irretrievable disaster.

When you let go with a nuke, its an either/or situation, you're never just a little bit pregnant.

The assumption appears to be:
[ul][li]Man caused global warming. Don't argue.[/li]
[li]Man can Fix it. No question, just give us enough money[/li]
[li]There is no argument. Give us your money.[/li]
[li]We know we're right and we don't need cehcks s o therefore we are going to just go ahead and fix it.[/li]
[li]We don't need any delays or long drawn out processes, let's just do it (for the Gipper?)![/li][/ul]

I recall that Boeing report (I mentioned t on another thread) where they claimed that 80% (or some such figure) of failures are caused by maintenance.

This is the biggest maintenance project in town and this ain't a 747. If something goes wrong it we'd better have a reserve planet to hand.

So yes, I'm worried.

I'm worried that some of these guys have latched onto schemes and mechanisms that we know only too well can have a significant effect on climate.

I'm worried they may want to fix in an afternoon what took a few decades to create.
I'm worried they may even be addressing the wrong problem.






JMW

http://www.ViscoAnalyser.com

 

[moltenmetal]

TPL: I bet you don't "believe" cigarettes cause cancer, either.

Engineers don't need a firm causal relationship to take precautionary action. Low probability times high severity STILL merits mitigating action- and I for one don't confuse uncertainty with low probability in relation to this issue. Calling that "religion" is a total misrepresentation!

We ARE working on the preponderance of the evidence, analyzed and agreed to by the majority of people who actually study the subject for a living. The systems in question are FAR too complex to permit a firm causal link to be established to everyone's satisfaction FIRST before we do something about it. Too many here and elsewhere confuse the normal scientific process of debate, alternative hypothesis, analysis and the generation of a normative consensus, with some kind of fantasyland notion of science where everyone agrees and there's no need for debate.

Even if we do agree on the risk of anthropogenic climate change, we can still argue about what mitigating actions make sense, what they'll cost and how they should be paid for.

I view the AGW risk to be yet another compelling reason we should be spending money- serious money- toward kicking our fossil fuel addiction. I'm of the opinion that only those actions which actually minimize the consumption of the fossil fuels themselves merit serious consideration. Actions such as carbon sequestration, which actually HASTEN our consumption of the source fossil fuels by reducing the overall energy efficiency of the process of obtaining energy from them, should be viewed with a jaundiced eye.

 

[moltenmetal]

laplacian: none of us here are any less entitled to the resources we need to survive than anyone in previous generations were.

None of us are entitled to waste, though.

We're squandering a finite resource at a shameful rate, and generating huge negative consequences at the same time, whether you consider AGW or not.

Unfortunately, far too many people feel that they are entitled to consume whatever they can "afford". Since I bear consequences from their consumption, their consumption becomes my business. So yes, I care what you do- I just wish I didn't have to.

The first step toward making everyone mindful of how much they consume is by making fossil energy EXPENSIVE- not simply by permitting those who won the geological lottery to charge more for it as it becomes scarcer. We need to tax fossil fuels to provide both a disincentive against unnecessary, wasteful consumption AND to provide assistance to those who want to reduce their consumption but can't afford the capital to do so. And we need to adjust the taxes until we see the behavior changes we all need- energy consumption has a lot of price "elasticity".

 

[jmw]

Moltenmetla;
smoking is associated with cancers, yes. But that isn't the whole story.
Smokers are at risk from a range of cancers but they are also at less risk to a range of other cancers than non-smokers.

But don't lets have any red herrings.

The precautionary principle has been decried by a number of people and discussed before in these threads.
It isn't a "no-brainer".

Engineers don't need a firm causal relationship to take precautionary action.

Science does require a causal relationship which is why the climate change camp have criticised solar scientists who would link sun spot activity with climate change - the attraction of the link between the "Maunder Minimum" and the little ice age not-withstanding.

But I'd be happy to accept your proposal and say that on that basis, the sun does provide major forcing of the climate and the "evidence" at the moment, suggests we are in for some cold weather.

BUT note: what that acceptance of solar activity as a factor in climate does suggest is that the climate models are imprecise because there is a possible mechanism that cannot be and is not accounted for in their model. For solar activity to be excluded requires that either they can show that solar activity is not a forcing factor or that hey declare this an interesting hypothesis and that we need to investigate further before we can make any sort of predictions.

...and agreed to by the majority of people who actually study the subject for a living.

Er, the Manhattan declaration?
Some consensus.
And no, consensus isn't what science is about either.
The test of the science is for the raw data to be separately interpreted to see if the original results can be duplicated.

If only the fundamental work were more reliable and if only they would release the computer code so the means by which predictions have been made could be analysed independently.

Then too there is a great deal of concern over the way in which the data is presented, analysed and interpreted.

This link, for example, looks at another of the claims about temperature rise:

http://rankexploits.com/musings/2009/source-of-fishy-odor-confirmed-rahmstorf-did-change-smoothing/

We still have yet to establish that getting warmer is worse than getting colder... Yes, OK, warm weather leads to more deaths in the summer but it also leads to far fewer deaths in the warmer winters... yet that isn't waht the latest UN panel report said.

Openness is an essential requirement yet getting the unadulterated GISS data out into the open was like pulling teeth and we still have a problem getting a public servant to release computer code written and funded by the taxpayer so that it too may be scrutinised. These are not great conditions for the precautionary principle to operate under.

If we had that openness and we had honest debate then maybe, just maybe the precautionary principle could move up the agenda.

The temperature data manipulations are questionable. The original temperature data is suspect (

http://www.surfacetemperature.org)

and the corrections for urban heat island hotly debated.

Even if we do agree on the risk of anthropogenic climate change, we can still argue about what mitigating actions make sense, what they'll cost and how they should be paid for.

see the links to Blomberg.

We can benefit far more people through a modest investment in malaria than we can through the much higher cost of addressing CO2.

But if you want to look at cost/benefit then the ecoengineers who want sunshades in space and artificial volcanoes may be right.... if global warming is the problem.

But how ironic that the climate change camp have moved on from "global warming" to "abrupt climate change" to some other damn expression coined by Obama's climate advisor/guru, but the mechanisms proposed (and according to the precautionary principle we should do it anyway even if we are wrong about change)are not actually about climate change, abrupt or otherwise; they are still all geared to just one scenario - warming.

If it is truly about change then we need a solution that will allow us a cooling mechanism to counter a trend for warming and a warming mechanism for when the trend is to cooling.

We also need to be able to monitor the relationship between the warming or cooling and our response to it and be able to manage the effect effectively (I'm sure engineers would agree to that).

And we need to apply the right solution at the right time.
Because of the control lag we need some kind off feed forward control and we need to be able to make much more reliable predictions than now - in fact a major problem with the climate change models is that they are proving very poor at predictions.

In other words, even though we don't have a clear unequivocal idea of what the problem is neither do we have a good solution. Without that we have no way to implement a precautionary principle that is effective against change.

Of course, if the activists would revert back to a single problem, global warming, then we might get somewhere because we could just consider countering warming.





JMW

http://www.ViscoAnalyser.com

 

[TPL]

TPL: I bet you don't "believe" cigarettes cause cancer, either

So how did you draw that conclusion? Actually I believe that there is more than enough evidence to show that smoking does signifciantly increase the risk of developnig cancer.

From the 1940's and 50's 'Big Tobacco' companies also knew that their products were extremely damaging to the health of those who used them and used denial and suppression of this evidence, along with massive cover ups, and campaigns of misinformation to present a more benign image of the product to the consumer. All this was done to maintain their financial well being. Sound familiar??

 

[jmw]

Michael Crichton, in his book "State of Fear" draws a comparison not with the smoking campaigns but more appositely, with the Eugenics theories of the early 20th century.
The similarities between eugenics then (California, one of 23 such states, passed sterilisation laws and enthusiastically employed them) and climate change now are alarming.

The precautionary principle at work?

JMW

http://www.ViscoAnalyser.com

 

[moltenmetal]

TPL: yep, go for the ad hominem, just because you don't like my analogy. That's a sure sign of a weak position.

Does the cigarette analogy sound familiar? Umm, to me it sounds EXACTLY like the petroleum-industry funded anti-AGW camp. Spend the money to sew the seeds of dissent in the hope of staving off the inevitable for a while, to maximize the ability to generate profit in the interim. Ethics aside, it's a very sound business investment! It bought the tobacco industry another 30 years- why wouldn't the petroleum industry get on board?

I don't disagree with you that there are vested interests who stand to benefit on BOTH sides of this debate- it just seems to me that one group has one of the planet's most profitable industries on its side, while the other for the most part makes do with government research funding. If it's a battle of vested interests, I know which side wins.

jmw: consensus determines the prevailing theory. A better theory may yet present itself, shifting the paradigm. But for now, we DO have a prevailing theory with a vastly smaller camp in dissent. You can argue that the consensus is wrong, and you can rightly remind people that it is not a universal monolithic consensus, but you can't deny that a consensus exists on this issue amongst climatologists.

I'm not advocating "doing something"- I'm advocating NOT doing something- reducing the rate at which we burn through our precious and FINITE reserves of fossil fuels. I'm not advocating population control, carbon sequestration or planetary climate engineering- to do those things in response to the finite but unquantified risk of AGW are not sensible in my view.

You can argue that there are better places for us to spend our money rather than on reducing our fossil fuel consumption, such as your suggestion to tackle malaria. I don't disagree with you on that poin. However I understand full well why malaria isn't receiving the attention it deserves as a global issue and ALSO know that the money we don't spend on mitigating AGW will NEVER be spent on reducing malaria. The whole argument is a straw man, just like those who feign concern for what will happen to the poor if we make fuels more expensive. Honestly I don't think you can legitimately argue that reducing the rate at which we piss through these precious feedstocks is anything other than to humankind's collective benefit.

 

[CajunCenturion]

I'm not advocating "doing something"- I'm advocating NOT doing something

Actually, you are advocating doing something. You're advocating the introduction of socialistic tax policy so that rich pays for the consumption by the poor.

We need to tax fossil fuels to provide both a disincentive against unnecessary, wasteful consumption AND to provide assistance to those who want to reduce their consumption but can't afford the capital to do so.

Tax the rich to pay for the poor.


Good Luck
--------------
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein

 

[moltenmetal]

Better than taxing everyone to pay for the waste of a few-

But even if you put the tax money in a pile and burn it, rather than giving it to the poor (or the landlords of the poor, more properly), we'd still be farther ahead than we are now. Suddenly there'd be a payback on investments to reduce energy consumption and to generate renewable energy.

What I meant was that the actions I'm suggesting are entirely reversible. If we discover tomorrow that CO2 emissions are actually beneficial, we can switch back to squander mode the next day. The analogy to eugenics etc. is total hogwash.