Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road... 43

[ewh]

What is the reputation of the NIPCC (Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change, a organization of 50 "top" scientists) in the engineering community? I really don't know how reliable they are, but a study (Climate Change Reconsidered II) produced by them and published by the Heartland Institute (an organization which espouses other ideas I disagree with) claims to be "double peer reviewed" and presents a seemingly well-founded arguement that AGW is a political red herring.
I am not a climate scientist, but thought that this was a good example of one side of the differing dogmas surrounding the issue. Just how is a layman supposed to make sense of these opposing arguments?

http://climatechangereconsidered.org/

or the summary

http://heartland.org/media-library/pdfs/CCR-II/Summary-for-Policymakers.pdf

“Know the rules well, so you can break them effectively.”
-Dalai Lama XIV

 

[cranky108]

You do know that as people get older they typically become more consertive, and the reason why is they learn the truth about goverments.
So the issue is you want me to believe goverment is good, and I know it is corrupt and bad (why don't you know this).

 

[beej67]

Piers Forster, same Forster as above, even debunks the article.

Not really. From your link:

Summary:
These are two reasons why the Lewis & Crok estimates of future warming may be biased low. Nevertheless, their methods indicate that we can expect a further 2.1°C of warming by 2081-2100 using the business-as-usual RCP 8.5 emissions scenario, much greater than the 0.8°C warming already witnessed.

What does the IPCC say the equilibrium climate sensitivity is again?

Oh, right. In AP4 it said it was 3°C. In AP5, it now says this:

No best estimate for equilibrium climate sensitivity can now be given because of a lack of agreement on values across assessed lines of evidence and studies.

Quick! Someone start crafting policy!

All, still no rebuttals to my post at 4 Apr 14 17:45?

I'm still waiting for someone to explain to me how quadrupling the measured greenhouse effects of carbon while ignoring the warming effects of other things that follow the same (human population growth) hockey stick is good science. It might match data, but it doesn't prove squat. You can't use a calibrated model as proof, particularly when you calibrate your model outside the bounds of the physical properties of the thing you're calibrating it to. See my post, 7 Apr 14 10:35.

Oh, and I'm also still waiting on someone to tackle the other ten highly spurious links between "globe is warming" and "carbon credits will fix it." For instance, if you're right that CO2 is the only cause of global warming, then there's no way to stop it, and the only way to reduce it to the rate it was warming before the industrial revolution is to completely eliminate all carbon emissions. Not to trade them or tax them, to eliminate them.

Even if everything you're saying about CO2 being the only cause of warming is true, my policy conclusion is still the same. Quit trying in vain to stop it (which is impossible) and start preparing to live on a warmer planet.

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

http://www.campbellcivil.com

 

[rconnor]

Adjustment – that’s not a defense, that’s an unsupported statement. Furthermore, that unsupported statement has NOTHING to do with addressing any of my comments regarding models. Adjustments were made to volcanoes, ENSO and anthropogenic aerosols – three things that are stochastic. The first two have only short term effects and the latter is not a solution to balancing CO2 emissions (and given the outcry of air quality issues in China, there is significant pressure to reduce aerosol emissions there). Feedbacks, forcings, heat transfer all remain untouched and demonstrate excellent agreement with observations. You haven’t addressed anything relevant.

Furthermore, you say “the models have over-estimated the temperatures. Period.”, which I’ve explicitly shown to be patently false. It’s wrong. Period…well actually we can go on to so it’s wrong that it actually validates the accuracy of the models. Exclamation Mark.

Ad Hominem Attacks – The problem is that I DO attack their arguments. Also, let’s review your examples of my many counts of ad hominem attacks:
Lawson – What? He wasn’t the author of the report. Nic Lewis (amateur climate scientists) and Marcel Crok (freelance writer) were. Yes, I stated their relationship to the field of climate science. I never said that it automatically discounts what they have to say – it just means that I, as a skeptic, might be a bit more skeptical over the accuracy of their statements. When you review the accuracy of their statements, they begin to fall apart. I then referenced an article by the author of the paper they misrepresented to come to a false conclusion (which you’ve offered no defense to). The fact that they misrepresented the science to come to a false conclusion isn’t because they are or are not professional climate scientists though. A false conclusion is a false conclusion.

Pielke – I provided 6 links to papers/articles that debunk his claims regarding extreme weather events (which you’ve offered no defense to). That’s not ad hominem, that’s clearing up a poorly cherry-picked argument.

Curry – All I said was that I couldn’t recommend her site as a credible, unbiased source for information due to recent arguments that have been demonstrated to be nothing but [link ://tamino.wordpress.com/2014/01/28/judith-curry-responds-sort-of/]sophism[/url].

It’s not my fault they present poor arguments and it’s not an ad hominem to point out a bad argument. Saying so is trying to insulate their opinions from criticism, which is a common tacit by “skeptics”. The sensitivity of “skeptics” to criticism is rather ironic given the definition of skepticism (not to mention the countless ad hominem attack pieces on WUWT).

Silver Lining – The “Doom” you speak of isn’t a post-apocalyptic wasteland, it is a collection of severe issues that affect different places differently. It’s likely that my location would benefit from a warmer planet (at least for a little while). However, some of the worst consequences will occur in some of the poorest areas on the planet. Our general apathy towards such areas isn’t a reason to not do anything to prevent it. This is a GLOBAL ISSUE, we’ve got to stop thinking about ourselves, our city or even our country when you discuss it.

beej67, firstly read the first line of the summary you quoted.

Secondly, the “no best estimate” doesn’t mean “we have no idea”. They specify a RANGE (which you conveniently forgot to include) but just aren’t saying what value, within that range, is their best estimate. You purposefully took that quote out of context.

Thirdly, feedbacks (which are validated quite nicely by observations…see the graphs I provided). Read up…I can’t spoon feed you every single aspect of climate science.

 

[TGS4]

rconnor - I can see that your belief in the doom and gloom in your version of what you think is science is firmly entrenched. When every line of evidence only furthers your position, and every counterclaim against catastrophe is met with absolute resistance, I think that there is no hope for you. You claim to be (or have been) skeptical of the IPCC line - and now you have "seen the light". In all of my discussions, you are the rare exception - the vast majority of people are the other way around. I don't understand why many who hold a similar belief as you need catastrophe or doom.1

I have absolute confidence and faith in the ability of humanity to adapt to whatever change happens. And if we really want to lift people out of poverty so that they can better adapt, we need to provide them with cheap energy - primarily electricity. Right now that is only possible with fossil fuels. You cla to think about a global community. BS. Really lifting people out of poverty is the antithesis of the CAGW movement - all of their solutions on a global basis (forget your revenue neutral CO2 tax idea on anything other than a local basis) will result in real energy poverty which means true poverty. And that is much worse today than the forecast boogeyman of 100 years hence.

I don't have the time to rebut your so-called science because I have better things to do - like enjoy time with the next generation aka my kids. I see an extremely bright future for them, provided we don't kill their prosperity with policies determined to kill prosperity.

Good day. And may you and your progeny live long and prosper.

 

[2dye4]

""I don't understand why many who hold a similar belief as you need catastrophe or doom""

Nobody needs catastrophe or doom ( except perhaps those who look to make a buck from greenhouse gas mitigation ).
The most prevalent feeling I believe is concern.

We are digging up millions of years of stored CO2 and tossing it into the air in a geological instant. This should give
any intelligent thinker some serious concern as to what this may cause to happen to the climate we have adapted
ourselves and society to.

""I have absolute confidence and faith in the ability of humanity to adapt to whatever change happens""

Well good for you for being the ultimate optimist. The developed world will probably adapt but the equatorial regions could
very well see their ability to produce food dwindle away to nothing and hundreds of millions may starve or die in wars.

"" And if we really want to lift people out of poverty so that they can better adapt, we need to provide them with cheap energy ""

Agreed to a point, they need cheap energy for some things but how about steering them away from the gluttonous energy lifestyle
of the west where every person must drive a car or hummer burning fossil fuel like it is endless. Their societies can develop
along a different path apart from the juvenile adolescent toy based culture of the United States.

""all of their solutions on a global basis (forget your revenue neutral CO2 tax idea on anything other than a local basis) will result in real energy poverty""

nonsense, their per capita fossil fuel usage is much lower than the west and as I said above they need not develop the same wasteful practices as we use.


""I see an extremely bright future for them, provided we don't kill their prosperity with policies determined to kill prosperity.""

Funny how conservation measures are viewed as killing prosperity. You certainly overstate the impact a great deal. Prosperity can be
achieved without the juvenile and adolescent adult toy based fossil fuel usage that our society has grown into.
If the cost of presenting fossil fuel to the customer were 1/10 what it is today we would all be driving house sized cars to the quickie mart for a gallon of milk and vigorously defending our need to do so as fundamental to 'quality of life'.

I see a future much more difficult for the next and future generations due to our selfishness and short sighted policies we live by today.
Fifty years from now food cost will be back to using a major portion of peoples earnings, the poor warm climate countries will be starving to death,
there will be wars fought over resources by western societies and major coastal cities will have to be abandoned.

Thankfully the skeptics are a quickly diminishing group and the consensus is solidifying that we need to at least start changing by cutting our
fossil fuel usage.

I personally have implemented changes. I second guess my need for trips in my car ( is it just boredom or do I really need to travel )
I heat with more propane instead of coal made electricity.
I only run my air conditioner at night when it works more efficiently.
I drive a fuel efficient vehicle ~ 28 MPG.

The growing acceptance of the problem will drive many more people to consider waste and help drive down fossil fuel usage i hope ....

 

[SomptingGuy]

Burning stuff we find isn't ever going to be sustainable, not if we are burning it at a faster rate than it is being layed down. Burning it slightly less fast just puts the problem off by a small number of generations. Any transient change in (mean) global air temperture while we are returning this carbon to our atmosphere will be short-lived in geological time, possibly even in homo-sapiens time.


- Steve

 

[rb1957]

conservation, and efficient use, of our resources is a completely separate discussion than AGW; as are the issues around population growth.





Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

 

[cranky108]

Already we are paying more in taxes than we are for energy, food, and housing, combined. And all you can propose is more taxes. However if I were to live on welfaie I would pay no taxes, not have to work, and I would not care about the carbon taxes you propose. That's the option to higher and higher taxes.
Avoid the tax, and don't care what you are attempting to do.

Bottom line is unemployed people don't pay taxes, and you are aiming for higher taxes and more unemployment.

 

[ewh]

This is a GLOBAL ISSUE, we’ve got to stop thinking about ourselves, our city or even our country when you discuss it.

So it follows that the only solution is a GLOBAL AUTHORITY to tax and enforce any emmissions laws. Seems like a pretty slippery slope to me.



“Know the rules well, so you can break them effectively.”
-Dalai Lama XIV

 

[btrueblood]

2dye4,

"How about a one dimensional initial value problem model proposed in 1981 and proved surprisingly accurate.

https://atmos.washington.edu/2003Q4/211/articles_o..."

I read the paper, it's interesting, and the 1D model makes sense...except that at its core it's based upon a numerical integration of the atmosphere with an assumed (set) concentration of CO2, and a set lapse rate. I'm skeptical, in that I'd like to play with that model and see how much you can affect the "gain" factors that Greg speaks of by tweaking the model inputs. The article reference papers # 5 and 13 apparently describe this integration in more detail, but I don't have access to them. Does anybody have copies of those papers they'd like to share?

 

[beej67]

I can’t spoon feed you every single aspect of climate science.

Then how about you just spoon feed me this part:

I'm still waiting for someone to explain to me how quadrupling the measured greenhouse effects of carbon while ignoring the warming effects of other things that follow the same (human population growth) hockey stick is good science. It might match data, but it doesn't prove squat. You can't use a calibrated model as proof, particularly when you calibrate your model outside the bounds of the physical properties of the thing you're calibrating it to. See my post, 7 Apr 14 10:35.

Oh, and I'm also still waiting on someone to tackle the other ten highly spurious links between "globe is warming" and "carbon credits will fix it." For instance, if you're right that CO2 is the only cause of global warming, then there's no way to stop it, and the only way to reduce it to the rate it was warming before the industrial revolution is to completely eliminate all carbon emissions. Not to trade them or tax them, to eliminate them.

Even if everything you're saying about CO2 being the only cause of warming is true, my policy conclusion is still the same. Quit trying in vain to stop it (which is impossible) and start preparing to live on a warmer planet.

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

http://www.campbellcivil.com

 

[rconnor]

Let me get this straight:[ul]
[li]When “warmists” predict, based upon our best understanding of the science, serious (but not apocalyptic) adverse changes in climate, “skeptics” consider us to be “doom-and-gloom” lunatics.[/li]
[li]When “skeptics” predict, based off a gut feeling, an impoverished citizenry that has surrendered its freedom to the One World Government in response to Carbon Taxes, they see nothing wrong with that.[/li]
[/ul]

Huh…

Btrueblood, I believe these were the two papers you were asking for (please correct me if I’m wrong):
Wang et al, 1976
Manabe and Wetherald 1967

 

[btrueblood]

It's interesting as I sit and contemplate how the 1-d model works, that the atmospheric lapse rate can affect that radiation model. That lapse rate depends on how you model all layers of the atmosphere, and upper layers can impact this. Those upper layers (ionosphere) are known to change quite rapidly and extensively in volume, resulting in a rate of LEO spacecraft orbital decay that very closely follows the sunspot cycle (see picture below, from

http://www.solarstorms.org/Svulnerability.html).

So...maybe there IS a direct causal link for climate vs. sunspots, and the Maunder mininum is not really the myth the climate non-skeptics would try to make us believe. Sure would like to read those two references now.

picture:

http://files.engineering.com/getfile.aspx?folder=8b7b3012-b079-4c3c-a337-ebb18dd17d74&file=Z2.jpg

Caption from the website:

"Solar storms heat the upper atmosphere causing increased drag which accelerates orbit decay. This solar modulation of LEO satellite decays can be easily seen by simply plotting the number of reentering satellites tracked, for example, by NORAD (and listed in Sat Tracks), and plotting them against the sunspot cycle. Such a plot will look like this:" (picture inserted) "The red curve is the sunspot cycle ( yearly average divided by 4). The dark curve is the number of reentered satellites each year. It is pretty clear that as the sun enters a phase with more intense activity near sunspot maximum, the number of satellite decays increases significantly. This is because solar activity (sunspots) is a strong source of X-rays which enter the upper atmosphere and cause excess heating. This heating expands Earth's atmosphere so that LEO satellites experience a denser atmosphere and more air resistance"

Fun stuff. Who says us engineers can't understand atmospheric science?

 

[GregLocock]

2dye4. Calculate the total fossil fuel resources we burn each year. Now calculate what a 'fair' share of that is for 7 billion people ( turns out it's about 1 tonne of carbon). The average US citizen is currently on about 6 tonnes. I doubt that you'll be driving a 28 mpg car or using a fossil fuel powered a/c unit on your fair share, or ever flying overseas on a jet. Roughly speaking 1 t/y is about the level of north korea or Botswana or Cuba. Why should YOU use more than your fair share if you are so worried? If YOU are using more than your fair share why can't I (multiplied by 6.999 billion)?








Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

 

[beej67]

2dye4. Calculate the total fossil fuel resources we burn each year. Now calculate what a 'fair' share of that is for 7 billion people ( turns out it's about 1 tonne of carbon).

I'll do you one better.

Calculate the rate at which the Earth was warming before the industrial revolution.
Next calculate the rate at which the Earth is warming after the industrial revolution.
Next pretend (presume) that 100% of that change in warming is due to carbon emissions.
Now calculate how much carbon we are allowed to release if we only want the Earth to warm at the rate it did prior to the industrial revolution.

Answer:
Zero carbon emissions are allowed, if the above (rconnor's) presumption is correct. And the Earth will still continue to warm, albeit at the rate it did prior to the industrial revolution.

Now ask yourself if reduction of carbon emissions is a viable strategy to deal with climate change, or if it might be a better use of our resources to simply prepare to live on a warmer planet.



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

http://www.campbellcivil.com

 

[rb1957]

face it, if we don't want to affect the environment, then we should do nothing ... no mining, no farming, no nothing !

everything we do affects the environment. the best we can say is that we're getting more benefit from these actions than the cost to the environment. now whether we're getting the benefit but future generations will have the cost is the crux of the matter.

we're using FFs, so future generations won't have whatever we use today. sure there might still be FFs in the future but best case scenario is they'll cost a lot more ... they cost more to buy, more to extract, the environmental cost of extraction will be higher, the net benefit (energy extracted/energy spent on extraction) will be lower.

no-one knows what the true economic cost of FFs is.

the best we'd like to say is that we're using these resources as wisely as possible, but that's surely not the case. mankind tends to have a very short-term viewpoint, in the 50s-60s gas was 25c a gallon (or something equally stupidly cheap). only in the 70s (with OPEC) did the US start to think about limits for US gasoline consumption. Europe faced this problem somewhat earlier and for a whole bunch of cultural reasons have a different outlook on gasoline consumption.

but like i said earlier, this conservative discussion is quite a different matter to GW.

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

 

[ewh]

rconner,
I hope that impoverished citizenry based on a gut feeling comment wasn't directed at me. I do not predict a one world government and only presented the idea as a possibly method to enforce this tax. I don't see how all of the governments of the world are going to cooperate enough to actually, equitably, pull off a tax of this sort (if this is the only solution). As you pointed out, it is indeed a global issue.

“Know the rules well, so you can break them effectively.”
-Dalai Lama XIV

 

[2dye4]

Greg

Good point. Now I don't accept that limiting per capita to 1 ton equals the living conditions of North Korea or Cuba, not that you
said so directly but you did bring them in for their usage.

I am quite sure I use less than the average already but I know that I am not at the 1 ton level. Society has to restructure
itself for people to get to these lower levels of usage and we will have to investigate other sources like nuclear.

The point is that none of us needs 6 tons per year if we all move toward conservation and alt sources.

And if someone would come up with a way to synthesize a useful carbon fuel from electricity ( alternative derived ) that would go
a long way.

 

[TomDOT]

As an aside $0.25/gallon in 1950 is equivalent to $2.44/gallon today.

http://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm

I used the US EPA online CO2 calculator and it came up with roughly 2.2 tons of carbon per person for my household.

This equals ~1.3 tons of carbon per year. Pretty close to the stated goal.

However, this doesn't count the carbon produced by my workplace.

 

[rconnor]

beej67, for the last time:
“quadrupling the measured greenhouse effects of carbon” – they do not “quadruple” the measured greenhouse effect. The greenhouse effect is what it is in the lab. However, this causes positive feedbacks such as increased water vapour, decreased albedo, etc, which further increase the temperature. This isn’t difficult to understand. In the past, orbital cycles were the catalyst for climate changes but their absolute effect on global temperatures is minimal. Orbital cycles started the warming, releasing CO2. CO2 increased the warming much more, increasing water vapour and decreasing albedo. So, historically, orbital cycles were the catalyst, CO2 was the driver while the other positive feedbacks accounted for the rest of warming. Now, CO2 is the catalyst and the driver while the other positive feedbacks account for the rest of warming.

“ignoring the warming of…” – Utterly false. These aspects are studied but their impact is minimal in comparison. If your gut feeling disagrees with that, I don’t care. It flies in the face of a massive amount of research on the subject. If you have some science to support your gut feeling, then I’ll listen. I’ve asked for this at least 3 times now and you have not provided anything but an xkcd comic.

“use calibrated model…” – this takes GregLococks false assumption that models are calibrated to match historical temperatures. That is not true.

“carbon credits will fix it” – Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity. Look it up. You can obtain an estimate for where global surface temperatures will settle out to based on a change in forcing (i.e. CO2 concentrations). The greater the CO2 concentration, the greater the temperature rise to the new equilibrium point. The lower the CO2 concentration, the lower the temperature rise. With aggressive mitigation measures, but not so aggressive as to send us back to the stone age like some here are suggesting, it’s possible to keep the equilibrium temperature at a less dangerous level.

You also seem confused about CO2 concentration targets. No one is saying that CO2 concentrations have to return to pre-industrial levels. The target is around 350 ppm (that’s where they were at in 1988).

“…then there’s no way to stop it” – Based on what? Like your albedo hypothesis, you offer nothing to defend your wild claims. Like your albedo hypothesis, it flies in the face of a massive amount of research on the subject which concludes the opposite.

ewh, the comment was mainly directed at cranky but also to a more general audience of “skeptics” that believe in this nonsense conspiracy theory involving the IPCC/UN.

I agree with you that international cooperation will be required on an unprecedented scale. I believe that the UN is the right place to start. However, individual countries can make large strides themselves. Europe is an example of an area that is much more aggressive at emission reductions than other areas and I’ve never heard that industry there has trouble competing on the international market as a direct result of these efforts. Again we could bring up the example of BC, where a single province has a carbon tax which has resulted in a sharp decrease in CO2 emissions and an increase in GDP that matches the rest of Canada.

Beyond that, countries that do impose emission reduction initiatives could place tariffs on imports from countries that do not. This would put pressure on those countries to make such changes to stay competitive. Of course this is a very delicate situation and the specifics are much more nuanced than I make them out to be here. However, as difficult as it may be, it is far from impossible.

To all, am I to assume that the reason why we are discussing solutions in light of the core “skeptic” argument being demonstrated to be false on 4 accounts is because people are beginning to agree with the theory?