The "Pause" - A Review of Its Significance and Importance to Climate Science 77

[rconnor]

----------Introduction---------
A comparison of recent temperature trends in isolation of earlier data, say 1998-present, to long(er)-term temperature trends, say 1970-present, reveals that more recent temperature trends are lower than long-term temperature trends. This has led many, including many prominent climate scientists, to refer to the recent period as a “pause”, “hiatus” or “slowdown”. While in isolation of any other context besides two temperature trends, the term “pause” or “hiatus” may be quasi-accurate, much more context is required to determine whether these terms are statistically and, more importantly, physically accurate.

It should be noted that most times when these terms are used by climate scientists, they keep the quotation marks to indicate the mention-form of the word and are not implying an actual physical pause or hiatus in climate change. The subsequent research into the physical mechanism behind the “pause” has continually demonstrated that it is not indicative of a pause in climate change nor does it suggest a drastic reduction in our estimates of climate sensitivity. However, this fact appears to be lost on many who see the “pause” as some kind of death-blow to the anthropogenic climate change theory or to the relevancy of climate change models.

While this subject has been discussed repeatedly in these forums, it has never been the focus but rather used as a jet-pack style argument to change the conversation from the subject at hand to the “pause” (“Well that can’t be right because the Earth hasn’t warmed in X years!”). Revisiting past threads, I cannot find an example of where someone attempted to defend the “pause” as a valid argument against anthropogenic climate change. It is brought up, debunked and then not defended (and then gets brought up again 5 posts later). The hope is to discuss the scientific literature surrounding the “pause” to help readers understand why the “pause” is simply not a valid argument. While some points have been discussed (usually by me) before, this post does contain new research as well as 2014 and 2015 temperature data, which shed even more light on the topic. The post will be split into three parts: 1) the introduction (and a brief discussion on satellite versus surface station temperature data sets), 2) Does the “pause” suggest that climate change is not due to anthropogenic CO2? and 3) Does the “pause” suggest that climate models are deeply flawed?

------Why I Will Be Using Ground-Based Temperature Data Sets-------
Prior to going into the meat of the discussion, I feel it necessary to discuss why I will be using ground-based temperature data sets and not satellite data sets. Perhaps one of the most hypocritical and confused (or purposefully misleading) arguments on many “skeptic” blogs is the disdain for all ground-based temperature data sets and the promotion of satellite temperature data sets. The main contention with ground-based temperature data sets is that they do not include raw data and require homogenization techniques to produce their end result. While I am not here (in this thread) to discuss the validity of such techniques, it is crucial to understand that satellite temperature data sets go through a much more involved and complex set of calculations, adjustments and homogenizations to get from their raw data to their end product. Both what they measure and where they measure it are very important and highlights the deep confusion (or purposeful misdirection) of “skeptic” arguments that ground-based temperatures are rubbish and satellite-based temperatures are “better”.

[ul][li]Satellites measure radiances in different wavelength bands, not temperature. These measurements are mathematically inverted to obtain indirect inferences of temperature (Uddstrom 1988). Satellite data is closer to paleoclimate temperature reconstructions than modern ground-based temperature data in this way.[/li]
[li]Satellite record is constructed from a series of satellites, meaning the data is not fully homogeneous (Christy et al, 1998). Various homogenization techniques are required to create the record. (RSS information)[/li]
[li]Satellites have to infer the temperature at various altitudes by attempting to mathematically remove the influence of other layers and other interference (RSS information). This is a very difficult thing to do and the methods have gone through multiple challenges and revisions. (Mears and Wentz 2005, Mears et al 2011, Fu et al 2004)[/li]
[li]Satellites do not measure surface temperatures. The closest to “surface” temperatures they get are TLT which is an loose combination of the atmosphere centered roughly around 5 km. It is also not even a direct measurement channel (which themselves are not measuring temperature directly) but a mathematically adjustment of other channels. Furthermore, due to the amount of adjustments involved, TLT has constantly required revisions to correct errors and biases (Christy et al 1998, Fu et al 2005).[/li]
[li]See the discussion on Satellite data sets in IPCC Report (section 3.4.1.2)[/li]
[li]Satellite data and the large amount of homogenization and adjustments required to turn the raw data into useful temperature data are still being question to this day. Unlike ground-based adjustments which lead to trivial changes in trends (from the infamous Karl et al 2015), recent research shows that corrections of perhaps 30% are required for satellite data (Weng et al 2013 .[/li][/ul]

None of this is meant to say the satellite temperature data is “wrong” but it very clearly highlights the deep-set confusion in the “skeptic” camp about temperature data sets. If one finds themselves dismissing ground-based temperature data sets because they require homogenization or adjustments while claiming satellite temperature data sets are superior have simply been lead astray by “skeptics” or are trying to lead others astray. Furthermore, it clearly demonstrates that any attempt to compare satellite data (which measures the troposphere) to the surface temperature output of models is completely misguided (*cough*John Christy *cough*). It is for these reasons that I will use ground-based data in the rest of the post.

Again, I would like to state that I do not wish this to be a focal point of this discussion. I am merely outline why I will be using ground-based temperature data sets and my justification for that as, undoubtedly, someone would claim I should be using satellite temperature datasets. In fact, I appear to be in pretty good company; Carl Mears, one of the chief researchers of RSS (and the same Mears from all the papers above), stated:

My particular dataset (RSS tropospheric temperatures from MSU/AMSU satellites) show less warming than would be expected when compared to the surface temperatures. All datasets contain errors. In this case, I would trust the surface data a little more because the difference between the long term trends in the various surface datasets (NOAA, NASA GISS, HADCRUT, Berkeley etc) are closer to each other than the long term trends from the different satellite datasets. This suggests that the satellite datasets contain more “structural uncertainty” than the surface dataset

If this is a topic of interest to people, perhaps starting your own thread would be advisable as I will not be responding to comments on temperature data sets on this thread. Now, onto the actual discussion…

 

[SkipVought]

So are we to assume that NASA, NOAA, HadCRU, JAXA, Royal Society, National Academy of Sciences, American Association for the Advancement of Science, American Chemical Society, American Geophysical Union, Joint National Academies (Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Italy, Japan, Russia, UK and USA), the editors at Nature and Science, nearly every head of state from the richest, most powerful countries to the poorest and the vast majority of published climate scientists all share the same ideological bias that would alter their view of the data? And, on top of that, they’re all pushing the science from a position of self-interest?

They might very well share the same ideological bias, or at least give lip service to it, as they are riding a wave in a mutual admiration society and reaping the huge financial and social benefits.

Look at those few who have the intestinal fortitude to go against the flow, like Philippe Verdier you "speak" out and you are punished by the establishment. So most people just fall in line, parrot the line and reap the benefits. Its human nature regardless the level of education. Look at history. Progress has often been achieved by a lone brave soul, sword drawn against the dragon of the current paradigm. Of course, even "progress" will be hotly debated.

I happen to think that an approach like THIS is more appropriate.

Again, I'm sitting in my sun room, reading the news, sipping my peach tea. The data and subsequent detailed arguments are down in the weeds. This is way over my head (I have presently no pay grade, although it would have been well over mine) but I've been around long enough to have observed human nature in my time and that recorded in the past. The way this crusade is being conducted is not productive. Those with dissenting views are persecuted; that the science is "settled" is the mantra. I've seen this and the outcome is not good. On THAT fact along, I continue to be a skeptic of this movement and the way that it's being conducted.

Skip,
[sub]
Just traded in my OLD subtlety...
for a NUance![/sub]

 

[rconnor]

SkipVought,

The article related to the grand solar minimum is, umm, rather odd (ex. it talks about how cold 2014 was – the hottest year on record…). Firstly, the meeting was held in the summer and has already been discussed since July. Why that news outlet is 4 months late, I’m not sure. Secondly, it’s already been discussed here. See Part 1 – 1 c) Solar. Even if we go into a grand solar minimum and stay there (which is far from certain), it will not impact global warming that much. See Feulner and Rahmstorf 2010 and a graphical representation of their results here and another article here.

They might very well share the same ideological bias, or at least give lip service to it, as they are riding a wave in a mutual admiration society and reaping the huge financial and social benefits.

So when nearly all the world’s scientists and scientific institutions agree on something, it’s usual because they are out for “huge financial and social benefits”? Should we extend this logic to biologist that support Darwin’s theory of evolution? Could it not be because they independently agree on the same theory due to the strength of the evidence supporting it?

Also, please explain how the average climate scientist gains “huge financial and social benefit”. The average climate scientist earns $70,770/year. A tenured professor at Penn State department of geosciences (home of the nefarious con-man, Michael Mann) earns, on average, $120,000/year. Apparently, not only are climate scientists really bad at science, they are also really bad at milking their financially motivated agenda!

Do you feel that Exxon and Koch are funding “skeptic” think-tanks as a charitable effort to protect the people? You feel that the plot idea in the following quote is actually a reasonable summary of reality?

Plot idea: 97% of the world’s scientists contrive an environmental crisis, but are exposed by a plucky band of billionaires & oil companies.

intestinal fortitude to go against the flow

Do you feel that young earth creationists also have the “intestinal fortitude to go against the flow” or are they just wrong? The quotes below sum up the whole Galileo Gambit rather well:

But the fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright Brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.

Or

It is not enough to wear the mantel of Galileo: that you be persecuted by an unkind establishment. You must also be right.

“Skeptics” sometimes skip that last part…

Also, see my response to beej67 at 16 Oct 15 22:00. There is simply no evidence of wide-spread suppression of contrarian voices in published climate science. Contrarian scientists have been lead authors on many IPCC chapters. Contrarian papers are sometimes published in prominent journals; the fact that more are not is not necessarily evidence for suppression but, more likely, because there simply is not a lot of valid scientific support for the contrarian position. As I said, if and where they are valid, papers and scientists that go against the main stream view are published, referenced and discussed by the scientific community.

And what do you make of Lamar Smith’s actions? Righteous crusade for the people against the evil scientists? RICO against Exxon is a witch hunt and an abuse of political power but Lamar Smith’s subpoena is valid (despite having ZERO evidence to support it) and an example of protecting the people? Playing the victim doesn’t work when you, in the same breath, promote the political attacking of scientists on the other side.

Now, of course you can say – it’s all a circus and we should just stick to the science. And I would whole-heartedly agree with that. Lamar Smith, Exxon, some weatherman on French television are largely irrelevant to the body of science; I want to (and have tried to) stick with talking about the science.

--------

As an aside, one thing I often see is the “Now, I’m just a simply man that doesn’t spend a lot of time on this climate gobbledygook and I don’t like getting dragged into this argument” act followed by “but climate change is all wrong”. If the former is true, why state the latter? Or if you strongly believe the latter, doesn’t the former weaken your position? It always feels like an attempt to isolate oneself from criticism prior to posting a strong (and often ill-informed) opinion on the subject.

 

[rconnor]

With regard to Roy Spencer’s graph that beej67 posted (largely ignoring the criticism of his land use change hunch)…

Spencer, a professional climate scientist, is using a four-year baseline period. A four-year baseline period is far too short to give accurate results but it would be great to graphically overplay a short-term discrepancy. Spencer was very likely aware of both facts, ignoring the former because of the latter. Most “skeptics” won’t know enough to pick up on it.

Spencer, a professional climate scientist, is using the average of model runs to compare against observations over the short term. The average of model runs would be something close to an ENSO neutral state and, so, to compare against a short-term negative PDO period would be a false comparison but, again, would be great to graphically overplay a short-term discrepancy. Spencer was very likely aware of both facts, ignoring the former because of the latter. Most “skeptics” won’t know enough to pick up on it.

Spencer, a professional climate scientist, is using a 5-year running average of the ensemble mean, not the ensemble mean of the 5-year running average of each individual run. This method amplifies the issue above by, incorrectly, blending out the variability in model runs and overstates the La Nina impacts near the end of the observed data but it would be great to graphically overplay a short-term discrepancy (during a short-term, La Nina dominated period). Spencer was very likely aware of both facts, ignoring the former because of the latter. Most “skeptics” won’t know enough to pick up on it.

So, Spencer used every tool at his disposal to make the discrepancy look as large as possible. It’s the biggest difference between Roy Spencer the professional climate scientists (who needs to be honest) and Roy Spencer the blogger (who needn’t be honest). If he presented this graph at a professional conference, he’d (rightly) be laughed off the stage (and likely would have gone home to his blog to play the victim game). While I don’t expect his audience to know better, he certainly does.

 

[beej67]

With regard to Roy Spencer’s graph that beej67 posted

Just one of dozens I could have grabbed from my google image search. The point stands across all of them, no matter how they compute running averages, that the models of the 90s were not predictive. You need a predictive model before you go declaring global martial law, and the policy implication of most models nowadays say the only way to prevent 2dC rise is global martial law.

It is imperative that the science gets better before we go declaring global martial law.



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

http://www.campbellcivil.com

 

[IRstuff]

"The point stands across all of them, no matter how they compute running averages, that the models of the 90s were not predictive. You need a predictive model before you go declaring global martial law, and the policy implication of most models nowadays say the only way to prevent 2dC rise is global martial law. "

If, and only if, that was something that needed to be predicted. For a phenomenon that's going to take a a century to materialize, predicting accurate behavior on a year-to-year basis is not required if there is no longer term impact. If, and only if, the so-called pause is a long-term phenomenon, then yes, the models would, and should, account for that.

TTFN
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert!
homework forum: //

http://www.engineering.com/AskForum/aff/32.aspx

faq731-376 forum1529

 

[jhardy1]

A thought experiment for beej67 (and others):

Suppose, just for a moment, that the "consensus" predictions are substantially correct, and that CO[sub]2[/sub] emissions are in fact driving global temperatures up, and that many of the predicted consequences (sea level rise, changed weather patterns, impacts on land use, etc) do in fact eventuate to varying degrees, generally within the ranges that the IPCC predicts (even if they are near the lower bounds).

What tests do you propose so that we will KNOW that the models are correct, and we need to respond?

What fraction of the world's climate scientists in "consensus" would you consider to be sufficient to enable government policy and action? 90%? 95%? 99%% 100%?

How many "contrary" voices would be sufficient to veto taking any action based on the "consensus" view? (Won't there always be some people arguing that other causes need to be considered, or that global warming is in fact a good thing, or that we should just learn to adapt?) What qualifications are acceptable to permit a contrary voice to be given equal weight to the "consensus" view of climate scientists? Would one such voice be enough to prevent us taking any action? Or should it be ten, or a hundred? How do we decide if a "contrary" view is sufficiently powerful to over-rule the "consensus"? And importantly, WHO decides?

When will we definitively KNOW that the models were right? In 2050. when we are able to add another 35 years of data to the analysis? Or 2100?

What scale of actual consequence would be acceptable before we need to respond? What fraction of the land mass of low-lying countries such as Tuvalu, Bangladesh etc can we permit to be submerged? How do we decide whether the sea level rise is caused by CO[sub]2[/sub] emissions or other causes? Who decides that the developed world can carry on emitting CO[sub]2[/sub] while the developing world bears so much of the risk? Who will compensate the impacted communities? Where will the displaced people go?

And how should we respond globally when we have carried on emitting CO[sub]2[/sub] for a few more decades without undertaking any significant remediation measures in the mean time, but we now understand that what was "consensus" opinion in 2000-2015 is now acknowledged almost universally?

It's one thing to argue for caution, and argue that a full-scale "worst-case" response is not yet justified, but you'd better have a "Plan B" in case the outcomes are worse than the "best case" scenario.

http://julianh72.blogspot.com

 

[beej67]

What tests do you propose so that we will KNOW that the models are correct, and we need to respond?

If the IPCC is claiming that 2 degrees C is doomsday, then I want all the models to be tight enough that the IPCC's ECS band of "most probable" values for ECS to be within half a degree C. Otherwise the projections on which the policy is crafted are pointless.

Do the math yourself. If the ECS is 2, then we can double CO2 before doomsday. If the ECS is 4, then we can only increase CO2 by 50% before doomsday. Right? That's a huge difference for planning purposes, and the IPCC range is even wider - it's 1.5 to 4.5.

What fraction of the world's climate scientists in "consensus" blah blah blah

I'm taking the IPCC at face value here, man. I presume their consensus is correct, and that they're not lying when they say ECS to CO2 is somewhere between 1.5 to 4.5 degrees C per doubling. If that's their consensus, fine. The error bands on that consensus are not tight enough to use that consensus to craft policy.

It's one thing to argue for caution, and argue that a full-scale "worst-case" response is not yet justified, but you'd better have a "Plan B" in case the outcomes are worse than the "best case" scenario.

My personal opinion is that Plan B should be Plan A, which is prepare to live on a warmer planet. The 50 billion dollars spent on carbon initiatives that the EPA models themselves show zero effect on global climate could be a lot better spent on levies. (or rain forest preservation) We know for a fact that dollars spent in preparation are going to be well spent, because the globe was going to warm regardless. All the mitigation in the world can at best only slow it down.

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

http://www.campbellcivil.com

 

[rb1957]

another thought experiment ... if the sealevel increases, by how much ? 6" 2' ? The consequences and pre-emptive mitigation are very different.

how to address possible changes in rainfall, distribution and amounts ?

sure a bunch of people will become homeless if the sealevel rises 2' ... but maybe we can relocate them to the newly de-iced Greenland ? that is meant as a joke (and not a serious proposal), although it points to new opportunities that will arise with the new world order.

If we change our FF burning habits now, and significantly, how long will it take the environment to adjust ?

what are we going to do in the future if we do this now (change our FF burning habit at considerable expense) and yet things don't turn around ? want to bet some smart a$$ will be saying "told you so, you should've listened sooner, done more" maybe CO2 isn't the worst thing since sliced bread ? maybe there's something else driving the climate ??

how will we ensure all countries change the same ? most 3rd world and developing economies say this is a 1st world plot to stifle their growth.

what'd happen if we doubled our fusion research budget ?

why doesn't gasoline cost $10/liter ?

another day in paradise, or is paradise one day closer ?

 

[rconnor]

Beej67, no one thinks that 2 deg C is “doomsday”. No one is advocating for martial law. Please attempt to build less ridiculous straw men. Also, the irony of calling one group “alarmists” based off a straw man of their opinion on the impacts, while using an straw man of their opinion on mitigation measures to generate fear of mitigation, is palpable.

Moving on, you need to understand two important things about climate change mitigation. Firstly, 2 deg C is not a hard limit; 2.5 deg C is better than 3 deg C and 3 deg C is better 4 deg C. All have cost/benefits that, increasingly, favour mitigation rather than straight adaptation. The goal is to stay as low as possible.

This leads into the second aspect you need to understand – an ECS of 2 doesn’t mean we will warm 2 deg C and then magically stop. If we continue to raise the atmospheric concentration of CO2, we will continue to warm the planet. At our current rate, a TCR of 1.3 or 1.8 is irrelevant because the slower rate of warming is dwarfed by the very rapid rate of CO2 concentration increase (it pushes things out by ~10 years). I’ve repeatedly said this to you and you’ve repeatedly ignored it.

What this means is taking a low sensitivity value or a high value, the difference is a matter of years or maybe a decade or so; it doesn’t mean that much to policy. Even taken a low sensitivity value, we need to get to near net zero emissions as fast as practically, socially and economically possible.

I’m actually of the opinion that even a very high ECS/TCR will not impact the pace of policy that much. As political change is slow but cultural change is even slower, this inertia will likely dictate the pace of policy, more so than climate sensitivity. ECS/TCR will, in my opinion, just change what temperature we reach once we get our act together (i.e. how much adaptation we need on top of the mitigation).

At the end of the day beej67, you cannot conclude that we don't know enough to promote mitigation measures. It's possible that higher sensitivity will increase the urgency of those measures but I think we'll be limited by the rate of politics and cultures.

 

[rconnor]

how to address possible changes in rainfall, distribution and amounts ?

Great question. Hence why it’s much easy to limit the extent of those changes rather than being forced to adapt to them. The US will likely have no issues adapting but Africa is a different story.

sure a bunch of people will become homeless if the sealevel rises 2' ... but maybe we can relocate them to the newly de-iced Greenland ? that is meant as a joke (and not a serious proposal), although it points to new opportunities that will arise with the new world order.

Are you suggesting that some areas will benefit from climate change? That’s possible, yes, but irrelevant. The benefit in some small areas is vastly outweighed by the costs in the rest of the planet. I don’t understand how this (referring to the last part, not the joke) isn’t another example of ignoring the cost and political, social and ethical issues with displacement.

If we change our FF burning habits now, and significantly, how long will it take the environment to adjust ?

It’s a rather ill-phrased question. Our total emissions impact the amount of change to the environment. If we reduce our emissions, we reduce the rate of change. However, we cannot reverse the change (in the next thousand years). So reducing our emissions doesn’t cause the environment to “adjust” back to “normal”, it just limits the amount of “adjustment”.

what are we going to do in the future if we do this now (change our FF burning habit at considerable expense) and yet things don't turn around ?

If you can explain, in equal detail to the science behind anthropogenic climate change by CO2, another process that might be causing the current warming, I’m all ears. “It’s changed before” doesn’t work (in fact it validates anthropogenic CO2). “It’s the sun” doesn’t work (it’s going in the opposite direction for the last few decades). “It’s land use change” doesn’t work (see the above discussions with beej67). Simply put, there’s nothing to suggest that CO2 is not the driver of climate change. If we reduce our emissions and it still warms, we acted on the best data and evidence we had at the time. That’s how you do risk assessment.

how will we ensure all countries change the same ?

Great question. Tariffs are likely one answer. With regards to allowing third world development, again, great question. To me, there’s a moral responsibility to help them, especially as the first world became the first world largely on the back of fossil fuel (note: but now we have other options). This is not an argument against mitigation though, just to go about it. The first step is significant reductions in developed nations.

what'd happen if we doubled our fusion research budget ?

Might be a good idea. Maybe you can ask the US chairman of the Committee of Science, Space and Technology.

why doesn't gasoline cost $10/liter ?

Because revenue neutral taxation on gasoline is likely a better option than allowing oil companies to increase the cost, largely so they can continue to privatize the gains while socializing the damages. You still have the same impact on influencing consumer behavior but now you can redirect the money to low-income families and other such social benefits (as BC does).

 

[hawkaz]

rconnor,
you tipped at something that has been bugging me- I would appreciate input from both sides.

I suspect that the developed nations have already passed the point of diminishing returns. It is costing more and more for less and less benefit. Developing nations, however, are still in their infancy regarding measures that may prove beneficial. I would suspect that China, India, most of Africa, parts of South America... emit much more than the US, Canada, Australia, western Europe, Japan...

Where it may cost billions to initiate some of the proposals in the developed nations, it would cost a fraction of that in the developing nations- and would probably have a greater impact.
What is stopping us from using our technologies (and money)to help those nations achieve better goals? We could spend a fraction of what is proposed and get better results.

 

[rconnor]

Where it may cost billions to initiate some of the proposals in the developed nations, it would cost a fraction of that in the developing nations- and would probably have a greater impact.
What is stopping us from using our technologies (and money) to help those nations achieve better goals? We could spend a fraction of what is proposed and get better results.

That’s an interesting point. I’m not sure I necessarily agree with it but I see where you are coming from. The reason I’m not sure I agree is that while total emissions are very high in China and India, emissions per capita (China – 7.4 t/person, India 1.7 t/person) are much smaller than the US (16.6), Canada (15.7) and Australia(16.9) (parts of the EU are lower than China). Therefore, when emissions per capita are so high, there is a lot of low hanging fruit. However, when it comes to supporting low emission energy generation, then you are likely right.

I’m not sure I understand exactly what you are suggesting, though. If you’re suggesting that the US’s money would be better spent (more bang-for-the-buck) in helping the developing world reduce emissions rather than domestically, then I don’t agree. If you mean, in addition to domestic reductions, then I would agree. Total global emission reduction should be our goal.

At this point, I feel it necessary to talk, preemptively, about the argument “if China isn’t going to do something, then it doesn’t matter if we do”. Firstly, China is very much so coming to the table to work on reducing emissions. Secondly, CO2 emission tariffs could be an effective way of “encouraging” countries to participate in emission reductions (especially a country so dependent on exports). Lastly, the entire argument is grounded on fallacious logic. While halting the increase of atmospheric CO2 concentrations is of course best, reducing the rate of increase in concentrations is also beneficial. If the rest of the world was net carbon neutral but China was still going on business-as-usual it would be much better than if the whole world continued business-as-usual.

I hope this addresses your question. Let me know if it doesn’t.

 

[IRstuff]

So, here's a relevant graphic, which basically shows that even if ALL of the non-industrialized countries were to completely eliminate their carbon emissions, the total global emission would only drop by 28%. Note that even India with 4x the population of the US emits less than 1/3rd of the emissions.

TTFN
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert!
homework forum: //

http://www.engineering.com/AskForum/aff/32.aspx

faq731-376 forum1529

 

[beej67]

Beej67, no one thinks that 2 deg C is “doomsday”. No one is advocating for martial law.

Are you paying attention? How about James Hansen, director of Nasa's Goddard Institute?

Coal is the single greatest threat to civilisation and all life on our planet.

The climate is nearing tipping points. Changes are beginning to appear and there is a potential for explosive changes, effects that would be irreversible, if we do not rapidly slow fossil-fuel emissions over the next few decades.

Earth, with its four-kilometre-deep oceans, responds only slowly to changes of carbon dioxide. So the climate will continue to change, even if we make maximum effort to slow the growth of carbon dioxide. Arctic sea ice will melt away in the summer season within the next few decades. Mountain glaciers, providing fresh water for rivers that supply hundreds of millions of people, will disappear - practically all of the glaciers could be gone within 50 years

The greatest danger hanging over our children and grandchildren is initiation of changes that will be irreversible on any time scale that humans can imagine. If coastal ice shelves buttressing the west Antarctic ice sheet continue to disintegrate, the sheet could disgorge into the ocean, raising sea levels by several metres in a century. Such rates of sea level change have occurred many times in Earth's history in response to global warming rates no higher than those of the past 30 years. Almost half of the world's great cities are located on coastlines.

The trains carrying coal to power plants are death trains. Coal-fired power plants are factories of death. When I testified against the proposed Kingsnorth power plant, I estimated that in its lifetime it would be responsible for the extermination of about 400 species - its proportionate contribution to the number that would be committed to extinction if carbon dioxide rose another 100 ppm.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2009/feb/15/james-hansen-power-plants-coal

He goes on to advocate the EU forcing Russia somehow to keep all of its oil in the ground, and such. So how does he expect to manage that, exactly? You got any ideas, rconnor, outside of some sort of global martial law? You ready for World War 3? I'm not.

These are the sort of conclusions that logical people draw from modeling an ECS of 4.5. They are not the sort of conclusions that logical people would draw from modeling an ECS of 1.5. That's why we've got to get the number right.


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

http://www.campbellcivil.com

 

[beej67]

Oh, hey, here you go. "Doomsday Clock 3 Minutes from Midnight."

http://news.discovery.com/earth/global-warming/climate-change-moves-the-doomsday-clock-150122.htm

So according to that bunch of scientists, the world is closer to a Global Thermonuclear War severity disaster than it has been since 1953, and is significantly closer than it was even during the Cuban Missile Crisis. So no, rconnor. I know you wish this was a strawman, but it is not a strawman. This sort of doomsday talk is exactly what people are crafting policy around.

And the science is not good enough to support doomsday predictions.

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

http://www.campbellcivil.com

 

[SkipVought]

@beej67, this is the major objection in my mind. Thanks for these two posts/links.

We have data and we have split opinion of the interpretation of the data regarding 1) what the future looks like, 2) what's actually causing this, 3) can we do anything to substantially positively effect this, 4) should we do anything, 5) how should we do it if we do it.

I am far more fearful of governmental tyranny than I am of nature. Governments are like fire: a dangerous servant and a fearful master!



Skip,
[sub]
Just traded in my OLD subtlety...
for a NUance![/sub]

 

[beej67]

And I don't even like oil, because it comes from the Middle East, and the ME is full of crazy people. We should seek to stop associating in any way with crazy people, and by extension, seek to use less oil.

And I don't even like coal either, because strip mining is a terrible, fantastically damaging practice environmentally, and by extension we should seek to use less coal.

But doomsday pop science leads us to policy conclusions that are not only unrealistic, they're terrifying. And the science does not yet support those conclusions with any legitimate degree of certainty, like Mr. Hansen above seems to think they do.

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

http://www.campbellcivil.com

 

[rb1957]

"the ME is full of crazy people" ... I think craziness is pretty uniformly distributed over the world (except maybe Antarctica) ... ah, even there, in fact maybe higher there ?

another day in paradise, or is paradise one day closer ?

 

[cranky108]

Strange to say, but we have disused many technologies because they were difficult, less cost effective in the face of cheep energy, or other reasons.

Take the ICE house that was used to store Winter cut ice for use in the Summer. We now use other forms of energy, mostly electricity, to do the same thing.
In no way do I think we can completly go back to ice houses for cooling, but maybe a form of ice storage of energy makes more since.
But is not likely without time of day/year energy pricing, which is prohibited by governments.

So part of the issue of energy reduction can be forced by the free market, if it is allowed to operate in the energy supply to customers (retail).

Until the market is allowed to work, the government is just controlling us with it's mandates.

In many states we are not allowed to dam a creek, or river, so we can't develop more hydroelectric energy. So is coal or oil the real problem?

 

[rconnor]

Beej67,
“No one” was in the context of earlier discussion (“the term “dooms day” is your term, not Vox’s nor the authors’ of the paper [nor the IPCC nor mine]”), I assumed that was obvious. Sensationalize is, of course, on both sides of the table; I condemn both. James Hansen’s “death train/death factories” comment was gag-worthy (he’s a great scientist but I often disagree with his language as an activist). However, while I disagree with his language and his focus on the “worse” end of uncertainty (*cough*…kinda like someone who only focuses on the “better” end of the uncertainty…*cough*), the impacts he discusses are supported by the science.

You, on the other hand, are flat out making things up. To think those sensationalized puff pieces are what’s crafting policy is nonsense. To think that mitigation policy might involve “martial law” is absolute tin-foil hat lunacy. You’re scared silly about some fictitious (and totally untrue) idea of mitigation and you are attempting to scare other people away. All while, hypocritically, calling people like Hansen “alarmist”.

Europe has been quite aggressive thus far in reducing emissions. Did they do so under the enacting of “martial law”? No.

BC has North America’s most comprehensive carbon tax. Did citizens have to forfeit their freedom? No.

Revenue neutral carbon taxes (where funds go towards low-income families and other social benefits), incentivizing energy efficiency (through utility demand side management), stricter energy and emission standards and renewable energy generation targets are all valid methods of reducing our emissions. None of them are close to “martial law”.

(And this isn’t the Fox News comment section, keep your ignorant views of other regions out of this discussion.)

SkipVought,

We have data and we have split opinion of the interpretation of the data

No we don’t. Nearly all (say 97%) scientist, universities and scientific institutions share the same opinion. That some libertarian think-tanks or right-wing media outlets disagree is irrelevant. Just because you choose to listen to a very loud but small fringe voice doesn’t mean the scientific community is unsure or “split”.

Again, do you feel that "we have a split opinion of the interpretation of the data" surrounding evolution just because some religious groups disagree with the scientific evidence?