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…

 

[IRstuff]

"you're not likely to make any more progress by attacking his/her position."

Sorry, but that ship sailed at least a year ago.

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

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

faq731-376 forum1529

 

[rb1957]

heck, that ship hit an iceberg !

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

 

[rconnor]

But I thought Al Gore said all those melted?

Seriously though, someguy79, I agree I could have avoided some statements that were made more out of frustration which did little to further my argument. I have edited them out. Thanks for the reminder.

But to think that the reason why we aren’t having a “reasoned discussion” is because of “shouting and name calling” misses the, in my mind, real reason. The, in my mind, real reason we aren’t having a “reasoned discussion" is because one side, and only one side, feels that scientific evidence, especially from well established institutions or peer-reviewed journals, is necessary to support their statements. The other side feels that is optional or, worse yet, that scientific evidence, especially from well established institutions or peer-reviewed journals, is less credible than opinions or blog science. If you feel this an unfair representation, I’d encourage you to review the discussion again.

(If people are actually interested in the meta-discussion, Climateball ™ has you covered)

 

[beej67]

rconnor, the first two paragraphs of your reply were a completely disgraceful misrepresentation of everything I've said, and I don't care to bother with it line by line. All I'll say about it is that it's the sort of rhetoric that drives people away from your cause once they see through the forest of strawmen.

Let's instead focus on efficacy, because that's really what this is all about. Here's your "plan" ...

I feel mitigation measures need to look at moving energy generation is as close to fully renewable as practically possible and I feel that nuclear shouldn’t be completely disregarded as a part of this. Aforestation, or at least significant reductions in deforestation, will also be extremely important. I’m unconvinced that artificially drawing down atmospheric CO2 concentrations is a practical option (hence why I feel it’s important to reduce emissions as soon as possible). Revenue neutral carbon taxes appear to be an effective method in reducing emission growth in the short term, but of course is not the panacea, and could support the shift in energy generation. Tariffs on imports from non-participating countries would help encourage participation. Allowances from underdeveloped nations need to be taken into account, which is an important political, economic and ethical discussion. Then upgrading the grid to support a transition to mainly electric transportation is the next step. Going to electric transportation while we still generate from coal is pointless; in fact, a study I read showed that on average in the US hybrid vehicles have fewer emissions/km than fully electric vehicles. The opposite is true in areas that generate primarily from non-coal sources.

As nebulous and unspecific as it is, I like quite a bit about this plan, because I don't like having my country's economy tied to the whims of global politics. And kid yourself not, global politics are entirely about oil. Turkey's shooting down Russian jets because of a pipeline. I'll summarize my disagreements in short order. "Renewable" doesn't work for base load, you have to go nuclear, or do something else new and weird, like the gulf stream turbine. Conservation is what will actually help the mass extinction problem (see below). Agree with you on the lack of efficacy of artificial CO2 sinks. Carbon taxation and tariffs are both shams, politically, that are developed by, and for, cronyists. I don't like coal because strip mines are evil, and I'd rather tackle the coal problem from the conservation side.

But the important take away here, is that the stuff you're talking about, to the "reasonable" scale that you claim to want to take it, won't significantly affect global warming. You do realize that right? It won't fix the problem, according to the models you hold so dear.

Returning to your original point, if you are talking about extinctions up to this point, then I agree with you. Up to this point, impacts on ecosystems caused by global warming has been smaller than the impact of anthropogenic land use changes. I thought we were talking about extinctions into the future, in which case global warming will likely be more impactful than land-use change.

What?

When you freely admit that nearly 100% of the current mass extinction is due to anthropogenic pressures unrelated to climate, why on our poor distressed Earth would you think that all, or even most, of the future extinctions are going to be due to a degree per century rise in temperature? You'd spend trillions trying to slow the warming trend a little while everything continues to die of other causes. And this is what I mean when I continue to focus on efficacy of policy. The costs to completely avoid 1 degree rise are tremendous. For the same cost we could turn a third of the planet into preserved habitat.

Interestingly, your comment on “increases in the vectors for invasive species and pathogens” is another reason why global warming will be very bad. Pathogens love warmth and will benefit from global warming, much to our loss. Furthermore, as species are forced to migrate due to changes in the biosphere, you will have massive shifts in the ecological equilibrium as the biosphere struggles to handle the shifts.

Please list the pathogens that die at 71 C and promulgate at 72 C. You can't. There are none. Climate change does not significantly impact pathogen vectors. You know what does impact pathogen vectors? Airplanes and boats.

Thanks for the tip on the Permian Event. That's going to be some good reading. A quick dip into Wikipedia says that 80% of marine species kicked the bucket, and the bulk of those were due to oceanic acidification. I have mentioned several times that oceanic acidification is the actual threat of CO2, and what we actually need to be freaked out about. Not warming. And that's a good point to pound on here, because climate change didn't kill the Permian diatoms. Causality. What killed the Permian diatoms was lack of dissolved calcium to build their "bones" (shells) with. It was a collapse of oceanic chemistry. The Permian Event also had CO2 concentrations 5 times what we have today. We'd have to increase CO2 at current rates for 950 years to get there.

I've got no idea how RCP8.5 claims we'll get to 2000 ppm by the year 2250, when we're going to run out of oil in 60 years anyway. Maybe you can enlighten me on that?

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

http://www.campbellcivil.com

 

[rb1957]

"I've got no idea how RCP8.5 claims we'll get to 2000 ppm by the year 2250, when we're going to run out of oil in 60 years anyway. Maybe you can enlighten me on that?" ... one word answer ... coal.
oh, and "tar sands"

also, I doubt we'll run out of fossil fuels to burn any time soon, we may run low of the cheapest to get at ones, but there are others out there (not economical to exploit now).

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

 

[beej67]

"I've got no idea how RCP8.5 claims we'll get to 2000 ppm by the year 2250, when we're going to run out of oil in 60 years anyway. Maybe you can enlighten me on that?" ... one word answer ... coal.
oh, and "tar sands"

?

https://www.ecotricity.co.uk/our-green-energy/energy-independence/the-end-of-fossil-fuels

Coal production has already peaked due to scarcity and difficulty to extract:

http://www.greentechmedia.com/artic...e-US-Run-Out-of-Coal-in-200-Years-Or-20-Years

If we're going to run out of oil in 60 years, and coal production is doomed to continue to decline due to scarcity, then how on earth are we supposed to release 950 years worth of carbon in the next 250 as RCP8.5 claims? Where is the carbon even going to come from? We could burn every bit of carbon economically available to us and the CO2 ppm wouldn't get near Permian levels. Not even close.

The question I have, because I do think oceanic acidification is an actual environmental crisis worth discussion, is how much more acidifcation we can stand before the diatom population in our ocean starts to collapse. It might be well shy of that 2000 ppm atmospheric concentration amount. And if so, the bar is well lower for a true crisis. But if that's the case, then we need to focus on that as the problem, and develop science around solving that problem.



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

http://www.campbellcivil.com

 

[zdas04]

Any future looking projection of production, consumption, or remaining recoverable hydrocarbons will be wrong. Mostly they will be very wrong, some will just barely be wrong, the farther out they are projecting, the more wrong they will be.

Coal is anything but scarce or difficult to extract. There is incredible pressure on users of coal to top consuming it. When people slow down their use of coal, production necessarily falls. That downtrend is a result of enviro-wacko pressure, not difficulty of extraction. Your links are utter nonsense that latched onto a forward-looking scenario as fact. It is just a scenario. Someone should be able to tell you with confidence if it was true sometime around the year 2300.

I've done enough of those particular forward looking computer models and reviewed hundreds more to know with absolute certainty that they will be wrong. In fact, I don't believe that the world ever runs out of hydrocarbons--there are too many contemporary organisms that convert CO2 and water into CH4 and O2 to ever run out. The stuff we call "fossil fuels" will run out in the sense that it will reach a point where recovering it costs more than you can sell it for (nearly there today actually with the U.S. spending $52/bbl to produce oil to sell at $40/bbl, but this blip will pass, the next one may not). When it does run out we will get smarter at harvesting contemporary methane. Projections of Peak Oil and "The end of Fossil Fuels" are just fun with numbers and have no intrinsic validity. They don't prove anything except that multi-colored graphs are pretty.

David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering

In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual. Galileo Galilei, Italian Physicist

 

[rconnor]

beej67, perhaps I lumped you in with "skeptics" in general when it wasn't appropriate, my apologies. However, I believe my point still stands - debating mitigation policies with those that don't agree with the science is pointless, as they can always simply say "well it's not needed in the first place".

I am glad you agree with some aspects; we see eye to eye at times (i.e. the importance of conservation). Of course it's rather vague, are you expecting I outline a detailed climate change mitigation treatise? If I could, I should be in Paris right now, not on this forum.

But the important take away here, is that the stuff you're talking about, to the "reasonable" scale that you claim to want to take it, won't significantly affect global warming. You do realize that right? It won't fix the problem, according to the models you hold so dear.

Again, if this is based on some CATO blog post then consider me unconvinced. As I discussed, there analysis incorrectly assumes a 550 MtCO2 difference in 2100 - of course that's going to be small but it's also a completely inappropriate comparison. Again, look at the difference between RCP8.5 and RCP2.6 they demonstrate two different emission pathways with drastically different temperatures. Now, I don't consider RCP2.6 to be viable, I think a realistic goal would be to follow something closer to RCP4.5.

When you freely admit that nearly 100% of the current mass extinction is due to anthropogenic pressures unrelated to climate

Speaking of misrepresenting...compare this to what I said. "Smaller than" does not mean "100%" "unrelated to climate". Nevertheless, to answer your follow up question, it's because I think that we haven't yet entered into an era that could be classed as "mass extinction". We've done a lot of damage (and I completely agree we should make efforts to reduce the loss of habitat) but the real damage is yet to come. Fortunately, the solution to both climate change and land use change is very similar - reduced and more efficient consumption. Current Deforestation, fishing and agricultural practices are disruptive and changes in those practices are part and parcel in climate change mitigation.

And this is what I mean when I continue to focus on efficacy of policy. The costs to completely avoid 1 degree rise are tremendous. For the same cost we could turn a third of the planet into preserved habitat

We cannot discuss this rationally if you continue to ignore the cost of adaptation, hyperbolize the cost of mitigation, and misunderstand and overstate the “better” end of uncertainty while ignoring the “worse” end. We cannot discuss this rationally if you premise your argument in some ridiculous CATO blog post.

Climate change does not significantly impact pathogen vectors.

Honestly beej67, please just google these things before you speak - Bebber et al 2013, Gregory et al 2009, Harvell et al 2002, etc.

A quick dip into Wikipedia says that 80% of marine species kicked the bucket, and the bulk of those were due to oceanic acidification. I have mentioned several times that oceanic acidification is the actual threat of CO2, and what we actually need to be freaked out about. Not warming.

Firstly, as someone that doesn't think CO2 is an issue, it's odd that you'd use the fact that CO2-driven ocean acidification is responsible for large amounts of extinctions as an argument supporting your viewpoint. Does that mean you agree with mitigation measures to reduce CO2 emissions now? Secondly, warming is responsible for extinctions - through changes in the biosphere, flooding caused by ice melting, changes in local water supplies and vegetation, anoxia, etc. It's a selective misreading to think otherwise and would put you at odds with the authors of the paper's you are selectively misreading. Here's one example from Joachimski et al 2012:

The major temperature rise started immediately before the main extinction phase, with maximum and harmful temperatures documented in the latest Permian (Meishan: bed 27). The coincidence of climate warming and the main pulse of extinction suggest that global warming was one of the causes of the collapse of the marine and terrestrial ecosystems. In addition, very warm climate conditions in the Early Triassic may have played a major role in the delayed recovery in the aftermath of the Permian-Triassic crisis.

I've got no idea how RCP8.5 claims we'll get to 2000 ppm by the year 2250, when we're going to run out of oil in 60 years anyway. Maybe you can enlighten me on that?

Ummm, how about you enlighten me on where that "we're going to run out of oil in 60 years anyway" line comes from. "Ecotricity - Britian's leading green energy supplier"? Colour me unconvinced - I'm in agreement with rb1957 here.

 

[beej67]

I've done enough of those particular forward looking computer models and reviewed hundreds more to know with absolute certainty that they will be wrong. In fact, I don't believe that the world ever runs out of hydrocarbons--there are too many contemporary organisms that convert CO2 and water into CH4 and O2 to ever run out. The stuff we call "fossil fuels" will run out in the sense that it will reach a point where recovering it costs more than you can sell it for (nearly there today actually with the U.S. spending $52/bbl to produce oil to sell at $40/bbl, but this blip will pass, the next one may not). When it does run out we will get smarter at harvesting contemporary methane.(etc)

Yes, but if you believe the hype that it's all about carbon neutrality, the only thing that matters is reintroduction of entombed carbon to the atmosphere. Harvesting hydrocarbons from "contemporary sources" is by definition carbon neutral. Methane from a turd came from decomposition of organic material, and the carbon in that organic material came from the atmosphere to begin with. We could develop an entire energy system around turd methane and burning trees (which we then replant) and have zero impact on atmospheric carbon ppm.

If, that is, you believe that atmospheric ppm is the only climate driver.

So what really matters if you're a carbon boogyman guy, isn't when we stop burning hydrocarbons. What matters is when we stop extracting them from the earth's crust and reintroducing them to the troposphere. If we're going to run out of them in 100 years, how do we burn 950 years worth of them in 250 years?

beej67, perhaps I lumped you in with "skeptics" in general when it wasn't appropriate, my apologies. However, I believe my point still stands - debating mitigation policies with those that don't agree with the science is pointless, as they can always simply say "well it's not needed in the first place".

I am glad you agree with some aspects; we see eye to eye at times (i.e. the importance of conservation). Of course it's rather vague, are you expecting I outline a detailed climate change mitigation treatise? If I could, I should be in Paris right now, not on this forum.

I'm glad we see eye to eye on stuff. I think that many of the policies you advocate are good ones to adopt for other reasons. I think you're playing with fire by hanging your hat on a warming prediction that's going to be proven wrong by policy. The "Pause Backlash" should teach you guys to quit playing with fire, or you'll assuredly get burned again. "Fire" in this case is pretending to be sure that your models are right this time around. Fair or unfair, this is what people think about you. And the more you scream about how 'settled' the science is, the more good will you're burning for environmentalists in general every time you're wrong.

As I discussed, there analysis incorrectly assumes a 550 MtCO2 difference in 2100 - of course that's going to be small but it's also a completely inappropriate comparison. Again, look at the difference between RCP8.5 and RCP2.6 they demonstrate two different emission pathways with drastically different temperatures. Now, I don't consider RCP2.6 to be viable, I think a realistic goal would be to follow something closer to RCP4.5.

Stop right here.

Think ROI.

If a 550 MtCO2 difference costs enough money to preserve the entire country of Honduras as a permanent rainforest habitat, how much money does the delta between RCP8.5 and RCP 4.5 cost? And what could be done with that immense, gigantic, insane pile of cash thrown at conservation instead?

This is my point.

And the point stands until you answer the dang question. Here, I'll ask it again: how much money does the delta between RCP8.5 and RCP 4.5 cost?

If you don't have a flat answer, then let's project it, using Obama's latest climate initiative. 550 MtCO2 difference costs 50 billion. Call it 10 megatons averted per billion spent to make it easy. 1 ppm difference in the atmosphere is something like 8 gigatons of CO2. RCP8.5 is 1240 ppm in 2100. RCP 4.5 is 560 ppm. That's a 680 ppm difference. 5,440 gigatons of carbon. 5,440,000 megatons of carbon. At the kind of ROI that was in Obama's latest climate plan, you're talking about having to spend 544 trillion dollars.

I love your plan sir. But it ain't near 544 trillion dollars worth of "mitigation." And it ain't near RCP 4.5.

Now that's not hyperbole, that's arithmetic. If you've got some different arithmetic to share, please share it.

Nevertheless, to answer your follow up question, it's because I think that we haven't yet entered into an era that could be classed as "mass extinction". We've done a lot of damage (and I completely agree we should make efforts to reduce the loss of habitat) but the real damage is yet to come. Fortunately, the solution to both climate change and land use change is very similar - reduced and more efficient consumption. Current Deforestation, fishing and agricultural practices are disruptive and changes in those practices are part and parcel in climate change mitigation.

Well your opinion is flat out wrong on that account. We are definitely already smack dab in the middle of the sixth major extinction event. The Holocene extinction we're in right now may be causing as many as 140,000 species to go extinct per year. It's staggering. And not (yet I'll admit) warming related. And here's the thing - warming is not going to make it any worse. It's already as bad as it can possibly get, in terms of extinction rates. Throwing many trillions of dollars at averting warming will probably just make a slightly less hot planet for a bunch of dead creatures to live on.

The rest of your post I'm not going to even bother with, honestly, because you're just throwing straw men around to deflect the issue. Like this one:

Firstly, as someone that doesn't think CO2 is an issue....

I have mentioned several times that oceanic acidification is the actual threat of CO2, and what we actually need to be freaked out about. Not warming. And that's a good point to pound on here, because climate change didn't kill the Permian diatoms. Causality. What killed the Permian diatoms was lack of dissolved calcium to build their "bones" (shells) with. It was a collapse of oceanic chemistry.

Now, tell me rconnor, how does RCP 8.5 think we're going to increase our carbon release rate by a factor of four, for the next 200 years, when our current rates of carbon release are going to exhaust the available entombed carbon in half that time? If the actual problem is mass extinction, then whatever portion of that is carbon related is going to fix itself within the next century regardless, and we need to take the 544 trillion dollar stack of cash and spend it on conservation. Or, you know, maybe a little less.



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

http://www.campbellcivil.com

 

[rb1957]

sorry, but IMHO anyone who thinks we're going to run out of petroleum in 40 years is just plain nuts !

if this were true, the world is due for an awful "correction" in about 30 years as people scrap around for the last dregs.
and if that correction goes nuclear, well then, that'll sort of the main problem !
in any case, elevated CO2 and it's consequences would be the least of our problems.

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

 

[rconnor]

The "Pause Backlash" should teach you guys to quit playing with fire, or you'll assuredly get burned again.

Re-read both parts of my commentary on the “pause”. The “pause” never statistically existed, did not show that warming had “stopped” and did not show that climate models over estimated sensitivity. The “pause backlash” really just showed how little certain portions of the public (and the Chairman of the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology) understand about climate science despite their overly aggressive stance against mitigation measures.

With regards to the cartoon, I could care less what a small, but vocal, misinformed portion of the population thinks. The WUWT comment section does not represent the world. Hence why world leaders are meeting in Paris as we speak to address climate change.

Stop right here. Think ROI.

Honestly, how do you perform an ROI when you don’t include the benefits? Again, “We cannot discuss this rationally if you continue to ignore the cost of adaptation, hyperbolize the cost of mitigation, and misunderstand and overstate the “better” end of uncertainty while ignoring the “worse” end. We cannot discuss this rationally if you premise your argument in some ridiculous CATO blog post.”

Your “analysis” takes a single data point, incorrectly takes 550 MtCO2 in 2030 and spins it to be 550 MtCO2 in 2100 (when it would be much, much higher), incorrectly assumes that every ppm decrease will cost the same amount and then extrapolates that incorrectly spun single data point to 680 ppm. That’s not how this works. And by the way, 550 MtCO2 represents 19% of the difference between RCP8.5 and RCP4.5 in 2030, so as the baseline continues to rise, the Clean Power Plan would have increasing savings. Basically what you (and CATO) are assuming is that in 2030, the Clean Power Plan magically goes away and coal plants fire back up – which, of course, would make the 2100 difference rather small. It's like if Donald Trump was elected in 2030, undid all of America's climate change mitigation initiatives, re-fired back up all the coal plants and then in 2100 saying "I told you the Clean Power Act wouldn't do much!" It's beyond an incorrect analysis, it's absurdly silly. And on top of all of this, you (and CATO) are performing this absurdly silly analysis while completely ignoring any benefits. However, with analysis like that, I think CATO would love to hire you.

And no, I couldn’t calculate the cost/benefit between RCP8.5 and RCP4.5 because I understand the complexity of that analysis. I have neither the expertise nor the time – and neither do you. However, I’ve already shown you numerous examples of in-depth economic analysis from people that do have the expertise. The Stern Review is one such example.

And here's the thing - warming is not going to make it any worse.

Again, please do a tiny bit of research prior to speaking. It’s as simple as doing a Google Scholar search on “global warming extinction” or read AR WGII (here’s the SPM, search “extinction”).

I’m not trying to downplay the current harm humans cause on the ecosystem; saying that global warming will make it worse doesn’t mean I ignore that. Currently, extinction events happen near human activity. However, with global warming, every inch of the biosphere is stressed by a changing climate. I do believe that you have a keen interest in conservation and protecting the environment, which is why I’m unsure why you feel climate change mitigation is a waste of money (well, I have my hunches).

Re: ocean acidification – From my memory, that statement was the first time you addressed ocean acidification, which was said after I talked about the Permian event. Now, I could certainly be wrong and forgot that you had previously argued that ocean acidification was an issue, in which case, my apologies.

However, my point still stands. How can you be against CO2 emission reduction measures but, at the same time, feel that ocean acidification is a serious concern? I suppose your response would be that you don’t feel we have enough carbon to burn to make it an issue. I feel that the concept of peak oil/coal is only because current prices make them not cost-effective to extract. However, once scarcity drives up cost, they become cost-effective. Furthermore, warming has a feedback effect of releasing large amounts of methane and carbon (on top of anthropogenic emissions), which I don’t believe you are taking into account. That being said, if you feel that peak oil/coal will save us from ourselves, hinging on questionable sources, then we will just continue to talk past each other on this point.

Re: Global Warming causing extinctions - More telling than what you comment on is what you don't comment on. You've completely avoided discussion on the fact that global warming has, indeed, been instrumental in past extinction events (including the Permian Event). You continually make such bold statements as "[Past mass extinctions] were a result of geologically rapid cooling. Not warming. Cooling." or "Climate change does not significantly impact pathogen vectors." or "And here's the thing - warming is not going to make [extinctions] any worse." without (seemingly) any research. The smallest amount of research would show that these statements are completely unsupported by the science and, worse, the science supports the exact opposite. You seem to think if you spout these uniformed opinions with enough conviction that it nullifies all the science that says they're wrong. Whereas I feel that science that says an uninformed opinion is wrong nullifies the opinion as having any merit in this discussion. Going back to my "playing chess against a pigeon" comment, we are playing the same game using two different sets of rules. While this may be harsh, it appears to be an accurate reflection of the conversation.

 

[rb1957]

why would you want to "play chess against a pigeon" ? do you want to mentally triumph over a pigeon ? and what if (along the lines of an infinite number of monkeys typing forever would eventually produce something like Shakespeare) the pigeon bet you ??

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

 

[rconnor]

rb1957, as discussed before, my hope would not be to “beat” the pigeon (as “beating” the pigeon by the proper rules of chess would be meaningless according to the pigeons rules and vise versa), nor would my hope be to teach the pigeon to play proper chess. Instead, my goal would be to demonstrate to by-standers that the pigeon isn’t playing proper chess (which apparently, is not that obvious to some).

Your second point is amusing and perhaps deeper than you intended (or perhaps it was your intent). If it turned out that the pigeon won, according to the proper rules of chess, by playing “pigeon chess” rules it would be a mistake to conclude that the pigeon was a master (proper) chess player (ignoring the part where my chess skills are below amateur). The pigeon would win by accident. Now, if the pigeon switched from playing by pigeon rules chess to proper chess rules and then won, then the win is genuine.

Popping out of the analogy, that is to say that if skeptic arguments have any merit, they should publish them (proper chess rules) and receive the accolades they deserve. Dropping back into the analogy, the pigeon would likely coo, “but I cannot play by proper chess rules because proper chess rules are part of an elitist chess club that is discriminatory to pigeons”. Here we have two choices, (1) agree with the pigeon that there is a systematic effort within elitist chess clubs to suppress pigeons from playing proper chess or (2) conclude that it is more likely that there is not a systematic effort within elitist chess clubs to suppress pigeons from playing proper chess and, instead, it’s just that pigeons are simply not that good at playing (proper) chess.

To be clear, what I’m saying here is that there is one of two reasons for a lack of credible scientific evidence to support skeptic viewpoints – (1) peer-reviewed journals and academia are conspiring (on a global scale) to suppress skeptic views from being published (despite the fact that skeptic views do, sometimes, get published) or (2) there is not enough merit to skeptic viewpoints to get published – their arguments may sound scientific but are not scientifically sound. The problem is do we assess this choice with “pigeon chess rules" or “proper chess rules"? This is much more central to the disconnect in these debates than people understand or acknowledge.

 

[jhardy1]

beej67 said:

"Coal production has already peaked due to scarcity and difficulty to extract:"

If coal production has peaked, it is because users are actively looking for alternatives, not because it is getting scarce and uneconomic to mine.

In round terms, there are about 1 trillion tonnes of proven recoverable coal reserves world-wide, with current consumption somewhere around the 6 to 7 billion tonnes per annum mark.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_by_country

At current global consumption rates, that's well over 100 years of proven economic supply. Of course, the current consumption rates will not be maintained (energy demand will continue to rise, while the relative costs of renewable alternatives will fall, and carbon taxes etc can change the market economics dramatically), but we are a long way from reaching the end of economically recoverable coal.

For example, Queensland Australia currently has a contentious new coal project, in a whole new coal basin (Carmichael Coal, in the Galilee basin) that has the potential to add another 60 million tonnes per annum into the mix, with a mine life of 60 years. This single mine represents only 20% or so of the output from the already proposed projects in the the as-yet untapped Galilee Basin reserves.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carmichael_coal_mine

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galilee_Basin

http://julianh72.blogspot.com

 

[davefitz]

Wow, what a fanatically religious and political response to a subject that should be settled by simply getting off your chair, opening the door, going outside , and sniffing the air. I'm sure the arguments are similar in tone to the 1450 AD response to the question "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin? " .

I am all in favor of taking unified actions that improve the environment and also lead to a reduction in the rate of consumption of resources, regardless of the rationale. And I am equally suspicious of political arguments that lead to more taxes and more centralized power.

One question that does seem interesting, though, are the 2 claims that (a) the glaciers are melting and (b) the "pause" is due to the oceans absorbing the heat at greater depths. Both of those trends should lead to a greatly accelerating rise in the ocean level , yet no-one seems to be detecting the water level rising up to their doorstep. +6.6 inches in 91 years is not enough to force a consummate beachgoer to sell their house at the shore and move to Mt McKinley.

"Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!"

 

[cranky108]

Taxes, fees, and economics are measured in money (dollars, rubles, yen, etc.). So the determine what we are paying added taxes to avoid, the cost of the environment problems must be calculated in some money values.
So what is that cost?

Government legation that requires actions also must be calculated in money, just like taxes. So what is that cost?

So what kind of return on investment are we expecting from these added taxes, fees, and legation cost?

Lets see some numbers.

I also assume different mitigation actions have a cost, and where is the evaluation that the actions chosen are are the best value for the consumer?

Bottom line is I don't think the economics were evaluated,and I have a theory why.

 

[rconnor]

davefitz,

I find the statement “Wow, what a fanatically religious and political response” followed by “And I am equally suspicious of political arguments that lead to more taxes and more centralized power” a little odd. You, in the same breath, seem to criticism the brining of politics into the discussion right before you bring your politics into the discussion. This is rather common and I believe is a form of projectionism (i.e. "I have political reasons for distrusting the science, therefore they must have political reasons for trusting the science). If you feel the conversation is too politicized, I’d agree with you. The solution is to discuss this on a scientific basis using scientific evidence to support ones point.

This leads into your other statement, which is perhaps as unscientific as they come, “[climate change is] a subject that should be settled by simply getting off your chair, opening the door, going outside , and sniffing the air.” What does that mean? You do understand the difference between local weather and global climate, correct? You do realize the situation is slightly more complex than that, correct? You do realize that we are discussing future global temperature changes that are on par with past interglacial periods and mass extinction events (but on a much faster timeline), correct? Perhaps I misunderstand what you’re getting at.

I feel repeating what I said to SkipVought applies here:

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.

 

[beej67]

Your “analysis” takes a single data point, incorrectly takes 550 MtCO2 in 2030 and spins it to be 550 MtCO2 in 2100 (when it would be much, much higher), incorrectly assumes that every ppm decrease will cost the same amount and then extrapolates that incorrectly spun single data point to 680 ppm. That’s not how this works.

I patiently await your arithmetic.

Correcting mine for the first oversight, we have 2550 MtCO2 averted at a cost of 50 billion dollars, or 50 MtCO2 averted per billion spent, which only works out to be about 110 trillion dollars to get us to RCP4.5.

The rest of those assumptions are actually fairly liberal assumptions for your case, rconnor. I would have to think that Obama's climate initiative went for the cheapest solutions first, and that the last 100 ppm of CO2 aversion are going to be a lot more expensive to achieve than the first 100 ppm. I'm doing you a favor with my estimate of 110 trillion dollars. That's the economic equivalent of levying a 2% income tax on everyone on the entire planet. What's your plan?

And no, I couldn’t calculate the cost/benefit between RCP8.5 and RCP4.5 because I understand the complexity of that analysis. I have neither the expertise nor the time – and neither do you.

Then quit with the ridiculous act of claiming that this sort of stuff will get us there:

I feel mitigation measures need to look at moving energy generation is as close to fully renewable as practically possible and I feel that nuclear shouldn’t be completely disregarded as a part of this. Aforestation, or at least significant reductions in deforestation, will also be extremely important. I’m unconvinced that artificially drawing down atmospheric CO2 concentrations is a practical option (hence why I feel it’s important to reduce emissions as soon as possible). Revenue neutral carbon taxes appear to be an effective method in reducing emission growth in the short term, but of course is not the panacea, and could support the shift in energy generation. Tariffs on imports from non-participating countries would help encourage participation. Allowances from underdeveloped nations need to be taken into account, which is an important political, economic and ethical discussion. Then upgrading the grid to support a transition to mainly electric transportation is the next step. Going to electric transportation while we still generate from coal is pointless; in fact, a study I read showed that on average in the US hybrid vehicles have fewer emissions/km than fully electric vehicles. The opposite is true in areas that generate primarily from non-coal sources.

It will not. Will not. Will not get us there. Citing the Stern Review, which is basically a call for global carbon socialism (see Chapter 22), does not tell us how much this costs either. You call my estimates "sensationalizing" the issue, but offer no estimates of your own, and your own plan (which I even like) does diddly squat to move the world from RCP8.5 to RCP4.5.

Currently, extinction events happen near human activity. However, with global warming, every inch of the biosphere is stressed by a changing climate.

Every inch of the biosphere is stressed by humans right now. We leave no stone unmolested today. But your 100 trillion dollar carbon socialism plan sure could go a long way to fixing that problem if it were reapplied to what's causing extinctions today.

I do believe that you have a keen interest in conservation and protecting the environment, which is why I’m unsure why you feel climate change mitigation is a waste of money (well, I have my hunches).

Because you'd have us live on a cooler dead planet instead of a living warmer one.

Re: ocean acidification – From my memory, that statement was the first time you addressed ocean acidification, which was said after I talked about the Permian event.

Holy smokes. Shaking my head over here.

http://www.eng-tips.com/viewthread.cfm?qid=354416

http://www.eng-tips.com/viewthread.cfm?qid=378073

No, read up on it. It's a big deal, and it's basic chemistry. Just like dissolving your tooth in a glass of Pepsi as a kid, because soda is carbonic acid. So changes in atmospheric carbon concentration lead to changes in oceanic pH, and then the reefs dissolve to counter the pH change. The reefs themselves are a natural buffering system. What's even worse, is the effects oceanic acidification are having on diatom shells and other microscopic ocean organisims that are crucial links in the food chain.

Of course the idiots in the media are claiming that the reefs are in decline because of Climate Change. Nitwits. It's like everyone in the world has completely forgotten the difference between correlation and causality, including apparently most of the scientists bogged so deep in computer models they can't look around and see what's going on.

Ocean acidification, however, is a very serious deal that nobody's paying much attention to. Something like half the coral reef area in the world is gone due to the oceans slowly turning to carbonic acid. That's huge. And if the pH level crosses a certain threshold, every diatom in the ocean will die because it won't be able to make a shell. No more aqueous calcium.

That'd be a crisis that would make Deepwater Horizon look like a bird fart. Seriously.

And ocean acidification aught to be a much easier thing to model than mean surface temperature. There's no hydrologic cycle to speak of, cloud cover doesn't matter, volcanic eruptions (the thread) are pointless, etc.

You even responded to that one, rconnor.

However, my point still stands. How can you be against CO2 emission reduction measures but, at the same time, feel that ocean acidification is a serious concern?

I'm not against CO2 reduction for the right reasons, and I'm not against problems formulated the right way. We should be able to much more easily model, with hard science and not calibrated stochastics that fail to properly prove causality, what equilibrium level of atmospheric CO2 will bring oceanic pH to near the level of diatom collapse. We should really be doing that right now. We should throw the warming stuff out the window, because diatom collapse would be instant mega mass extinction on a profound scale. It would nuke the world's oceans. We should set that atmospheric concentration as a true, scientifically vetted doomsday scenario, and we should work towards avoiding that.

If that's 2000 ppm, fine. If it's 1000 ppm, fine. But we should be very skeptical of any emissions model that puts us at triple digit ppm this century. Heck, that experiment wouldn't even be that hard to do in a lab. You just need an enclosed box full of air in which you can vary the CO2 concentration, and a bathtub full of diatoms.

More telling than what you comment on is what you don't comment on. You've completely avoided discussion on the fact that global warming has, indeed, been instrumental in past extinction events (including the Permian Event).

After reading into it further since you brought it up, I think the complete elimination of all calcium from the ocean's ecosystem due to acidification can be almost 100% responsible for the Permian Event. And the associated warming is a relative sideshow. (read: correlation)



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

http://www.campbellcivil.com

 

[davefitz]

rconnor,
My point was, arguing for the sake of arguing, studying scientific models for the sake studying models, and rallying political support for the sake of obtaining political advantage is as useless ( or as constructive) as the medieval discussion related to angels dancing on the head of a pin. If there is no detectable variation in experienced climate ( as remembered over one's own personal history) and there is no detectable rise in ocean level ( contrary to the proclaimed model) then one has the right to view the persons jockeying for political favors (or additional powers) with suspicion, and one should at least ask for clarification . For example, refusal to supply documented clarification on data fudging does nothing to allay such suspicion. Surrendering political power without reviewing motives and facts is one example of irresponsibility, and history is replete with examples of how such behavior has led to poor results.

Sure, there can be serious consequences if the Antarctic ice shelf plops into the ocean; if you think 100,000 refugees to Europe is nasty, wait until 1/2 billion people from asia and elsewhere start looking for a new home. If the Siberian tundra melts and releases the methane gases, the impact on warming would be unquestionable and represent an extraordinary positive feedback mechanism . The ultimate negative feedback mechanism that would reverse the trend would be human extinction, generally to be avoided, but I suppose there may be some people that support that option as well. In my opinion , focusing on the worst case scenarios one can imagine does not by itself prove that the current models are correct.

As I recall, there were available computer programs 20 yrs ago that would simulate the discussions between a therapist and patient , and a user who acted as the patient generally could not decipher that a computer program was responding to his answers. I have a slight suspicion that some of the blogs supporting the ACC agenda are actually computer generated responses to those posts that are not rabidly and blindly supportive of that agenda, but that is just me.

"Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!"

 

[IRstuff]

"If there is no detectable variation in experienced climate ( as remembered over one's own personal history) and there is no detectable rise in ocean level ( contrary to the proclaimed model) then one has the right to view the persons jockeying for political favors (or additional powers) with suspicion"

Since when has anecdotal experience, i.e., "going outside" prove or disprove science? That's the equivalent of saying that cigarettes don't cause cancer because you, or your relative, smoked like a smokestack for 30 yrs and suffered no ill effects. The whole point of proper science is to distance the analysis from personal experience or bias.

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

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

faq731-376 forum1529