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

 

[rconnor]

beej67,

1) I agree with the first part, although we differ on what percentage can be ascribed to each aspect. With respect to the tuning, it’s not completely open to the modeler’s judgment. All tuning is done within bounds set by empirical or theoretical limits. You cannot tune a parameter such that it will behave in manner outside the established scientific understanding of the system, even if it agrees with temperatures. In fact, a model that has an aspect behave in a manner outside the established scientific understanding won’t even make it to a GCM run.

Cloud parameterization is one of the larger ranges of uncertainty, however the study Sherwood et al 2014 concludes that models with a lower climate sensitivity, due to how they deal with cloud formation/dissipation, are inconsistent with empirical observations. The study certainly does not clear up all issues related to cloud parameterization, by any stretch of the imagination, but it does suggest that the end of the spectrum that favours a lower climate sensitivity is inconsistent with observations.

2) I’ve provided papers that conclude that equilibrium temperature, a product of equilibrium climate sensitivity, is a function of the atmospheric concentration of CO2 (reducing the atmospheric concentration of CO2 will reduce the equilibrium temperature). That part is well established within the scientific community. What the equilibrium climate sensitivity will be is still a question but I’ve provided what our current scientific understanding is. I’ve also provided evidence that the largest scale North American emissions reduction program (the revenue-neutral BC carbon tax) has been effective at reducing emissions while not jeopardizing GDP.

Now you’re asking for a “peer reviewed” paper that could prove that Russia, China and India would play along with a UN (or, less likely, US) led emissions reductions which would be nothing but verbal theory. It would have more to do with political science and international relations than climate science. I’m sure there are papers on the subject in poly-sci journals, which I don’t read, but none would have such an audacious conclusion as to “prove” that it would work. In academia, the hard sciences are cautious about making grandiose conclusions but the soft sciences, especially when dealing in verbal theory, are even more so. This is the reason why pop-academics like Malcolm Gladwell are really not well liked in academic circles because they write books with big, grandiose statements that sound interesting to the public but would never be upheld within peer-review circles. No academic would or could publish a paper with the conclusion you are looking for because a purely verbal theory is not enough to support that grand a conclusion. So basically, you’re asking for a paper that would never be published. This is not to say that it is impossible for global cooperation on emission reductions but to guarantee global cooperation is, much like guaranteeing anything on the future state of international politics.

Instead of looking for an impossible proof of future international cooperation, governments need to be educated on the science of climate change and the risks that can be scientifically predicted (that’s the difference between hard science and verbal theory). We need to filter out the nonsense science of fake skeptics such that a clear picture can be presented. Given what are best scientific understanding of the situation has to say, the need and urgency to act is evident. Especially for countries like China and India with a high population density (and mainly major coastal cities), the future issues are exacerbated. I’m confident that there will be significant incentive for these countries to take part in emission reductions and put pressure on countries that don’t. The international political and economic clout of places like USA, China, EU and more and more India means that if they want to do something, usually the rest of the world follows.

3) What rate was that again? See the graph above. With minimal anthropogenic influence, the climate will respond to the much slower natural cycles on the scale of 10,000’s of years.

4) See my response to one. That is partly true but the tuning is done within bounds and must do a better job at representing the particular aspect of the climate system. In addition to that, models do not get run through GCM’s until after the tuning is set, so the feedback loop is not “how can we get it to match temperatures better” but “how can we get it to represent the sub-system better”.

5) Source? Again, you’re making statements that sound quantitative but offer no support for them. And although glaciers have been retreating since the LIA, the rate has increased rapidly. See this source here. Or here, for a shorter time from but illustrative of the rapid decrease in the last few decades:
[image

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e5/Glacier_Mass_Balance.png

[/url]

Or Arctic sea ice:
[image

http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics/Kinnard_2011_sea_ice_med.jpg

]

 

[beej67]

Thank you for meeting me half way on #1, but you're breezing past the most important part. The very fact that model tuning within those natural parameters can cause a 3 degree Kelvin swing in their future predictions means that we don't know enough to act on yet, period.

On #2, You didn't answer my question. Or you did, in a way. There is zero the US can do about CO2 emissions if China, Russia, and India aren't also in on the deal in a major way, and none of them have any inkling of doing so. They simply aren't going to do it. They simply don't care. Be that as it may, our public money would be much better spent making sure our country is better prepared to exist on a warmer planet, than it would to create a completely artificial derivatives marketplace custom tailored for manipulation and abuse by the same bunch of clowns who crashed the US economy in 2008, and which will verifiably have no effect on the warming of the environment. Especially considering we (#1) don't know enough to act on.

Even if we knew with 100% certainty that CO2 was the only problem, and that AGW was truly disastrous, the only way to implement any sort of global energy policy would be for the USA to invade every country in the world and then implement your chosen energy policy unilaterally. Call me crazy, but I'm pretty sure the act itself of bringing the planet under one world government might affect the environment, considering the only tool to affect such policy is global war.

#3, whatever rate it was caused this:

(source: USGS)

#4 see #1.

#5. Sea ice /= glaciers. The doubters always point to record sea ice extents as evidence that the globe isn't warming, too. You don't want to be thrown into that bucket. I do like your link, though, which shows that in most cases where glacial extents were recorded as far back as 1750, the glaciers were receding in 1750. That backs up what I'm saying, that the glaciers would still be receding even if CO2 emissions were brought back to pre-IR levels.



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

http://www.campbellcivil.com

 

[rconnor]

GrandpaDave,

A newspaper article 88 years ago made an over-exaggerated claim based on spurious (seemingly anecdotal) evidence, that sure disproves climate science! Thread over! What exactly are you trying to say?

Arctic sea ice was shrinking before we really started putting CO2 into the air? Look at the actual data from the Kinnard et al 2011 graph, there is a stark decline in Arctic sea ice extent around 1980 (and even more so since 1995).

That climate has changed before? For the umpteenth time, yes climate changes naturally (usually in response to orbital cycles), slowly over 10,000’s of years. Furthermore, solar activity has been in decline since about 1950 (amplitude of 11-year cycles is decreasing) but temperatures have increased. So if it was “natural” we should have been cooling, not warming since that point.

That newspapers tend to over exaggerate things to sell papers? No argument there, hence why I prefer peer-reviewed articles.

beej67,

1) I agree there is still some uncertainty, that’s why you don’t rely on one model but an average of multiple models. And where does the average lie? Pretty darn close to that of observations (note these models do not include corrections for aerosols, ENSO and volcanoes, they are as is from FAR, SAR and TAR).
[image

http://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/rates.jpg

]

2) You didn’t hear about the mass protests over pollution in China? This is primarily a concern with aerosols but also affects CO2 emissions as well. There is great unrest over this issue and it is likely pushing China into action. You already see some signs of this: China invests more money into renewable than any other country.

Also, I’ve also stated that tariffs on imports from countries that do not have CO2 emission programs is likely an effective strategy to push countries to adopt these practices. If North America and the EU can start, it will put a lot of pressure on the reset of the planet to follow.

Finally, no one is talking about a one-world government, so why are “skeptics”? The UN won’t control the world if climate emission reduction measures are enacted, it’s absurd. Neither will the world crumble into economic turmoil. BC has seen an increase in GDP on par with Canada. EU, while still suffering from the global financial crisis which has no discernible link to its emission reduction measures, is still very competitive on the international scene. Studies that I have seen, except for one or two exceptions that “skeptics” cling to (usually originating from places like GWPF and CATO), demonstrate that mitigation is financially more viable than adaptation (I linked a bunch previously). There is simple nothing to back up the claims of political or economic collapse as a result of emission reduction measures. They come from purely from a gut reaction based on ideological rejection to more government intervention. But, guess what, saying “I don’t like that” is not a valid argument.

3) What does that local map have to do with global variations in energy accumulation on the planet, which is the concern? I recommend reviewing my post at 16 Jan 14 1:20 at the thread here. As your particularly interested in data from back to ~1850, I’ll repost the sea level image (from NOAA):
[image

http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/images/indicators/sea-level-rise.gif

]

Temperature, from NOAA:
[image

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/images/WMOtemp2008.gif

]

Ocean Heat Content, from Levitus et al 2009 (as far back as I could find, 1955):
[image

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/images/Ocean_heat_content.jpg

]

4) likewise

5) So what’s your point? Glaciers will continue to recede very slowly without anthropogenic warming, where they recede much faster with it? Sure, I’ll agree with that but it does nothing to put into question anything related to the anthropogenic climate change theory. (Also, I’ve discussed Antarctic sea ice growth in the post I linked above)

Again, I’d like to revisit what your point is because I’m still unclear.

That it was warming before the IR, so it must be natural? The first part is true but it was very minimal warming over a long period of time, making the leap in logic to the conclusion in the second part a fallacy.

That it was warming before the IR, so even if we reduce our emissions to pre-IR levels, we won’t solve the problem? Same issue as before. The extent of the warming if we hold CO2 at 350 ppm (which was the 1980 level, not the pre-IR levels of 290 ppm) is considered by many climate scientists to result in minimal environmental impacts. Furthermore, since CO2 is removed from the atmosphere naturally, with reforestation and major reductions in CO2 consumption, it is very possible to hold at 350 ppm.

China, India, Russia, etc won’t play along with, so any mitigation measures are meaningless? Here both sides of the statement are false. If North America and EU enact measures, it will put serious political and economic pressure on the rest to follow suit. Furthermore, there is no evidence to suggest that such measures, even without global cooperation, would have major adverse effects on the global competitiveness of countries that enact them.

 

[GrandpaDave]

rconner... I thought it was an interesting article... do you have a problem with that?
Is all that gobbledygook meant for little old me? Gee...
I see you are a mechanical type... So what makes you an expert in climate change?
Do you have a degree in Climate related sciences or are you a legend in your own mind?
How many papers have you published on the subject... or honors and award from your fellow
scientists in the climate field?

No... I believe you are a guy that if I say the sky is blue. you would say it's gray just
for an argument. You need to slow down and smell the roses before you have a pop-a-gasket
and have a stroke.

 

[GregLocock]

This is the graph that any first world CO2 reduction advocate is ignoring.

If you think the gradient for China and Asia is increasing you are right. As you can see the data is 4 years out of date, there seems every likelihood that Asia will have overtaken Europe by now.

Cheers

Greg Locock


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

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

 

[beej67]

2) You didn’t hear about the mass protests over pollution in China? This is primarily a concern with aerosols but also affects CO2 emissions as well. There is great unrest over this issue and it is likely pushing China into action. You already see some signs of this: China invests more money into renewable than any other country.

Nobody in China is protesting over global warming. They're protesting because they have to wear a gas mask every time they go outside, unless the Olympics happen to be in town. China is not, will not, participate in a carbon cap and trade policy that puts their emissions in the hands of Goldman Sachs on an international exchange market. You can take that to the bank. Same for India. Same for Russia. Especially for Russia, considering they're one of the world's largest oil suppliers and they're run by crooks.

Finally, no one is talking about a one-world government, so why are “skeptics”?

Because it's the only way to get Communist China and Crooked Russia and Desperately Poor India onto any sort of "carbon cap and trade" scheme. Their regimes cannot, will not, will never, adopt the sorts of policies you're advocating, even if the science was irrefutable and unquestionable. So it's completely pointless to talk about doing it here in the US. And if we decide to unilaterally embargo them for their carbon policies, they'll laugh and have their own more competitive economy over to the side, using oil as their reserve currency instead of dollars. China and Russia have already had talks about that, by the way, which would completely devastate the USA's debt driven economy.

(images going back to 1850)

Another bunch of graphs conveniently cut off at 1850 to ignore what was going on before the CO2 glut started.

In fact, the sea level has been rising since 1000 AD, except for a dip for the Little Ice Age. The rate of rise now is higher than it was then, I agree, but it was still rising, despite relatively flat levels of CO2.

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2011/06/13/1015619108.abstract

Their punchline graph:

So check it out! One of the best indicators of temperature we have, in fact the most important one, shows an inflection point from 'flat' to 'rising' right around 1000 AD. What happened then? The human population started to expand, that's what.

So maybe, just maybe, some of this warming is from other anthropogenic sources, eh? We weren't exactly blowing the doors off our fossil fuel furnaces in the dark ages.

So what’s your point? Glaciers will continue to recede very slowly without anthropogenic warming, where they recede much faster with it?

The bolded words are improperly used. Gaciers were receding noticeably, not very slowly, and there is more than one source of anthropogenic warming. The sea level was rising noticeably, before 1850, and both of those trends, outside the little ice age, were trending up with human population growth itself. Not just with CO2 emissions. A sensible scientist without preconceptions about the causes of climate change would look for more than one source of it tied to anthropogenic causes, and would not hang the whole blame on carbon.



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

http://www.campbellcivil.com

 

[ornerynorsk]

Beej67 "China and Russia have already had talks about that". As have numerous other countries. The dollar's days may be numbered as THE world reserve currency, which is not a comforting thought.



It is better to have enough ideas for some of them to be wrong, than to be always right by having no ideas at all.

 

[GregLocock]

The idea of a reserve currency in this day is a bit potty. next you'll be telling me you have reserve shares, maybe some good old reliable ones like GM or Enron or Apple. Claiming anything is a reserve is an invitation for arbitrage. Trusting one particular country to promise not to print money when it needs to is a rather rosy view. My guess is that a bucket of G5 or G20 currencies will become the new reference for exchange rates, hence introducing a de facto global currency. At a rough guess the proportion of each currency in the bucket should be determined by trade figures but is more likely to be GDP related.

Now some good news. According to the IPCC's latest doom and gloom report the average per capita GDP in BRIC contries will, by 2100, be 2 times that of the USA, today, in today's money, if we use their average economic model (which is necessary to generate the sort of CO2 that generates scary outcomes even after they've twiddled the knobs). That's an astonishing prediction. One might think that people who earn twice times as much as today's quite comfortable lifestyle will be able to afford to move house, build dams and seawalls, install solar powered air conditioning, if they need to. Even better the same model shows African incomes about half that figure.

Cheers

Greg Locock


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

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

 

[rb1957]

1) what does "twice the standard of living" mean ? two cars in the gargage (or four, as many families have two) having to pay twice as much for health insurance ??

2) a a population base the size of BRIC gets a living standard approaching the US, the energy expenditure will be Staggering, and much of it will come from FFs, and a small fraction from "renewables".

3) in times of trouble, buy gold (and jewelry); in times of stupidity, buy bitcoins.

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

 

[ornerynorsk]

Reserve currency is a very real thing. It's simply the currency used in the trade of commodoties, IE oil is sold and paid for in USD, rather than in Zambian Kwacha, for example. The upcoming problem lies in the fact that other countries are now starting to discuss a move to Euro, Yuan, or simply accepting one another's currency at face exchange rate. The other huge problem lies in the fact that yes, the US is simply printing money to cover its obscene and grossly inflated debt, and has been doing so for some time. US is going to be a figurative black hole in the coming years, and many others are going to be sucked into it, as well.

It is better to have enough ideas for some of them to be wrong, than to be always right by having no ideas at all.

 

[zdas04]

As prmerumprsk says, the reserve currency is a very real and very big deal. If an oil trader in London wants to buy oil from Oman, he has to first exchange Pounds for Dollars. This is so ubiquitous that every company in the world that engages in international trade (a large number of companies) either has a dollar denominated bank account or arrangements with their bank to have the bank pay certain debits in USD.

When I send contracts to new clients overseas I've never had one balk at paying me in USD (one Canadian company paid me in Canadian Dollars once, but the following month they paid in USD, never did understand what was up with that). That is what the reserve currency does for the world. There will always be a reserve currency, but it won't necessarily always be the USD (it was the British Pound before WWII). It also won't be the Yuan because no one trusts the Chinese government to refrain from manipulating exchange rates. The Euro makes sense to a lot of people, but the P.I.G.S. in the European Union pushed the Euro too close to default starting in 2008 and that memory is too fresh. A basket of currencies just doesn't work because it would put the control of the Reserve Currency into too few non-government hands for governments to be comfortable.

The current US energy boom is reducing pressure to change the Reserve Currency away from the USD. A 2014 election outcome that gridlocks Congress so that the administration can't further implement Agenda 21 would put us on a path to be a net energy exporter within 5 years, and effectively out of debt in 10 years. Democrats winning the House and retaining the Senate has a huge chance of ending the boom under the guise of "saving the planet" and tanking the world economy when we default on trillions of dollars in debt by 2020. At that point "reserve currency" becomes moot when no one trusts any currency. We are on a knife edge between two very different futures (and I don't think that there has ever been a time that we were not on some knife edge, but this one is ours, now).

David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering

Law is the common force organized to act as an obstacle of injustice Frédéric Bastiat

 

[rconnor]

Grandpa Dave, I’d have no issues with your post if you didn’t include the sentence about “spinning the truth”. This makes me think that you’re trying to use that article as some sort of proof against the anthropogenic climate change theory. The link is irrelevant at best and factually incorrect at worst. Furthermore, it obfuscates the conversation from a scientific one to a quasi-political one with a hint of conspiracy theory. Perhaps I misread your intentions, in which case I’d be more than open to hearing what you were trying to say by your first post.

I do find your charges against my level of expertise in the field a little ironic considering the amount of times I get accused for “appealing to authority” from your camp. Nevertheless, as I said to swall, I don’t work in the field of climatology. I feel it’s an important issue and so I put in the effort to understand it as well as I can.

GregLocock, so your perfectly fine extrapolating that data based off nothing by statistical trends? Huh. I would have thought otherwise.

Although I agree that total CO2 emissions is the primary concern, emission reduction measures need to also look at CO2 per capita, where the US is over double that of China. This isn’t to say that China doesn’t have to reduce their emissions, they do, but to put the blame on China is not accurate (especially considering the length of time the developed world has been the major emitter of CO2).

And to say that reductions in CO2 per capita is synonymous with reductions in a standard of living, you’re kidding yourself. France, Spain, Sweden, and many other European countries have CO2 per capita levels well below that of China.

beej67, 1850 is the end of the LIA, so it’s EXACTLY the start date you want, because it represents the current state of climate before and after the increase in anthropogenic CO2 emissions. As per your North Carolina graph, despite being a single location and not being indicative of global changes, it clearly shows that in the past ~60 years, sea levels rose to a greater extent than they did during the 500 year period you pointed out. This once again proves my point: yes climate changes naturally, over very long durations. The recent, anthropogenic changes are much more rapid and make it much harder for ecosystems to adjust.

And for the last time, yes human population is part of the problem. I’ve never doubted that, no one has ever doubted that. More humans --> more consumption --> more emissions. It is not a separate argument from the one that I’m making. That leaves us with two choices: reduce the population or reduce consumption per capita. I have serious ethical quarrels with the former (don’t you?) and believe the latter is the better choice.

 

[beej67]

beej67, 1850 is the end of the LIA, so it’s EXACTLY the start date you want, because it represents the current state of climate before and after the increase in anthropogenic CO2 emissions.

That makes it the exact date that you want, not me, because you want people to think the globe wasn't warming before 1850. I want graphs that show the history of human population on them.

As per your North Carolina graph, despite being a single location and not being indicative of global changes,

Sea level is sea level. Unless it's the Dead Sea or the Great Salt Lake, it's indicative of global sea level.

it clearly shows that in the past ~60 years, sea levels rose to a greater extent than they did during the 500 year period you pointed out. This once again proves my point: yes climate changes naturally, over very long durations. The recent, anthropogenic changes are much more rapid and make it much harder for ecosystems to adjust.

No, that's my point, not yours. I never said anthropogenic warming didn't exist, or that it was mild. I think it's severe. I think it got worse around 1850. I think the changes are so rapid it's hard for ecosystems to adjust. I think all those things. But your point is one step further, that the anthropogenic forces are essentially due to burning fossil fuels, and are essentially uncorrelated to human population, because you advocate a solution that only addresses fossil fuels while ignoring population. That is absolutely not born out in the graphs above. If you normalize the sea level graph to take out the little ice age, then every inflection point in human population expansion correlates directly with an inflection point in sea level. Even the inflection points before we were mining coal and drilling oil.

Yet you would have me believe that as long as we quit burning coal and drilling oil, the human population can continue to grow at whatever rate it likes while having no effect on the climate. That is not a conclusion that's born out on the larger time scale. Not one bit. This statement right here:

More humans --> more consumption --> more emissions.

...is meaningless before 1850 by your rationale, since you claim that the major thing warming the earth is fossil fuels. Yet the earth warmed right along with human population growth before fossil fuels were used prominently. And there's emerging research that the LIA may have been caused by depopulation related to the black death, and later to spread of disease in the New World. There's also emerging research that the planet cooled as a result of the Mongol Hoard's romp through Asia. Google them both. Anthropoligsts have noticed both things, and are hastily trying to cram in a Carbon explanation that doesn't always fit properly, when the truth is probably related to abledo changes due to fluctuations in agricultural practices.

No, I do not advocate killing people to stop global warming. But I also don't claim that carbon trading is going to somehow detach global warming from population expansion either. I think we've got two legitimate options, either deal with the globe warming, or do some pretty horrible stuff on a global scale to a lot of people. I prefer the former. And under no circumstances do I buy the argument that letting a bunch of investment bankers "trade" carbon emissions, the same bankers who recently wrecked the 2008 economy for the tits of it by the way, is going to detach mankind from our warming effects on the environment.


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

http://www.campbellcivil.com

 

[rconnor]

you want people to think the globe wasn’t warming before 1850

[image

http://s3.amazonaws.com/dk-production/images/20362/large/HockeyStickValidatedbyNCAR.jpg?1361579945

]
Or….
[image

http://www.realclimate.org/images/m08.jpg

]
Superimpose the population curve on it if you want, I don’t care. Population started to rise around 1000 AD, when temperatures started to fall until around 1920. It doesn’t surprise me that the temperature spike after 1920 matches the population spike as, “more humans --> more consumption --> more emissions”.

Sea level is sea level

No. Wrong.

If you normalize the sea level graph to take out the little ice age, then every inflection point in human population expansion correlates directly with an inflection point in sea level. Even the inflection points before we were mining coal and drilling oil.

What?!? So there’s more people on the planet, so it pushes the land down, which causes the sea level to rise? What does human population (alone) have to do with sea level? If I get accused of confusing correlation/causation when I have a scientifically backed theory to demonstrate causation, then they should burn you at the stake for this one! Sea level rises in response to increasing temperatures and melting sea ice. Increases in CO2 concentrations do both of those things (where the former causes the latter), humans (alone) don’t, humans emitting CO2 do.

What is your causation theory? That anthropogenic deforestation and land use changes drove the warming pre-1850 warming (that didn’t exist)? Well firstly, said warming didn’t exist. Secondly, those anthropogenic factors do affect climate but there magnitude is minimal. This is supported by the vast amount of research into that subject.

But your point is one step further, that the anthropogenic forces are essentially due to burning fossil fuels, and are essentially uncorrelated to human population

80jh3480jhaufhiasjdf;!@#$#!@@$#!@$

And for the last time, yes human population is part of the problem. I’ve never doubted that, no one has ever doubted that. More humans --> more consumption --> more emissions. It is not a separate argument from the one that I’m making. That leaves us with two choices: reduce the population or reduce consumption per capita. I have serious ethical quarrels with the former (don’t you?) and believe the latter is the better choice.

Yet you would have me believe that as long as we quit burning coal and drilling oil, the human population can continue to grow at whatever rate it likes while having no effect on the climate.

On global climate, perhaps, on the environment and ecosystems, not at all. Ignoring CO2 emissions for the moment, if we continue to consume at the rate we are today, deforestation being one example, we will continue to adversely affect the environment (which will also be detrimental to us). I’ve never questioned that and I’ve never been in disagreement with you on that. I’d advocate just as strongly for reducing our rate of deforestation than I would for our CO2 emissions. I’ve said this to you from the get-go, addressing CO2 emissions also addresses general consumption and I think you hit two birds with one stone. I need to be clear that I am in full agreement with you that humans adversely affect the environment in ways other than CO2 emission. However, when it comes to what human action is causing climate change, then I and the scientific community say it’s mainly CO2 emissions. But that doesn’t, in any way, discredit your (and my) concerns about other anthropogenic influences on the environment.

However, regarding population, most scientists say that human population will cap at around 10 billion in 2075 and settles to around 9 billion. So, it’s unlikely that population will continue to increase exponentially.

Yet the earth warmed right along with human population growth before fossil fuels were used prominently

Still wrong. Will always be wrong. See those graphs. The 2nd graph I linked above shows 16 different temperature reconstructions that invalidate this statement. So that quote and any subsequent points you derive from it are wrong. Pure and Simple.

 

[GregLocock]

OK, I'll do it again slower. In order to create angst about temperature rises, even after twiddling the knobs on their projections (or if you prefer weeding out the models that don't agree with the hindcast data, it gives the same result), IPCC need an increase in CO2 in the atmosphere. This doesn't magically appear, only in rconnors-land do people see a lump of coal and burn it just for fun, most people burn coal in order to generate some tangible benefit, typically economic. So the IPCC asked the OECD for projections of future economic activity, which they could then work back to a fossil fuel usage, and hence CO2 in the atmosphere. Yes it is a projection based on trends. I don't have to agree with it or disagree with it, I am using the IPCC's own data to point out that the sky ain't falling even with their own assumptions. Incidentally this is very much /not/ an original argument, Lomberg brought it up in TSE and I'm sure the Club of Rome's many critics would have worked it out as well.

Their average scenario resulted in the average per capita figures I gave above. So, yes, CO2 in the atmosphere will increase, and perhaps the temperature will increase or decrease or stay the same, as it always has. But by 2100 according to this average scenario almost every country will have a per capita income better than that of the average USAn today, hence will have the economic resources to actually do something to ameliorate any bad effects of warming (if any), rather than waiting for the sea level to rise another foot in their lifetimes etc and just wishing it wouldn't.

There, doesn't that make you happy? It should, unless you hate people.





Cheers

Greg Locock


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

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

 

[cranky108]

It's not just increasing taxes, it's changing life styles, and values, it's a total "recycle, reduce, reuse" thing. Force people to recycle with cloth bags that swrink if they are washed. To encurage people to either not have children, or kill unborn children (not that I want to discuss this any more than a foot note). Or to reduce medical care to the elderly. Which seems to all be an effort to reduce the population, and wealth in the richest countries in the world.

So why aren't we trying to break down the norms and customs that hold other peoples back? Why can't we educate other peoples to use the resources more wisely? Why do we still seem to support the desperte tinpots that are holding back the other peoples?

If it's not a control issue, then what is all of this?
I'll get off my soap box now.

 

[rconnor]

I’ll address this from two different assumptions, the first being that you agree with the IPCC CO2 projections and the second being that you disagree with them. I believe that the latter is more true but you phrased your argument around “even if I did believe it…”, so I’ll address both.

Assume IPCC CO2 projections are correct
Please correct me if I’m mistaken, but I took your argument to be:
If we agree with the IPCC CO2 projections and, subsequently, the economic projections, then people in the future will be rich enough to afford adaptation measures. (note: rich enough means equal to current average US income)

Wow, that’s a massive jump in logic. I suppose you’d reference Lomborg’s latest op-ed to back it up. Too bad he gets his numbers all mixed up though. Are you saying that people in the developing world, being as rich as today’s Americans would be able to pay (out of pocket?) for adaptation measures? Or that having an income equal to today’s US average means that their infrastructure will be up to modern US standards and therefore able to withstand major climatic events?

Even making this wild jump, ask New Orleans how well the US was able to “adapt” to hurricanes. Or ask New York how inexpensive taking a major climatic event was given all their modern measures and state-of-the-art infrastructure. Ask California how glad they were to be rich enough to “adapt” to the drought conditions that cost the state $5 Billion. And as our climate changes and weather systems become more intense, these issues will only get worse. The burden of such events will get much heavy if we continue our business-as-usual approach (~$20 Trillion by some accounts…not including the non-fiscal impacts of deaths, displacement, disruption of ecosystems etc).

Assume IPCC CO2 projections are incorrect
I feel that you don’t agree with the IPCC CO2 projections based upon a disagreement with the future economic scenario. If this is true, it’s a little odd considering that you were just a day ago claiming that Asia’s rapid rise in emissions (extrapolated out to the future) means reduction measures will be useless (based on nothing but a hunch). So if you agree that emissions will rise but disagree that average income will rise as fast as predicted, then the issue becomes much worse. You still have the climate change issues but now the developing world doesn’t have the resources to deal with it.

If this is untrue, then see above. Either way it’s more of a poor excuse to not do any mitigation than an actual argument.

 

[cranky108]

Not that I agree, or disagree, but in the case of New Orleans, they were told of the problems and they choose to ignore them in fovor of social programs.

And not that I know all the facts in California, but there are still comments about water mismanagment.

What I do know is we have to live with our choices, and we sure have a lot of people who are willing to help themselves.
With so many people out of work, and taxes so high, I'm just not buying the more taxes montra. Find another set of solutions, or you don't have my vote.

 

[CajunCenturion]

==> they were told of the problems and they choose to ignore them in favor of social programs.
"They" being the federal government in their refusal to fund the projects recommended by the US Corps of Engineers to actually implement many of the required adaptations.

rconnor - Why do you think that very same "they" would be any better at mitigating climate change than implementing specific programs recommended by the Corps of Engineers?

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

 

[rconnor]

Cajun, so you’re saying that “they” have been poor in their response to “adaptation” measure thus far. That just furthers my point that “adaptation” alone is not the optimal solution to a changing climate.

Mitigation on the other hand has less to do with “them” constructing things and more to do with enforcing targets. They are pretty good at taxing, they’ve got lots of practice.