×
INTELLIGENT WORK FORUMS
FOR ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS

Contact US

Log In

Come Join Us!

Are you an
Engineering professional?
Join Eng-Tips Forums!
  • Talk With Other Members
  • Be Notified Of Responses
    To Your Posts
  • Keyword Search
  • One-Click Access To Your
    Favorite Forums
  • Automated Signatures
    On Your Posts
  • Best Of All, It's Free!

*Eng-Tips's functionality depends on members receiving e-mail. By joining you are opting in to receive e-mail.

Posting Guidelines

Promoting, selling, recruiting, coursework and thesis posting is forbidden.

Students Click Here

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

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

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

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

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

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

i've been reading NIPCC for a while now. not just "peer reviewed" but "double peer reviewed" ... sigh!

still they offer an alternative viewpoint.

"Just how is a layman supposed to make sense of these opposing arguments?" ... all they can do is believe one side or the other (if you accept there's another side). the issue is too politicised, too dogma driven, with positions held with unassailable conviction that the debate quickly devolves into personal attacks. There is too much data available for anyone to read fully, so everyone accuses, and is accused of, cherry-picking. Too many replace science with reviewing other's research. There are infinitely few of us who can understand the complexity of the problem. It's easy to read a paper and think "that sounds right", and another (with the opposite viewpoint) "that also sounds right"; we (ok, I) don't know enough to be able read a paper critical and say "wait, you're overlooking this point ...". Most commentaters might touch of some points, but then spiral off in a different direction so that issues are not worked (just more issues are added to the fire).

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

Below is some background info on the NIPCC. Be sure to check the link (in the second to the last paragraph) about where their parent, 'The Heartland Institute', gets its money.

http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/2013/09/09/hear...

Here's some additional recent items:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/denialgate-highlig...

http://phys.org/news/2013-09-adversaries-zombies-n...

http://ncse.com/blog/2013/10/alternative-reality-h...

John R. Baker, P.E.
Product 'Evangelist'
Product Engineering Software
Siemens PLM Software Inc.
Industry Sector
Cypress, CA
Siemens PLM:
UG/NX Museum:

To an Engineer, the glass is twice as big as it needs to be.

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

Every engineer should be bugged by the climate change debate. Every good engineer knows that the answers are only as valid as the model used to get the answers.

Climate "science" is based on a model that is quite incomplete. All we really know is that one of the inputs, greenhouse gas concentration, has gone up. We don't know enough to model the rest accurately.

I will buy in as far as that if one of the inputs changes significantly, then the output will likely change. Beyond that???

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

Here's another bunch of non climate-scientists who have the temerity to point out the obvious

http://www.therightclimatestuff.com/ExecutiveSumma...



And here's the results from a Gallup poll for the USA





And here's the results for Europe




So, no wonder those 10 billion dollar rigs aren't getting built, the general public has more pressing concerns. Maybe they've formed a consensus?

Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

ewh,

Thank you for taking the time to accurately review your sources of information. This is an important step that is often overlooked, which leads to people being susceptible to believing misinformation. Unfortunately, climate science has become a politicized issue and it can be hard to separate ideology from scientific truth.

We here at the Eng-Tips forum, having no apparent formal training in climate science, are the perfect group to mark that divide. Furthermore, we also have keen insights into the issue that actual climate scientists, that have spent their life studying the science, do not. Having said that, let’s move onto the question at hand – is the NIPCC are trustworthy source?

NIPCC are the paragons of truth and reason. Don’t bother fact checking anything that they say because it is the objective truth. The blogs tell me so.

They never really publish papers in peer-reviewed journals but ask yourself why? Also, ask yourself why their conclusions always seem to counter the conclusions of the massive volumes of peer-reviewed research by actual climate scientist? Or why so few of their contributors are active, publishing scientists in the climate science field. Well it is because there is a world-wide conspiracy involving every top, most reputable scientific journal, scientific institution and university to block TRUE research from being published. This conspiracy also involves every major Head of State, from both the developed and developing world, and the UN. You see, the UN, through the IPCC, is, somehow, trying to create a one-world government that will secretly control the world and strip you of all your civil liberties. Now I know this might sound a little crazy and the fact that we don’t have any logical argument to back it up may be suspicious, but it’s true – NIPCC told us so.

Furthermore, you may be questioning the validity of the supposed “double peer reviewed” process they claim. Well because they cannot go through the normal peer-review process, due to the global conspiracy described above, they must do it themselves. Now, please ignore the fact that most of the people in the NIPCC are the same people as in Heartland, CATO, GWPF, etc – so by “peer” they really mean “themselves”. This fact is irrelevant. The review process they used is very unbiased and non-ideologically driven. Also, ignore the fact that these institutions have pretty much the same funders and same goals. This fact is irrelevant. These institutions are actually very diverse and very independent - some are right-wing, Koch funded think-tanks while others are tea party, Exxon funded think-tanks. Hence they can offer a very unbiased and non-ideologically driven review. What you will need to learn is the only relevant facts are those that come from NIPCC.

May I also suggest other unbiased, non-ideologically driven sources like CATO and GWPF. Blogs can be a good source of information but be careful – only read the ones that disagree with the anthropogenic climate change theory as the others are filled with unqualified liars.

Avoid untrustworthy sources like NASA, Joint National Academies of Science, Nature (the journal), Science (the journal) and pretty well every other scientific journal and university.

Best of luck navigating through the minefield that is the climate change debate.

Sincerely,

The Eng-Tips Climate Science Consensus

(ewh, please note this is aimed at making fun of others who eats this stuff up and was not aimed at you. My first and last points are sincere messages – I really respect you for trying to check the facts.

I think that the NIPCC Report is a bunch of trash. If you read in between the sarcasm above, you’ll find some reasons why. Others have posted links which dismantle their arguments. As to the specific “arguments” that they bring up, I have dealt with many of them in other threads. Here’s a link to Grant Foster’s take on the report. The NIPCC report is really just full of awful, cherry picked arguments that breakdown the second you understand the issue in more depth.

Although my answers were sarcastic, my questions regarding why don’t they publish anything in peer-reviewed journals and why does everything they say fly in the face of all the other data, evidence and papers are sincere. If you pursue those answers, I trust that you’ll be lead to the same conclusion as I have – the NIPCC is junk science.

Peer-reviewed papers are the best source of information. NASA and NOAA publications are great as well. As for blogs, I recommend Real Climate (Gavin Schmidt) and Tamino (Grant Foster), both are published scientists in the field of climate science. I’d love to give you a recommendation for a good skeptic website but it’s becoming very difficult. A few years ago, I would have said try Judith Curry’s blog (climate, etc.) but the more I read her stuff, the more I think her arguments are biased and cherry picked. That’s the thing, the more I know about the science, the more I see the debate isn’t really one side versus the other – it’s the science vs a misunderstanding of the science.

All the best in your search and I greatly respect you opening these sources to criticism. I do apologize for my sarcastic response but I’ve become more and more jaded each time I have to explain why the “pause” is not a valid argument. I hope you can read between the lines and draw the proper message from it. Best wishes.)

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

6 posts and we're already at the "piss-taking" stage ... that was quick!

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

You guys sure do like poisoning the well.

This is a pretty good paper, peer reviewing AR5, that shows the equilibrium climate sensitivity in the IPCC's own research is actually about half what they claim it is.

http://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2014/02/Ove...

Hydrology, Drainage Analysis, Flood Studies, and Complex Stormwater Litigation for Atlanta and the South East - http://www.campbellcivil.com

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

Quote (GregLocock)


...the general public has more pressing concerns.

After the Winter that North America has been experiencing and the Summer that Australia has been experiencing, perhaps the people will reconsider where on your 'Worry' graph should the 'Climate change' line-item be placed.

John R. Baker, P.E.
Product 'Evangelist'
Product Engineering Software
Siemens PLM Software Inc.
Industry Sector
Cypress, CA
Siemens PLM:
UG/NX Museum:

To an Engineer, the glass is twice as big as it needs to be.

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

Greg--that was always one of my major worries as a little kid--having my toes pinched by crayfish when I would go to some small lake on a family outing.

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

Debate the science all you want. I just want to know how we came to the conclusion of higher taxes is the solution, and it happened so fast.

The conclusion I draw from all of this is the political machine is at work, so I can't trust anything I hear.

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

It has always been shown that one of the most effective ways to motivate anyone in society to do anything is to make the less desirable behavior more expensive, if not actually cost-prohibative. It seems to always work that way, just like any other scientifically verified phenomenon. Perhaps it's called 'Social Science' for a reason, in that the laws of 'cause and effect' apply here just like it does in most other scientific fields of endeavor winky smile

John R. Baker, P.E.
Product 'Evangelist'
Product Engineering Software
Siemens PLM Software Inc.
Industry Sector
Cypress, CA
Siemens PLM:
UG/NX Museum:

To an Engineer, the glass is twice as big as it needs to be.

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

(OP)
IF, and that's a big if, the taxes actually went to aleviate the problem, they wouldn't be so hard to swallow. But they won't and can't unless there was an agreed upon, viable solution. As it stands, it appears that they will only serve to make some people very rich(er).

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

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

how much have we changed our behaviour with $5/gallon gas, and gosh knows what for electricity ?

i'd've thought that the greatest increase in FF burning would come from the developing economies (China, etc) ?

how much do the wind turbines actually contribute to the grid ?

why are nukes worse than coal burning power stations ? certainly they're much better at reducing CO2 output.

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

The real 'cost' of something can be much more than just the dollars that we have to take out of our pockets to pay for something.

BTW, $5/gallon for gas would be a bargain compared to what they pay in places like Denmark or Germany yet they seem to continue to drive cars. But that being said, they also drive smaller cars with less 'creature comforts' like AC and automatic transmissions. And if the cost of fuel was not a 'motivater' how do you explain the popularity of hybreds and the introduction of truly small cars like the Fiat 500 or the Smart Car?

And if you think gas is expensive in Europe, the next time you're in Stockholm, go down to the hotel bar and order a mixed drink or for that matter, just buy a beer. After all, excessive consumption of alcohol leads to all sorts of long term medical problems and since socialized medicine is so popular in that part of the world they tend to 'tax' the vices which increase health care costs to society. You may no like the idea, but that the way things work.

And along those same lines, here's another example: Look at how the number of people who smoke has been dropping each year (and not just because the long-time smokers are dying off although I'm sure that has some impact). After all, we've known for a long time that smoking was bad for you but it took excessive tabacco taxes to really change people's habits particularly teens and young people where it was most critical. After all, have you bought a pack of cigarettes in New York City lstely? I understand they're going for something like $13 a pack there right now. I know that the high cost alone got one of our sons to quit, and it's at least gotten the other two to cut way back.

John R. Baker, P.E.
Product 'Evangelist'
Product Engineering Software
Siemens PLM Software Inc.
Industry Sector
Cypress, CA
Siemens PLM:
UG/NX Museum:

To an Engineer, the glass is twice as big as it needs to be.

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

Whew, this is one tough climate change cat! cat

On a more humorous note, speaking of felines . . . .
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/03/10/vicious-22-po...

"Yes, hello, officer? I'm a fully grown adult male and my cat is threatening me . . ." I suppose a 22 pounder might make a formidable opponent.

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

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

Yes and as I hear $13 a pack has made smuggling a bigger problem. So are you expecting more people to brew there own, beer?

$5 gas also has impacted our food prices, and mandated ethonol in the gas has not only made gas millage go down, but also increased the price of food.

So you fix one thing with taxes, and you create another problem. Sort of like squeezing a baloon.

Part of the problem has been people want what is cool. Smokes, brew, fast cars, but in makeing them cool we are now seeing the bad side effects.
So what are you intending to replace them with? Nose rings, and body art? People must have something to strive for that is at least somewhat reasonable.

The whole enviromental movment also has some good and bad, which we see in wind farm bird deaths. We also could see an increase in insect populations, but with cleaner air.
It's a give and take, however there isen't any discussion, just one sided decisions that seem to only make some people richer (like cap and trade).

All I ask is to suggest something that will make us all better off (you haven't liked any that I have suggested so far).

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

Are you saying that you have a proposal that will work and in the process it will NOT make one group a lot of money, REALLY? And exactly what will be the motivation to put this plan into place? If you say, just the satisfaction of knowing that it's the right thing to do, can you please share with the rest of us whatever it is that you're smoking? Not that it'll solve the problem, but it just might make the problem LOOK a lot more solvable elephant2

John R. Baker, P.E.
Product 'Evangelist'
Product Engineering Software
Siemens PLM Software Inc.
Industry Sector
Cypress, CA
Siemens PLM:
UG/NX Museum:

To an Engineer, the glass is twice as big as it needs to be.

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

Wow, taxes again eh? Guess I'll requote my last post in the other thread.

Quote (beej67)

No, I don't want to argue semantics, that's what you're doing. I want you to link me to a "peer reviewed study" that says carbon trading or carbon taxing will arrest or reverse global warming. I anxiously anticipate the entertainment value of reading it.

I also want you to acknowledge that a climate model that erroneously doubles the net effect of one warming source, while erroneously halfing the net effect of another warming source, can give "good" results if the two sources are in reality equal contributors to warming. And since this sort of error is inherent to the "calibration" process in modeling, the models cannot be used to prove causation from a correlation simply because their results are "good."

I'll leave whether or not the current results are "good" for someone else to argue, but I would like to point out (again) that the equilibrium climate sensitivity shown in AR5 is actually about half what the IPCC says it is, purely based on an objective analysis of their own studies.

Hydrology, Drainage Analysis, Flood Studies, and Complex Stormwater Litigation for Atlanta and the South East - http://www.campbellcivil.com

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

Greg, thanks for the link to that study. A star for you.

Maui

www.EngineeringMetallurgy.com

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

Quote (JohnRBaker)

Are you saying that you have a proposal that will work and in the process it will NOT make one group a lot of money, REALLY? And exactly what will be the motivation to put this plan into place? If you say, just the satisfaction of knowing that it's the right thing to do, can you please share with the rest of us whatever it is that you're smoking?
JohnRBaker's post really puts things in perspective. Clearly, the people who are preaching doom and gloom with respect to climate are not doing it because it is the right thing to do; otherwise, they must be smoking something. Consequently, they must be in it for the money because there is no other motivation for preaching doom and gloom.

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

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

I wonder how much of the extra revenue from taxing fuel usage (a.k.a. CO2 production) is used for gov-sponsored building projects. Those that require large amounts of concrete and steel to be produced.

- Steve

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

The problem simply put is that taxes take money out of a productive economy, as well as increase the cost of goods and services. IE, I don't buy new cars because I don't want to pay the higher taxes. This inflating the prices of used cars, while depressing the sales of new cars (cash for clunkers in reverse).
The other thing I see is people cutting down trees instead of buying other fuels for home heating (thus avoiding more taxes, and decreasing tree population).

What happens is tax revenues would go up for a time, then drop as people find alternitives. But the politicals don't stop spending, and soon they need more money so they find something else to tax.
If anyone is smoking anything it is in Washington, because they don't understand how more taxes dosen't equal more tax revinew, and will over time tend to move the economy either in ways they don't expect, or just move it underground. The off the grid movement is an example of this.

So I ask, is cutting down more trees really what you want to achieve?

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

The ubiquitous “TAXES ARE BAD” comment by cranky that completely diverts the conversation away from anything regarding the science…

Changing Consumer Behaviour
I second JohnRBaker, my work in Demand Side Management continually shows “the stick beats the carrot” when trying to change people’s consumption habits. I work on the “carrot” side of things (financial incentive on top of energy savings) but our electrical rates are so low that it is difficult to incent customers to make changes. Ironically, the difficulty we have with controlling demand growth has led to the need to build new generating stations which in turn, is raising the electrical rates.

Revenue Neutral Carbon Tax Systems
Why does every conversation about carbon tax always assume it’s cap-and-trade? The largest real-life carbon tax we have in North America is in British Columbia and is NOT cap-and-trade. It is Revenue Neutral – all funds raised by the tax go back into predefined aspects of the economy. Here are the major areas where the taxes went:
  • Low Income Tax Credit – $195 million
  • 5% Reduction in first two personal income tax rates (the poorest) - $235 million
  • General corporate income tax reduction (12% to 11%) - $450 million
  • Small business corporate income tax reduction (4.5% to 3.5%) - $261 million
Now, to the question – but is it effective in reducing CO2 emissions? The real-world statistics show that it is effective. Here were my concluding remarks from the other thread:

Quote (rconnor)

For the rest, I thought it would be useful to run through a summary of the BC Carbon Tax. I found 2011 BC Emissions data so I’ve updated some of the numbers (BC Gov .xls file from here).

Correlation: BC has reduced CO2 emissions from sources influenced by the tax by 10% per capita since the carbon tax was enacted
Causation Theory: The carbon tax has altered consumer behavior resulting in reduced CO2 emissions
”Controls” that Support the Theory
(1) Rest of Canada:
BC CO2 emissions/capita by sources affected by taxes (2008-2011)= -10%
Rest of Canada CO2 emissions/capita by sources affected by taxes (2008-2011) = -1.1%
(2) BC Prior to Carbon Tax:
2008 to 2011 (with Tax) Total CO2 Emission Change (in kt CO2e) = -4,618 (-6.9% or -2.3%/year)
2005 to 2008 = -907 (-1.3% or -0.4%/year)
2003-2008 (5 year) = +1,215 (+1.85% or +0.37%/year)
1998-2008 (10 year) = +4,099 (+6.53% or +0.65%/year)
(Also see Figure 1 at the first source for fuel consumption/capita trends for BC and the Rest of Canada from 2000-2012, which illustrates both controls)

Counter-Theories/Arguments and Statistical Refutations
1) Population growth means the total emissions are actually higher – BC’s population has grown 3.4%, lagging behind CO2 reductions ~3:1 (also total emissions from all sources is down 4,618 kt CO2e)
2) GDP reduction is the cause – BC’s GDP has grown 3.8% since the tax
3) The rest of Canada is reducing emissions as well – the rest of Canada has reduced emissions/capita by only 1.1% (8.9% difference)
4) Any reduction in emissions in BC are offset by increases in Washington – Yes, boarder travel to Washington has increased significantly but Washington’s emissions, both total and from vehicle petro, have decreased by 3.5 and 1.4 Million Metric Tons of CO2, respectively
5) The CO2 reductions are coming from aspects not affected by the Carbon Tax – the 10% reduction is on sources subject to the carbon tax but total CO2 emissions have also been reduced by 6.9%
6) It may be effective at emissions reductions but people hate it – approval of the tax went from 54% (15% strongly, 39% somewhat approve and 28% strongly oppose) in Feb 08 to 64% (25% strongly, 39% somewhat approve and 17% strongly oppose) in Nov 12 (note: the tax increased incremental in that time) (Source)
7) Climate taxes like this will adversely affect the poor – Part of the revenue from the tax goes to providing $115.50 + $34.50/child to low income families
8) The time span is too short to establish significant conclusions – I understand this point and why people may choose to remain agnostic about the causation but, to me, 4 years of significant reductions that outpace all controls and account for other metrics (population, GDP, off-sets in Washington) gives me confidence in the causation.

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

Quote (rconnor)

Now, to the question – but is it effective in reducing CO2 emissions?

For the record, that's not my question. I'm sure taxing CO2 would reduce some CO2 emissions. That just makes sense. My question was different, and the difference is pretty important:

Quote (me)

I want you to link me to a "peer reviewed study" that says carbon trading or carbon taxing will arrest or reverse global warming. I anxiously anticipate the entertainment value of reading it.

If your goal is to reduce CO2 emissions for some other reason, such as local pollution, or acid rain, or whatever, then CO2 taxes seem like a pretty good way to do that. But I have yet to see a single shred of evidence that they'd arrest or reverse global warming, so using global warming to justify them is somwhere between completely disingenuous and outright lying. Especially when the IPCC is intentionally snowing over their own research to hide that their equilibrium climate sensitivity estimate is off by a factor of two to three.

Hydrology, Drainage Analysis, Flood Studies, and Complex Stormwater Litigation for Atlanta and the South East - http://www.campbellcivil.com

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

So how is low income tax credit in any way revenue neutral? It would seem to me that you are reducing demand in business use, and encuraging poor people to use as much as they want.
So your carbon tax is should be named the "Robinhood tax" as it takes from the rich and gives to the poor, and in the worst case could increase demand.

If the goal was to reduce carbon, why wouden't you use the funds to insulate homes, and replace out-dated applinces?
What you have is nothing but a 'Feel good' system.

What we have seen in the past, (any one look at history) is oil, and natural gas runs in a cycle. It's plentiful when the price is high, and scarece when the price is low. What we have now is the price of oil is high, and natural gas is low. It won't stay that way for ever.

Because some fuels don't work well for every purpose, and no fuels work for everything, it then becomes important to maintain a healthy fuel mix.
Attempting to replace any fuel source is foolish. A better method would be to either expand some little used fuel sources to reduce some more wideley used fuel sources, such as wood for coal, or develop newer technology to make fuels cleaner, such as low NOX burners.

While it is true that you can replace some coal with wind and solar, there is a point where there over use can make the grid unstable. One solution is to use storage technology. Another is to time wise dispatch hydro assets.

But to attack coal because carbon is bad, just makes it the whipping boy. After all look at how well the electric car is doing, err.. not doing.

All the taxes in the world won't solve this. They will just move the issue to another fuel, and another until we don't have one or two left.
And the taxes become another form of social engineering, where we lose more and more of our freedom.

Debate all you want. Even better offer a better solution. But giving away freedon is a looser in my books.

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

Quote:

So how is low income tax credit in any way revenue neutral?

It doesn't remove money from the system. I see what he's saying. It's just another way to shuffle money around. We do the same thing in the US with our graduated tax system, social security, and medicare. Last I saw, 70% of US federal outlays were simply moving money from one person to another, mostly tied to medicare/medicaid/social security.

But what he's failed to show, which is what they always fail to show, is how moving that money around is going to arrest or reverse global warming.

Hydrology, Drainage Analysis, Flood Studies, and Complex Stormwater Litigation for Atlanta and the South East - http://www.campbellcivil.com

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

because the orthodox viewpoint is that increased CO2 is causing global warming. so if tax strategies reduce the amount of CO2 pumped into the atmosphere, then that'll reduce the global warming.

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

By how much? Note the keywords "arrest or reverse" in my question.

You can't have a meaningful discussion about policy without assigning a dollar figure to a temperature difference.

Hydrology, Drainage Analysis, Flood Studies, and Complex Stormwater Litigation for Atlanta and the South East - http://www.campbellcivil.com

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

the models predict future temperatures based on assumed CO2 outputs. these include the "absurd" (= financially ruinous) strategies that are needed to "arrest and reverse" global warming, something i think is meant to emphasize the point that this is a really serious problem. the other take away is that this problem/solution is too extreme to be practical.

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

I see in the news this morning that more people are switching to heating with wood. Now that's neutral as long as there are trees being replanted. However, because there is no attempt to control the burn tempetures this will add to NOx polution/acid rain (we fix one problem and we create another).

Now someone needs to develop a small heating plant that also generates electricty, and required little attention. Some thing like it can be left unattended for 10 to 12 hours a day.
I once saw a device (solid-state)that was to be attached to an exaust pipe that uses the thermal difference to generate electricty (I haven't seen it lately).

Something else I noticed is many trees will have lower limbs die while the tree is growing. It's sort of a fire hazard, and resource for wood burning.

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

Whole bunch of "may be" "could be" "might be" in that paper. All of these are code for either "simple conjecture without any data" or "the computer model says". There is zero factual data in that whole article, but it takes careful reading to ascertain that simple fact.

David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering

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

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

At my nearly carbon neutral house we burn dead trees. I also have a 30 tree coppice which is harvested one tree at a time, and for which we plant two saplings. I hadn't thought about acid rain.

Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

market forces are driving the price up much faster than taxation. (thinks ... i wonder how they separated taxation costs from increased market price in that BC study). people are still buying SUVs and Hummers, ok some are buying prius's (should that be prii?) but most are just sucking it up.

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

Greg, I haden't thought about it until I was typing. Strangly the wood ash is just the oposite, as I have been trying to find a use for it, like mixing it with some liquid weak acid before returning it to the forest.

Actually any burning of fuels will create some NOx, so there will be some acid rain caused by any fuel, even natural gas. However if it were scrubbed like they do in coal plants, it can be removed and possibibly be used for a plant fertlizer (in dry or liquid form). SOx is the same way, if Sulfer is in the fuel.

Interesting that CO2 is used in large plant grow facilities to stimulate plant growth, as well as being used in some oil completion wells.

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

Buddy of mine over in Thailand is siphoning off CO2 from gas fired power plants and using it to supercharge algae grow tanks. His original idea was algaefuel, but now he's going straight to food grade stuff for livestock and human consumption, because the margins are better. It's neat technology. Outfit called "Energaia."

I don't object to re purposing CO2, or to green technology, or really even to carbon taxation if your goal is something other than to arrest or reverse global warming. If your goal is to arrest or reverse global warming, the first thing to do should be to get your science right about what's causing it.

Then when you do finally get enough of the science right to be able to craft meaningful policy, you must ask yourself if global warming really is such a bad thing, compared to all the other things we're doing to destroy the planet, and whether those heinous measures necessary to arrest or reverse global warming couldn't be better spent elsewhere.

Hydrology, Drainage Analysis, Flood Studies, and Complex Stormwater Litigation for Atlanta and the South East - http://www.campbellcivil.com

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

that certainly is a creative way to reduce the CO2 emissions from the power station. it's not like they're scrubbing the exhaust, which'd suck up a lot of the energy produced at the power station; "just" siphoning off the CO2, and using that to grow algae for food or fuel. better than using corn for fuel !

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

The problem would be to scale it up to be able to handle larger amounts of CO2. How big of a pond, or green house would you need? The other problem may become water. However some algae may be able to live in salt water. And if I recall some algae needs something to anchor to, which means a lot of structure.

But right now they are making bio-jet fuel from algae. But with this you would end up with as much CO2 being released as with what was started with. The benifit is two uses, power and jet fuel.
The other benifit is more water vapor released into the air (more rain).

CO2 can also be from other sources not just from power stations, such as ethonol plants, old land fills, and waste water treatment plants.

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

I've done scoping studies on a half dozen of these "siphon off exhaust gases" projects and you have to have a stand-alone use for the gas to make any economic sense. One that I evaluated was going to convert a power plant to oxy-fuel (from air-fuel, required an air plant and found a market for the nitrogen), transfer exhaust heat into an evaporation pond (which reduced the energy required to compress it and accelerated evaporation in the pond) and then jacked up the pressure for a CO2 flood in a gas field. Everything looked like it was fitting together until we added the cost of compression and found that we could buy naturally occurring CO2 already at pressure a lot cheaper than we could compress stack gas.

The algae thing is a really cool idea as long as the pressure boost required doesn't wipe out the benefit. I read in Patrick Moore's book about it being common to jack up the CO2 in greenhouses (real ones made out of steel and glass) to over 1500 ppm to significantly increase productivity and decrease requirements for pesticides and fertilizers. The project in Thailand probably has some of the same benefits.

David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering

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

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

maybe a positive spin on "the demon CO2" is that now a waste gas (CO2) has value, either as something that can be put to good use, or as something that can avoid costs.

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

Truthfuly local people seem to think vapor from the cooling towers is polution.

Really up to 1500 ppm? I don't think I can do that in home size one.

If I add some CO maybe I don't need any pesticides.

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

Quote (rb1957)

I wonder how they separated taxation costs from increased market price in that BC study
During the period the tax has been in effect, BC reduced emissions per capita by 10%, the rest of Canada reduced emissions by 1.1%. Furthermore, emissions were growing by 0.65%/year in the decade leading up to the tax and then fell by 2.3%/year once the tax was introduced.

You can't separate out what amount of reductions came from the tax but you can compare against various controls. As stated, when compared against all controls and counter-arguments, the statistics continue to support the position that the tax has been effective at reducing emissions and directly refutes the counter-arguments.

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

Yet another example of fraudulent representation in a field where fuzzy science and emotions seem to call the shots.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/03/19/author-...

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

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

"Center for American Progress" as reported in the Huffington Post? No agenda's there. Headline news that someone got a projection wrong. All in all. Not worth much.

David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering

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

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

OK if everybody is gulty of Puffery, then what is the right numbers? People in the news are typically sales people, like the kind that sell used cars. And we all know obout the used car puffery.

The real answer usually lies in the middle.

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

Quote (cranky108)

Ok if everybody is gulty of Puffery, then what is the right numbers
There are two competing groups of sources. These two groups of sources represent the divide in the global warming debate. The groups are such:

Group 1
- American Association for the Advancement of Science
- American Chemical Society
- American Geophysical Union
- American Medical Association
- American Meteorological Society
- American Physical Society
- The Geological Society of America
- US National Academy of Sciences
- Royal Society
- List of 197 Other National Science Academies
- NASA
- NOAA
- Nature
- Science
- etc

Group 2
- A weatherman’s blog
- Koch-founded, right-wing think tank
- etc

So, cranky108, I turn the question back to you. Which group do you believe contains the more credible sources?

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

Well to start with, I don't trust the AMA, so I guess I would go with the second group.
Besides it looks like group think, and it may just be the lemings all over.

Besides "Nobodys right, if everybodys wrong".

Don't get me wrong here, there is things we should consiter even if both sides are wrong. Like can we do things better than what we are doing now.
But the politics just make me want to not believe the puffery on the side of more taxes. I beg for a solution that works, and dosen't futher enslave us to goverment.

And you should well know that poor people can't afford to be green, and that's where the tax road leads. Not to a green world, but a world of more poor people.


RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

rconnor--I have to ask--do you work in the Climatology field or is this just a hobby for you?

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

Two words . . . herd mentality.

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

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

for me it's more like ..

group 1 ... believe model results

group 2 ... question model results

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

(OP)
You forgot:
group 3 ... trust model
group 4 ... distrust model

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

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

Some of you are misinterpreting my intention behind presenting the two groups of sources. I did not present the groups as some form of proof through consensus. I don’t need to use that as an argument when I have the science on my side.

I presented the groups to illustrate the obvious ideological bias, lack of expertise and questionable history in one group versus the neutrality, diversity, reputable history and expertise of the other group. People on the fence always say, “I hear one thing from one source and another from a second source; I don’t know which to believe”. That is the topic of this thread. To me, I don’t know how you could look at those two groups and remain undecided on which is more credible and more trustworthy.

That doesn’t mean you need to agree with everything said by group 1 or reject everything from group 2. What that does mean is that it is necessary to be much more skeptical about the accuracy of information presented by group 2, which is obviously ideological driven and has proven to habitually misunderstand the science. So when CATO says the “pause” disproves the theory, you do a bit of digging and realize it’s nonsense. Or when WUWT posts an article saying that NOAA is lying, you do a bit of digging and realize it’s because the author doesn’t understand how baselines on temperature anomalies work (just one of oh-so-many examples).

But for most “skeptics” this is reversed. When NASA or NOAA says that when you account for ENSO events, temperature trends match model predictions, “skeptics” categorically reject it. When GWPF says either “it’s changed before” or “climate sensitivity is over estimated”, which besides being silly and widely debunked, are also incompatible arguments, “skeptics” accept it without a moment’s hesitation.

Rationally, this is absurd. However, “skeptics” aren’t looking for what’s rational, they are looking for what fits their belief system – “I want small government and low taxes and agreeing with climate sciences means I have to go against that” (although even that last leap is not true). That is the reason why all climate change “skeptic” groups are right-wing. It’s not a coincidence. It’s an attempt to force or filter the science to fit their preconceived opinion on the matter.

Sure, there are unscientific assertions from left-wing sources like Greenpeace and Huffington Post. But I stick to referencing peer-reviewed papers from reputable journals, respected scientific institutions or blogs written by published scientists actively working in the field of climate science. That’s because this is not a left-wing versus right-wing debate. Is NASA left-wing? Is the Royal Society left-wing? Is the National Academy of Sciences left-wing? No, they are neutral scientific institutions. This is a debate between the science versus a misunderstanding of the science stemming from cognitive dissonance. Places like NOAA do the former, places like CATO do the latter.

If you want to remain agnostic on the issue, fine. But that doesn’t excuse you from ignoring (or flat-out rejecting) the very best science and evidence we have, coming from the most respected scientific institutions in the world while, at the same time, accepting dubious claims from obviously biased and ideologically driven sources. If you call yourself a “skeptic”, then be one.

swall, I don’t work in the field of climatology. I feel it’s an important issue and so I put in the effort to understand it as well as I can.

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

in your opinion it was two groups divided by science. in my opinion it's two groups divided by belief/trust in models.

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

Just because you can name names in group 1, and can't name names in group 2, dosen't mean group 1 is more creadable than group 2. It means you don't know the other side of the story.

So what makes the goverment agenda more creadable than say the Koch brothers agenda? Both have something to gain and lose, so you assume the goverment is more truthful.

I still believe the truth hasen't been told, and I suspect it is somewhere inbetween.

The globe has been warming since the end of the ice age, which hasen't been explained. So you want me to believe it is human caused, and must be taxed to make it go away. Is that a truthful summary?

The only thing I am skeptical of is goverments truthfulness. And please don't list the AMA as doctors are not climate experts.

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

rb1957, I don’t disagree, I think both statements are true. However, you need to know the former (science) to be able to understand the latter (models).

Ask yourself a similar question, which group do you think has a better understanding and more credibility in interpreting climate models?

Honestly, rb1957, if you don’t trust the models then why not review what NASA and NOAA have to say on the issue? Many of your concerns are discussed in detail by the most well respected, most knowledge people in the field. Why would you go to places like CATO or GWPF instead, who you know are guilty of ideological bias? The only reason is because they agree with your apriori position. That’s not being skeptical, that’s looking for validation.

Crank108, oh I know the other side – I used to be in their ranks. I’ve read the arguments. They sound reasonable but upon closer inspection, they all fall apart. It’s either cherry picked data, ignorance of the science or just flat out falsehoods. The reason why they don’t get published isn’t because of some global conspiracy, it’s because it cannot stand up to scientific scrutiny.

What government agenda, cranky? NASA, NOAA, 197 national science academies – all in cahoots…for what?

You’re going to have to explain to me how any politician would benefit from enacting a carbon tax. The fossil fuel and automotive industries are two pretty huge players when it comes to campaign contributions and political influence. Furthermore, how would a carbon tax strip you of your "freedom".

Look at BC, 100% of the revenue earned from the tax went to low income families and tax CUTS for individuals and businesses (focused on low income and small business). Where is this evil conspiracy? You’re talking nonsense, utter nonsense.

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

Carbon Tax = Income Redistribution. We can agree on that. But many of us don't want to redistribute income by these means, or see the benefit thereof.

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

Strange? I say I don't trust the goverment or goverment sources because of politricks. And you answer by NASA, NOAA, 197 national science academies.
I thought I was somewhat plain in what I said GOVERMENT controled.

What politician would not benifit from having more money they can control? Name one (other than our local dog catcher).

Yes NASA said we must redistribute wealth to avoid unrest. Really is that what NASA is studying, and they are such experts too.
When goverment entities are quoting things that are outside there mission, they are truly corrupted and can't be trusted.

Everyday I hear more crap from our goverment, and I trust it less and less.

As I said, "I still believe the truth hasen't been told, and I suspect it is somewhere inbetween."

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

Rconner--here in the U.S. lots of these specialized taxing schemes have popped up over the years. Lottery, with proceeds going to the schools. Off road vehicle fees with proceeds going to improved recreational opportunities. Gas tax with the monies going to road building. But follow the money. All of these special taxing schemes eventually get corrupted (by the politicians) and the money ends up going to the general revenue fund, where it gets spent on general stuff. This general spending benefits the politicians in the districts where the money is spent. So, to answer your question, this is how politcians would benefit from a carbon tax.

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

To me, the whole thing is a matter of lost trust and credibility. I grant you up front I am NOT a scientist by any definition, and do not have the background or training to be one if I had the desire. What I have gained over my life is an inherent mis-trust of scientific researchers, the academic system that provides their framework and the corporations/governments that provide their financing.

I have lost faith in them because enough of them have turned out to be corrupt in so many ways such as losing raw data (trust us we really did have it at one time), demanding that I must give up my earnings to "save the earth" by supporting wealth trading schemes (carbon tax credits) and sucking up ever more power and control over individuals. I no longer trust anything presented to me by modern science. That is why I am unalterably opposed to any support for taxes to correct climate change. I realize I may be a genuine Luddite with my attitude, but I don't see any way for science, academia or corporate/government entities to ever earn back my trust. I expect to go to my grave despising what science has become during my lifetime...a political football to be passed around by the uber-wealthy.

So you see, although I greatly respect the efforts of those who post charts, tables, data and links on this forum, you will not change my mind. You cannot because you are not the scientists, professors and leaders that have broken my trust. Thus you cannot restore what they have thrown away...my former belief in their willingness to do good.

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

Wow…so this is what it’s like being at a Tea Party rally I guess…

…Anyways, here’s another example of the excellent, unbiased, non-ideologically driven work from Group 2.

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

But the problem is . I do know models. My somewhat complex (40000 dof) non linear time based models are correlated. They are even used to slightly extrapolate beyond their correlation (that is their purpose) That's why I am confident that a trend following model that is not physics based is not going to work for extrapolation way beyond their correlation.

Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

rconnor,
While you may find it fun to denigrate a segment of society whose fundamental goal is to drive this country towards a return to the Constitution many of us don't. Do you use the flag as a bedsheet as well?

As you should have gleaned from the contempt that your list has been held in by the poster's above you seem to be in the minority here--in fact you seem to be the only one who is willing to accept a peer-review that that finds "the computer model proves ..." to have meaning and value. For the last several months I've stopped reading your posts the first time you mention "model" or some obscure concept that only exists in adulterated data and computer models. When you post your lengthy and repetitious links I read down to the first time that the author claims that his computer model has proven something and stop. This "science" and "peer review" that you hold in such reverence and people outside of the field hold in such contempt looks to me to have the scientific value of a circle jerk.

David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering

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

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

Articles like this are easy for non-scientists like me to understand. Especially when I recall that even in some of the regions where raw data supposedly existed, it simply disappeared.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2014/03/why-...

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

I'm watching a propaganda piece on the ice disappearing from Greenland. The show is part of a 6-part series called "Tipping Point" staring self-proclaimed "climate adventurer" Bernice Notenboom.

This is purported to be a scientific piece and the introduction said "99% of all the fresh water ice in the world is in Greenland". That didn't ring true so I checked with the USGS and the number is closer to 8% in Greenland (2.6 million km^3 vs. a total of 32 million km^3). Little things. The person doing the piece asks a scientist "is this going to be a record melt year" got a response of "it seems to be melting faster than the computer models predicted". They equated snow melt amount to a number of fully loaded Boeing 747 aircraft. I find number of airplanes to be an odd unit of measure.

The entire narration was about "tipping points", "flooded coastal regions", "Doom", "Disaster". Every time they talked to actual scientists they got weasel words (some integrity still exists in the field apparently). When she talked to modelers it was all certainty, extreme, more severe weather events (at least 3/4 of the "experts" were modelers). The show went on for one period between commercials with unsubstantiated claims that severe weather events were more common today than "ever in all history".

David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering

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

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

3
I've been following this thread somewhat, and I'm just going to chime in. I've got to say, some of the sentiments expressed here really surprise me considering this is an engineering forum. Especially, debodine's:

"I no longer trust anything presented to me by modern science."

Holy cow. That's such a bold, all-encompassing statement. I really hope that is a minority view among engineers. If you believe that, then it is impossible to have an intelligent discussion about almost anything. Can no-one be trusted? Is everyone corrupt? Is a discovery only valid if you yourself discover it? I understand that when discussing the findings in a field we have no experience in requires a small leap-of-faith, but its one you have to take. Otherwise there is no progress. A layman has no choice but to accept the consensus of experts. It might be an uncomfortable reality, but we can't be an expert in everything.

At the end of the day you have politicians and world leaders with no scientific background shaping policies that will have a lasting impact on the world. If they can't base their decisions on scientific consensus and the opinions of respected scientific bodies, what do they have left? Gut-feelings? Blog-posts and internet forums? Like it or not, modern science the best thing we have.

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

"what do they have left?" ... what they started with ... lobbists and special interest groups.

"Can no-one be trusted?" ... consider the much vaulted peer review process. this allowed Mann to publish his hockey stick graph in time for the IPCC meeting and the rest is history. It doesn't matter that his research is a crock, and proven by McIntyre ... you get the same rest with a white noise input; the spin was spun. It doesn't matter IMHO that other researchers have produced the same result ... they could well be using the same hokum process (clearly they have to, if they're starting with the same data).

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

I don't have time to read all these posts -

What are the global percentages of CO2 emissions, due to

1) Motor vehicles

2) Industrial factories

3) Electricity generation, water desalination, etc

4) Natural causes, volcanoes, animals breathing, biological decay, etc.

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

I trust quite a lot of things presented to be by science, when that science follows the actual scientific method.

Climate modeling does not follow the scientific method. Climate models are not experiments, and have no control group. They are merely calibrated against historic data, which allows them to double-count some warming effects while neglecting other warming effects and still produce results that match the historic data well. That is not sound science, and every time I point that out on this forum all I hear is the sound of crickets.

Hydrology, Drainage Analysis, Flood Studies, and Complex Stormwater Litigation for Atlanta and the South East - http://www.campbellcivil.com

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

rb1957

"It doesn't matter that his research is a crock, and proven by McIntyre"

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_graph: "Their [McIntyre and McKitrick's] analysis was subsequently disputed by published papers including Huybers 2005 and Wahl & Ammann 2007 which pointed to errors in the McIntyre and McKitrick methodology."

But this is exactly what I don't want to do. I don't want to debate the technical details of climate change, because all I know about climate change comes from a handful of articles and blog-posts. The debate between arm-chair climatologists is never productive. Arm-chair climatologist #1 cites one study, climatologist #2 cites another, climatologist #3 feels like he wins when he asks a question that no one has an answer to because no one in the discussion really knows what the hell they're talking about.

To me, part of being a discerning, intelligent person is to recognize the limits of our expertise. It's a tough pill to swallow, and it takes some humility. The scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change is that it is real, caused primary by man's burning of fossil fuels. No scientific body of national or international standing disagrees with this view. Some of the smartest people in the world have spent decades of their lives studying this. We're talking about millions of man hours. Presented with that information, I could conclude that there is some kind of international conspiracy. I could conclude that despite the influence of multi-billion dollar fossil fuel companies, the environmentalists or wind-energy lobby or whoever has infiltrated the scientific community and skewed the findings to overwhelmingly support the conclusion that climate change is real. Or I could attack science itself, or the peer review process. But, at some point you have to admit that all these scientists are much more likely to be right than wrong.

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

Thank you DanielWW for providing some form of sanity to this discussion. Expect an oncoming wave of ideologically-based rage for doing so.

The repulsive anti-science sentiment is really disturbing. “Skeptics”, like the Young Earthers and anti-vaxxers, are willing to toss out the peer-review process and our most reputable scientific institutions due to an ideological view held so deeply that it cannot be questioned.

Through self-reinforcing ignorance, they admit to not even attempting to read about the science when it is presented to them. “Skeptics” then credulously replace that ignorance with dubious misinformation that they hear at obviously biased sources. But the cherry on top is that these habitual misinformers convince “skeptics” that institutions like NASA, NOAA and the Academy of Sciences are the misinformers. Hook, line and sinker, the recursive cycle of ignorance repeats…

(And zdas04, no my bed sheet is an image of Karl Marx and Robert Reich having a tax-payer funded same-sex wedding. Why do you ask?)

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

"There’s nothing in either of these comments that resurrects MBH98 or refutes any of our findings." McIntyre on his blog at "http://climateaudit.org/2005/10/25/vz-and-huybers-...".

it's exactly as you say ... every point has a counter point and quickly you're arguing fine technical points that we almost certainly don't have the technical background to work from.

there's little that can be proven without using models, and no the traditional scientific approach can't be applied. however the models make predictions but so far their track record is very good. i doubt that any professional climate scientist is satisified with the complexity of the models nor their representation of real world interactions.

and we just go round and round this argument ... someone noted that surprisingly few people had changed their perspective on the issue, despite all the electrons spilt in the process.

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

Sounds to me everyone disagreeing with each other while Rome is burning.

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

that's putting it mildly ! ... i reckon if we were in a room together it'd come to fisty-cuffs pretty quick.

i am certainly no climate scientist but i know a little about models, and how easy it is to get
a) the answer you want, or
b) rubbish.

McIntyre is not a climate scientist but a statistian. He has no axe to grind about CC or GW, he "just" looked into the statistical algorithim Mann used, and was "surprised".

For me, one troubling thing is how the original data is treated (certainly not with respect) and why is it hidden away ?

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

AELLC here's the most useful graphic on the carbon cycle.

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/langley/images/content...

The actual breakdown of the anthropogenic 3% or so can be found elsewhere.


As to changes of mind in the presence of data, I did. I had originally argued that the carbon cycle couldn't differentiate between anthro CO2 and natural CO2, so the usual feedback mechanisms should cope with the extra CO2.

But I did the calculations, and yes, the extra CO2 in the atmosphere more or less matches the fossil fuel usage since the start of the industrial revolution. That's surprising as it implies that the feedback mechanisms are very slow to change, odd since they are mostly annual processes. So that was a bit of an inconvenient truth. It doesn't prove the feedback isn't compensating but it seems likely to me.



Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

i had a "flash of the blindingly obvious" moment today ... why do climate models predict the correct results, if you assume that not all the processes are modelled, or modelled accurately, and/or the the computing power (grid size) isn't sufficient ?

to me we don't know all the climate processes, we don't model well what we do know, and i thin kthe grid size is large enough to affect the results. with this in mind, I rather that the models were off and the scientists were saying "we need to learn more". if the models are complete and the detail sufficient, then i guess climate science is a box humanity can tick and the scientists can retrain for something else ('cause we how everything we need to about climate).

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

Quote:

As to changes of mind in the presence of data, I did. I had originally argued that the carbon cycle couldn't differentiate between anthro CO2 and natural CO2, so the usual feedback mechanisms should cope with the extra CO2.

But I did the calculations, and yes, the extra CO2 in the atmosphere more or less matches the fossil fuel usage since the start of the industrial revolution. That's surprising as it implies that the feedback mechanisms are very slow to change, odd since they are mostly annual processes.

That carbon increased since the industrial revolution doesn't surprise me at all. But that's no proof that 100% of global warming is due to anthropogenic carbon.

In fact, if you simply plot the warming trend versus total carbon and versus anthropogenic carbon, your get a better fit vs anthropogenic carbon. That fact is often pointed to by the climate scientists as proof that anthropogenic carbon is the problem, but they're falling into the same trap I mentioned above. There's no way that sunlight can differentiate between carbon from different sources, which means the better correlation to anthropogenic carbon is almost surely because of other causes that are also correlated to anthropogenic carbon. Such as any of the other myriad of things that humans do to warm our environment. The industrial revolution is just a historical marker for human population explosion, and all the other things we do to warm the planet exploded at the same time.

That the warming "hockey stick" matches anthropogenic carbon is incidental to the fact that it matches population expansion, and all the other changes to the land that go along with it, that have intentionally been ignored or downplayed by the IPCC.

Hydrology, Drainage Analysis, Flood Studies, and Complex Stormwater Litigation for Atlanta and the South East - http://www.campbellcivil.com

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

So if we assume there is warming (not that we believe it is man caused), What are other solutions than the political more taxes? What would be the expected goal and costs?

I can in-fact explain some "extra' carbon in the atomosphere from cutting and burning of forests for crop land, which is not a fossel fuel source of carbon. The less lush crop land never seems to capture the carbon like the forest did and the ground absorbes the sunlight. And the rain washes the fertility out of the ground. (Wonder who you can tax in central America).

Here is a carbon capture scheme: Mow your lawn and send the clippings to Antaritica, where they won't decay (I know it's dumb).

One issue is the corruption there is in every group, and process. Once it gets out of hand, then people don't trust the process or group. And that's the problem here, a loss of credibilty because of a push for social engineering with the tax man. The tax man has become equal to the con man. Many of us don't feel like we can own anything. We can only purchase the right to rent from the goverment.
Have you heard about the EPA going around and fineing people for building ponds, or moving dirt on there property. With no recourse we are in fact a slave to the goverment, and you want us to approve more goverment control?

And the irony is the goverment is burning who knows how much fossel fuels to put more drones in the air to watch us.

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

We need to re-invent the safety systems of nuclear generating plants and start building them again.

Here in central AZ we get most our power from a nuke near Glendale, and it doesn't worry me.

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

You can compost most of your yard clippings, but barely no one seems to do that.

You could bicycle commute. I did that for 22 years, average round trip 28 miles, in weather up to 112 degrees F.

It makes more sense than driving to a gym, and saves a huge amount of money, including your car insurance if you qualify for personal use only, not driving to work in the daily rush hour crash-a-thon.

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

Composting releases a lot of the carbon in them, AELLC. Anaerobic decomposition is even worse - it creates methane which is a much more profound greenhouse gas than CO2 is, chemically speaking. The best thing to do with grass clippings, technically, would be to substitute them as fuel in fluidized bed reactors that ordinarily run on coal or other mined hydrocarbons.

Hydrology, Drainage Analysis, Flood Studies, and Complex Stormwater Litigation for Atlanta and the South East - http://www.campbellcivil.com

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

it creates methane which is a much more profound greenhouse gas than CO2 is, chemically speaking.
Which is why I suggested freezing it so it won't decompose in our life time (maybe a little).

But I don't have this problem because I don't have a lawn. No weeding, no mowing, little maintenance.

I did consiter bikeing to work, but the traffic along the highway dosen't seem that safe (there are no side streets).

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

What about rototilling grass clippings back into the soil - does that work?

I have bicycled in some pretty hairy situations - I recommend a good life insurance policy, to be fair to your close family.

There are a lot of tips and tricks to safe bicycling, however. Generally, only taxicab drivers, and especially bus drivers want to kill you deliberately.

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

Guys, just get a mulching blade for your mower and stop hauling bags of grass around. It decomposes just fine where it is spread out on the lawn, and returns fertility to the soil.

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

I've tried to inject this subject into one or more of these ostentatious climate kitty-cat threads, but it seems to be rather ignored. I'll take another shot at it:

Has anyone yet to prove that temperature rise follows co2 rise, or does co2 rise follow temperature rise???????? I've seen convincing information to corroborate the latter. Skeptic-bashers seem not to want to discuss it much. The alarmism and subsequent contest of greenies and tree-huggers to devise ways of relieving us average folks of yet more hard-earned cabbage might be put to rest if the "scientific community" would have an honest look at it.

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

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

FWIW I saw a video on YouTube ... ah, that's the beginning of many a bad joke. Some guy, a believer, has put out a series of videos showing how obviously wrong the "unbelievers" are; one was about refuting this claim/data.

This claim/data originally came (i believe) from a critique of Al Gore's movie, where he shows CO2 levels and temp (from ice cores). he says this shows CO2 increases drive temp increases. unbelievers say "no, the graph shows CO2 lags the temp by some 800 years"; personally looking at an axis measuring 16,000 years, it's mightly hard to see 800 years but it's probably there in the data.

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

ornery, it is obvious to me that the former is true. How could the latter be argued?

I generally don't categorize people - it is narrow-minded. If I wanted to be an abortion-hating left wing liberal, leave me alone.

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

How could the latter be argued? Why, quite simply. I can come up with an equal number of studies to "prove" either side of the coin. If the former had been conclusively proven, there wouldn't be such an outcry from people of all walks, scientists included. The number of contrary statements by presumedly educated people on this forum most certainly parallels those even more intelligent. The issue belies conclusivity, even a faint presumption of it.

That's all this is, is an argument. Realistically, how far back is reliable co2 data? 60 years, 100 years, 150 ??? I would not consider ice core samples to be reliable data of atmospheric co2. Am I to believe that a century of data comprised of 2 elements, co2 and temperature, are scientific and conclusive by any stretch of the imagination? What angers me the most is that, should a warming trend manifest itself through this and the next century, the buffoons will claim foresight and preeminent knowledge, when after all, it was a 50/50 guess.

There have been these cycles before, and they will happen again. Man will be allowed to again demonstrate that which separates us from the animals, and that is the inherent capacity to adapt and flourish under nearly any climate. As for those threatened by sea level rise, you want a waterfront view, accept the risk that goes with it. Adapt or die. Equilibrium ultimately solves all problems.

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

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

Well, to begin with, the rising sea levels will be the least of our worries.

Your theory is: People in here are intelligent because they are engineers - so why do they oppose on this scientific topic?

Correct?

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

Historically (and I’m talking on a geological scale), CO2 rates have lagged behind temperatures. Orbital cycles tend to be the trigger to warming in the past (again on a geological scale). These changes occur over time spans 10,000’s to 100,000’s of years. On their own, the changes in forcing caused by orbital cycle are too weak to account for the temperature changes noted over the Earth’s history. This is where CO2 comes in.

During a warming phase, ocean temperatures rise and release CO2 into the atmosphere. The increased levels of CO2 amplify the warming to a greater degree. Other positive feedbacks, such as changes in ice sheet cover and vegetation patterns also play a part in the amplification of the warming. So as temperatures rise, more CO2 is release. The more CO2 that is released, the more the temperatures rise. If temperatures are not sensitive to CO2, then we cannot explain the temperature trends of the past. This is way I said:

Quote (rconnor)

“it’s changed before” or “climate sensitivity is over estimated”, which besides being silly and widely debunked, are also incompatible arguments

A paper by Shakun et al, 2012 found that 90% of the warming during the last glacial-interglacial transition (~20,000 years ago) occurred after the CO2 increase.


So yes, earlier in Earth’s history, CO2 lagged temperatures but then the CO2 caused temperatures to continue to a greater degree.

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

My next theory:

If you are correct in saying humans don't cause climate change, and you choose to ignore it...don't do anything...50% chance we will be all starving and dying from thirst.

If I am correct and say we need to do something, and things are done, either the global warming is not reversed by our changes, OR things get much better - the global warming slows down or reverses.

At least my theory gives us more of a fighting chance.

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

Two things:
1. What are other solutions than the political more taxes? What would be the expected goal and costs?
2. Show me that the level of corruption in the goverment funded groups is very small.

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

"I would not consider ice core samples to be reliable data of atmospheric co2." ... why not ... not just polar ice, but samples from other glaciers as well. I think we have a better record for CO2 than we do for temperatures.

Part of the problem is we don't have thermometer reading going back past 1750s, so we're relying on proxies. I think it's challengeable whether tree-rings are a good indicator of temperature (or CO2 or water or all three !?) but that's one of the main things we're using to construct the temperature over x000 years.

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

I could care less if CO2 lags temperature or vice versa - horse droppings.

If your house is on fire, you don't wait and wonder what caused it - you get your butt out, quick

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

If the United States can make the effort to be the World Number One Supplier of Armaments, then I would think our political leaders could do something about global warming. It is merely a long process of shifting our production from Bombs to Butter. Very simple, it just may take a few years.

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

Quote (AELLC)


...the rising sea levels will be the least of our worries.

Perhaps, but rising sea levels will be an issue that will be harder to pretend as being in dispute by quoting conflicting studies and suggesting that perhaps we need to wait a bit longer to see if the 'science' becomes a bit clearer before we start to take any preemptive actions. I mean when the major coastal cities around the world start looking like Venice, it may be a bit late to conclude that perhaps something actually has been causing the polar ice-caps to melt.

John R. Baker, P.E.
Product 'Evangelist'
Product Engineering Software
Siemens PLM Software Inc.
Industry Sector
Cypress, CA
Siemens PLM:
UG/NX Museum:

To an Engineer, the glass is twice as big as it needs to be.

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

maybe our contribution (to global wamring) is the amount of hot air we're spilling over it ?

@rconnor ... nice graph, showing the globe's temperature warming after an ice age. tell me, if CO2 is the villian of the piece, why does the temperature fall at about 14,500 years whilst CO2 is increasing ? and likewise, why does it increase when CO2 is falling (some 1500 years later) ? tell me, if "The more CO2 that is released, the more the temperatures rise." is true, then why does the temperature stablise some 11000 years ago, yet CO2 continues to increase ?

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

"But that's no proof that 100% of global warming is due to anthropogenic carbon."

Indeed and I was very careful not to draw that conclusion.

I used it as an illustration that bleating about sceptics having closed minds and are not looking at the evidence is 100% wrong in my case at least. If someone says X, and I look at the data, and find that X is wrong, then typically that someone is either deluded or deliberately misrepresenting the facts. Which, inevitably gets found out, eventually.

Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

Language is an interesting thing. First we see

Quote (rconnor)

A paper by Shakun et al, 2012 found that 90% of the warming during the last glacial-interglacial transition (~20,000 years ago) occurred after the CO2 increase.

And against my better judgement I followed the link and found an abstract that says (bold lettering is mine):

Quote:

The covariation of carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration and temperature in Antarctic ice-core records suggests a close link between CO2 and climate during the Pleistocene ice ages. The role and relative importance of CO2 in producing these climate changes remains unclear, however, in part because the ice-core deuterium record reflects local rather than global temperature. Here we construct a record of global surface temperature from 80 proxy records and show that temperature is correlated with and generally lags CO2 during the last (that is, the most recent) deglaciation. Differences between the respective temperature changes of the Northern Hemisphere and Southern Hemisphere parallel variations in the strength of the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation recorded in marine sediments. These observations, together with transient global climate model simulations, support the conclusion that an antiphased hemispheric temperature response to ocean circulation changes superimposed on globally in-phase warming driven by increasing CO2 concentrations is an explanation for much of the temperature change at the end of the most recent ice age.

To read the article requires paying $32 and I'm not $32 worth of interested, but the abstract seems a lot more reasoned than the "found that 90% of the warming" statement above. It is a major problem that when authors present research and people spin it to support an agenda. Shame on you.

Could it be that CO2 lags warming and then drives global cooling? Mother Nature is not real big on positive feedback loops so it is certainly plausible that warming temperatures (20,000 years ago absent mankind's contribution) releases CO2 from the retreating permafrost and from the oceans. This CO2 in the environment triggered some mechanism that reduced the solar energy reaching the earth in some second-order fashion but over the centuries is enough to reverse warming trends and the CO2 is recpatured by the oceans and permafrost. This scenario matches the data without relying on computer models. The time-scale resolution of the ice-core data is so course that lagging a hand full of decades or so would look very similar to an unbiased eye to concentration changes that lead warming by the same amount. Neither leading nor lagging can be "proven" from the data.

David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering

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

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

AELLC---
"It is merely a long process of shifting our production from Bombs to Butter." If I am correct I believe that would require more cows to make butter, and would increase the production of methane.
Now that's really clean.

I do agree that the production of bombs is not the best thing, but at least it produces more jobs in this country than wind or solar does (I have no facts to prove this, but if you do, show them).

If you don't have any suggestions other than more taxes, then I will make a few for you tax freeks.
Why don't you try growing your own food (or at least part of it), by hand. Most people just don't understand how difficult it is, and why the heavy use of machines has brought down our food prices so much.
Maybe you should look at a 'get out and grow' movment as a way to reduce our dependence of fossel fuels.
Have you consitered boycotting plastics?
Have you insisted on paper bags? (they compost you know).


RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

I have thousands of miles commuting to work on bicycle, that was my contribution to ecology.

It may be impractical to grow food here, because we are having a disastrous drought, and the water rates are going to be increased draconically. Caused be global warming. Plus, the weather most of the year here is extreme high temperature. However, sorghum, cotton, some corn, and alfalfa are grown here.

Plastic bags are brought back to the grocery store to be recycled. One use of a paper bag is nonsense, and it is risky to re-use those.

Plastics are so essential, it would be idiotic to boycott that.

There is recyclable garbage pick-up for most residential homes in the area. Paper, cardboard metal cans, most plastics except bags and films, and glass.

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

"if your house is on fire" . . . . .

Alarmism. The sky is falling.

I'm all for taking care of our planet, don't get me wrong. Governments collecting more taxes accomplishes nothing, historically. Mandates = more burden/expense for the ordinary person, more opportunity for corruption and graft in government and big corporate.

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

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

@ornery,

That isn't proper - you took my comment out of context.

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

I may have, but that was somewhat my point, the potential for extremism on both sides of the argument. There is balance somewhere in the whole mess.

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

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

OK.

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

If anyone can be rated lower on a scale of factual and useful information than does Faux News, it would be Breitbart. At least Rupert Murdoch took the time to go to court and actually win a case where his layers argued that the 1st Amendment protected his right to have his reporters knowingly LIE on the air:

http://www.projectcensored.org/11-the-media-can-le...

In the case of Breitbart, they lie simply because that's ALL they know how to do.

John R. Baker, P.E.
Product 'Evangelist'
Product Engineering Software
Siemens PLM Software Inc.
Industry Sector
Cypress, CA
Siemens PLM:
UG/NX Museum:

To an Engineer, the glass is twice as big as it needs to be.

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

zdas04,

The comment “The role and relative importance of CO2 in producing these climate changes remains unclear” is the problem statement. This paper looks to help clarify that problem. They explain their method on how they attempt to do that in the very next sentence, “Here we construct a record…”. They find that “temperature is correlated with and generally lags CO2 during the last deglaciation.”

“warming driven by increasing CO2 concentrations is an explanation for much of the temperature change at the end of the most recent ice age”

Let’s look into the article to see if we can try and quantify “much”.

First, we’ll relook at the figure I present in the last post. In haste, I didn’t explain it very well at all, my mistake. The red line is the Antarctic temperature, the yellow dots are atmospheric CO2 concentrations and the blue line is the global temperature.


Quotes from the paper:
“Our results indicate that CO2 probably leads global warming over the course of the deglaciation.”
“the small apparent lead of Antarctic temperature over CO2 in the ice-core records does not apply to global temperature
“An important exception is the onset of deglaciation, which features about 0.3 C of global warming before the initial increase in CO2.”

From the figure, The global temperatures went from -3.5 C to 0 C, a rise of 3.5 C. The author states that 0.3 C of that warming occurred before the increase in CO2, so 0.3/3.5 = 8.5%, leaving 91.5% of the warming occurring after the CO2 rise. So, explain how I misrepresented the authors when I said:

Quote (rconnor)

90% of the warming during the last glacial-interglacial transition (~20,000 years ago) occurred after the CO2 increase

The major problem is that you don’t know what the paper says, thought that you did (but got it wrong), and attempted to blame me for misunderstanding what the authors were saying. Shame on you.

Almost the entire argument surrounding the trope “CO2 lags behind warming” comes from the comparison between Antarctic temperatures and atmospheric CO2. However, as illustrated in Shakun et al 2012, this does not tell the whole story or even the correct story. Antarctic temperature trends are very different than global temperature trends. Understanding the difference and relationship between the two is crucial (…but not for “skeptics” apparently). From discussion on variations in the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC), Shakun et al present a consistent physical description of the warming during the last glacial-interglacial transition and demonstrate that CO2 was most likely the main driver behind the warming.

They conclude with:

Quote (Shakun et al)

Our global temperature stack and transient modelling point to CO2 as a key mechanism of global warming during the last deglaciation. Furthermore, our results support an interhemispheric seesawing of heat related to AMOC variability and suggest that these internal heat redistributions explain the lead of Antarctic temperature over CO2 while global temperature was in phase with or slightly lagged CO2.

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

An author that writes an abstract that is as different from the paper as you are indicating isn't much of an author, hope he is a better scientist.

Regardless, there is a huge difference between a statement in a paper that 8.5% of the warming was lagging and you extrapolating that 90.5% was leading. An honest author will state conclusions. If the only conclusion he was able to draw was about the 8.5% then your extrapolation that the rest is leading is laughable. The granularity of the ice core data is certainly centuries, probably millennial. A 30 year or 80 year lead/lag would be lost in the granularity. The Church of AGW is hanging a lot of faith on the time period since the end of WWII which would not even be a blip in the ice core data.

Finally, today's version of Moses's conversation with a burning bush (i.e., computer model output) is only taken as gospel by the believers. I've only been doing computer modeling since 1980, but there are people in this conversation with real experience in the subject. They all say "models cannot prove anything". I can calibrate a CFD model to whistle Dixie. Then if my funding source changes, it is no big deal to re-calibrate it hum The Battle Hymn of the Republic. If I have a dataset with millennial data and I have to make up the intervening years to meld it with annual or seasonal data, then non-believers will continue to call foul, the faithful will nod wisely. This graph you keep posting has a "global temperature" line that is somehow extrapolated from ice core and sea-floor cored data (although the claim is that ice core data doesn't have anything to do with global data and the sea temperature is completely divorced from global temperature), so where did that line come from? Not many weather stations 22,000 years ago. Oh yeah, that like was invented from whole cloth by computer models. Gotta say, I'm not buying it.

David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering

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

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

There was no issue with the abstract, it accurately represents the study. The issue was with your misinterpretation of it.

First you blamed me for your misinterpretation and ignorance of the study, now you’ve blamed the author for your misinterpretation and ignorance of their own study. That’s impressive!

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

Glad you're impressed. I just read the abstract again and I fail to see any hint of the conclusions you've presented. Either the conclusions you've reached are outside the author's actual scope or the abstract does not reflect the contents of the paper. I don't see a third option.

David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering

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

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

Quote (Shakun et al (abstract))

temperature is correlated with and generally lags CO2

Quote (Shakun et al (body))

Our results indicate that CO2 probably leads global warming over the course of the deglaciation… An important exception is the onset of deglaciation, which features about 0.3 C of global warming before the initial increase in CO2
- Analyzing the graph we see that the “increase in CO2” occurs at ~17 kyr, when global temperatures (blue) are at ~-3.2. This is 0.3 C warmer than the start of the deglaciation phase, exactly as stated by the author.
- CO2 leads the global temperature trend over the remainder of the period, ending with a temperature of 0 C, an increase of 3.2 since the “increase in CO2”.
- 3.2/3.5=91%
- Therefore:

Quote (rconnor)

A paper by Shakun et al, 2012 found that 90% of the warming during the last glacial-interglacial transition (~20,000 years ago) occurred after the CO2 increase

Might I suggest a third option: you misinterpreted the abstract, the graph, my comment or all three.

(I’m leaning toward option three)

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

@rconnor,
will you accept that your graph shows global temperature (if we accept the proxy) increases some 1000 years after the CO2 increase ?

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

Out of curiosity, do any of you think that there is even the slightest chance of having your opinions, perspectives, or beliefs changed by this 'discussion'?

It's amusing to follow, I admit, but I'm just wondering. Seems much like political talk on television, where the commentators have no intention of actually paying any real attention to what is being said, the point is to keep repeating your own stance and denigrating anything said to the contrary.

But I do admit, it's entertaining. (And I know one of the regulars on here will do his usual thing, and insult me in response; that's fine, if that's your method of operation and it makes you feel better).

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

Having no responce to my questions, I doubt I will change my mind. But thanks for asking.

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

It is possible to have one's opinion changed. Rconnor claims to have had his changed, albeit not because of the discussion on this forum.

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

Spot on, Tenpenny. I thought I saw Jerry Springer leap out from the sidebar! LOL.

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

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

TenPenny,
If you really want to get fed up with this read the other 4 threads that have each gotten over 200 posts without anyone ever changing their position. One side says "the science is settled and the sky is really falling, I'm not going to be swayed by Luddite Deniers" The other side says "Computer models and adulterated data can't settle anything you religious zealot" over and over and over and over again. As someone who enjoys language for its own sake I am enjoying basically the same group of people talking at each other yet again.

A couple of years ago I read through one of these threads with a tally book and tracked what side of the argument each participant was on. I didn't find a single time that someone crossed the line to/from zealot or denier. I'm not sure "what good it would have done" if one had, but I didn't find that one that was prepared to be swayed.

David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering

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

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

Quote:

Out of curiosity, do any of you think that there is even the slightest chance of having your opinions, perspectives, or beliefs changed by this 'discussion'?

The moment someone shows me a study showing how the United States adopting a carbon trading scheme will arrest or reverse global warming, I'd be happy to read it. And if it's solid enough, I might change my mind. In the 1000+ posts so far on the topic on Eng-Tips, nobody has done that, because no such study exists. The entire argument from the IPCC is "Global Warming Exists Therefore Carbon Credits." Aside from missing the crucial link showing how carbon credits will actually fix global warming, the argument is completely disingenuous when they're intentionally snowing under their own numbers on equilibrium climate sensitivity.

In fact, nobody has even responded meaningfully (or at all) to my criticism regarding how correlative models cannot be used to prove cause and effect, other than to Appeal To Authority and Poison The Well.

Quote (beej67 over and over again keeps posting..)

No, I don't want to argue semantics, that's what you're doing. I want you to link me to a "peer reviewed study" that says carbon trading or carbon taxing will arrest or reverse global warming. I anxiously anticipate the entertainment value of reading it.

I also want you to acknowledge that a climate model that erroneously doubles the net effect of one warming source, while erroneously halfing the net effect of another warming source, can give "good" results if the two sources are in reality equal contributors to warming. And since this sort of error is inherent to the "calibration" process in modeling, the models cannot be used to prove causation from a correlation simply because their results are "good."

I'll leave whether or not the current results are "good" for someone else to argue, but I would like to point out (again) that the equilibrium climate sensitivity shown in AR5 is actually about half what the IPCC says it is, purely based on an objective analysis of their own studies.

Hydrology, Drainage Analysis, Flood Studies, and Complex Stormwater Litigation for Atlanta and the South East - http://www.campbellcivil.com

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

Agreed, so what if it is changing. How do taxes fix it, and no other solution will?

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

rb1957,

Firstly, the paper states:
“global temperature lags CO2 concentration by 120 yr, which is within the uncertainty range of the proxy-based lag”

So, no I don’t agree that it’s 1000 years. You cannot “eye-ball” the duration of the lag between global temperature and CO2; it’s much more involved than that. I should add that values for the duration of the lag found prior to the Holocene jumps around from study to study. 120 yr is short in comparison with other studies (400-800 yr) but the point remains, you cannot merely eye-ball the duration of the lag.

Secondly, I think you are incorrectly implying that the lag during the last deglaciation phase should be the same as the today. That would be a mistake. Not only is it incorrect to “eye-ball” a phase lag but you also cannot compare a lag in one era and assume it is consistent in another; it’s not. Lag is partly influenced by the rate of change in CO2 concentration (among other aspects).

From the graph, CO2 concentrations rose from about ~185 ppmv to ~260 ppmv over a 12,000 year period. That corresponds to a % increase rate of 0.3%/century (40% increase overall).

For comparison, since 1900, CO2 has gone from 290 ppmv to 400 ppmv . That corresponds to a % increase rate of 33%/century (38% increase overall). More recently, since 1980, the % increase rate is at 56%/century.

Prior to any anthropogenic influences, CO2 changed at a much slower rate (ex. +0.3%/century) and the phase lag between CO2 and temperature can be measured in centuries. However, the rapid increase in CO2 concentrations due to anthropogenic contributions as of late (+33%/century to +56%/century), causes this lag to be almost indistinguishable. For all intents and purposes, it doesn’t make much sense to talk about lag in a modern sense. Instead, we talk about climate equilibrium sensitivity which is the temperature at which a given CO2 concentration will lead to.

It’s important to realize that the total effects of increased CO2 concentration on Earth’s climate will take decades to manifest themselves. If we could magically hold CO2 concentrations at 400 ppm today, the planet would continue to warm by about 0.6 deg C over the next century until the climate system is at equilibrium with the new CO2 concentration level.

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

"do any of you think that there is even the slightest chance of having your opinions, perspectives, or beliefs changed by this 'discussion'?"

Well I specifically gave an example where yes, I did some thinking for myself, and agreed that one of the new religion's claims is at least consistent with the evidence, if not proven, and is the Occam's razor solution.

Let's just for fun run through the catechism

1)the earth's surface is getting warmer. yay, we're coming out of an ice age

2) The rate of change since date X is unprecedented. Well, you have to define your terms very carefully there, the data is noisy and the good history is short. But basically, no, not unprecedented. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c... for a sensible time scale, or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Instrumental_Te... for a recent example where the rate of change since 1980 is pretty much the same as in 1900-1940

2)the earth getting warmer is a BAD THING. No it isn't, not for the next 60 years according to the IPCC and much longer according to other people

3)It is better to stop the earth getting warmer than to deal with the side effects. Not according to economists and others

4)Atmospheric CO2 is increasing. Yes

5) The increase in CO2 is due to fossil fuel burning. Not proven, but I agree the numbers add up. What has suppressed the natural carbon cycle? Perhaps the carbon cycle has a long time constant

6) The models prove that CO2 is the cause of the rapid increase in temperature. Um, no.

Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

so then greg, you havn't essentially changed your position. step 6 is TRUE/FALSE gate for the believer/denier divide.

i too am quite prepared to accept that CO2 is increasing. i am surprised that your "back of a napkin" calc links the increase in CO2 with that amount of FF burned in the last 200 years ... i'd be interested in seeing the thought process. i prepared to accept that this CO2 might (probably will) affect the climate in the future.

i too disbelieve the models (in fact i'd have more confidence in the models if their predictions were wrong, since i don't accept that they model all the interactions with sufficient fidelity). and I am suspicious of the political machinations. and how much confidence can you place in a line of research which 1 decade predicts an up coming ice age and then the next says "oops, upcoming heat wave"; at least they've stuck to that story for a while.

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

At least there is enough water to send to Mexico, sorry about CA.

In light of the mud slides in WA, we will see more so called weather related issues. But not because of climate change, because there are more people building homes in less desirable places.
A great example is people building in flood plains, well what do you expect to happen? Not at all that we should not build there, but we should be smarter about it.

We need to think about the possible outcomes from our actions. Anyone seen articles about smuggling cigarettes into New York? This happens because of high taxes. What will happen if we rase taxes on other things?

If we can agree that at somepoint too much CO2 in the air will be bad, then we can look at low cost solutions. But if we insist only more taxes will fix this, we aren't going anywhere.

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

Rb1957, I agree to an extent that models are the crux of the differences in opinion. However, as I tried to demonstrate on your past thread, much of the climate change debate can be discussed without referring to models. I’d like to outline what you can determine without models and what you need models to study.

No Climate Models Required
  • Temperatures have increased
  • CO2 concentrations have increased
  • Anthropogenic contributions to the increased CO2 concentrations vastly outweigh natural sources
  • Ocean heat content is increasing (at all depths)
  • Ice coverage is decreasing
  • Humidity is increasing
  • Sea level is rising
  • Outgoing longwave radiation is reduced across wavelengths associated with CO2 (unexplainable by solar activity))
  • Increased downward infrared radiation across wavelengths associated with CO2 (unexplainable by solar activity)
  • The stratosphere is cooling while the surface is warming (unexplainable by solar activity)
  • Nights warming faster than days (unexplainable by solar activity)
  • Rising tropopause (unexplainable by solar activity)
  • Cooling and contracting ionosphere (unexplainable by solar activity)
  • Ocean acidification (unexplainable by solar activity)
With this set of empirically-driven information and no reliance on climate model simulations, I find a compelling causal link between anthropogenic CO2 concentrations and temperature rise. There is no other theory that explains the observed changes in our climate. “It’s changed before”, besides being a woefully unscientific theory, is directly disproven by these observed changes. Orbital cycles cause changes over the span of millennia, not decades. Furthermore, they could not explain any of the changes listed above with the tag “unexplainable by solar activity”. Not only that but orbital cycles, although the catalyst for changes in climate in Earth’s history, are not the dominate driver – CO2 is. So arguing that “it’s changed before” is actually arguing that CO2 is the control knob for our climate, which I agree with. The difference is that historically natural releases of CO2 were the only source but now humans are the dominate contributor to CO2 concentrations.

It is demonstrated through empirical observations that anthropogenic CO2 appears to be the cause of the recent warming without models ever coming into the picture.

Now, the crucial question is so what? More specifically, how much will it warm and is that a problem? For this, you need to forecast – there’s no way around that. You cannot forecast without models – there’s no way around that.

Climate Models Required
  • Recheck the influence of CO2 on temperature by “turning the knob” on various forcings and see how the system responds
  • Recheck the effect that CO2 has on other feedbacks
  • Recheck the climate sensitivity to CO2 increases
  • Forecast the future effects of increasing CO2
  • Simulate various emissions scenarios to establish targets of safe levels of CO2 concentrations
  • Understand future impacts so proactive measures can be started before the problem arises
If you categorically reject the use of models, you remove yourself from the conversation at this point. You don’t get a say one way or the other because you are choosing to not participate in a crucial part of the discussion.

If, instead, you attempt to read about the science behind the models, understand how they are constructed and, without bias, review their results and have a technical issue, then a fruitful conversation can be had. Unfortunately, given the blatant lack of knowledge on some of the most fundamental elements of climate models (ex. they cannot, nor do they attempt to, predict ENSO events or the fact that they are predicated on an energy balance), this is not the case here. Many here work with models and believe that makes them an expert on climate models – it does not. All the arguments that I’ve read on this forums are either an apriori, ideologically-driven rejection of the use of models, stem from a lack of understanding of climate models or stem from a misinterpretation of the results. This is not unique to this forum, it’s ubiquitous across all “skeptic” blogs and think-tanks. Whether the genesis of such misinformation at these sites is attributable to genuine ignorance or an attempt to purposefully obfuscate is both unclear and rather irrelevant. Places like NASA and NOAA will tell you all about the uncertainties and issues with the models and the results – they don’t hide it.

Models are not near perfect. Our understanding of climate sensitivity is not complete. Both are improving as more research comes in. However, this research has continually fine-tuned our understand, not drastically flipped it. It’s possible that future research could have that effect but that won’t come from WUWT, it will come from the people that actually understand the science.

Which does bring me back to my original point, when reviewing the data and information be very aware of the source. Peer-reviewed literature and reputable scientific institutions are much more trustworthy than blogs, regardless of what side of the fence you’re on. It’s a complicated subject and it is so easy to be fooled, especially when the trick affirms your previously held beliefs. It’s important to remember that regardless of the science, places like CATO or GWPF would have the same stance as dictated by their ideological views. Neutral scientific institutions like NASA, NOAA and 197 National Academies of Science have no ideological view to uphold – they present the science as it is, not how they would like it to be.

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

also rb1957, scientists saying “it’s cooling” in the 1970’s were a fringe voice amplified and, at times, misinterpreted by the media (not unlike the whole “pause” argument). Published studies surveyed between 1965 to 1979 found only 10% predicted cooling. Furthermore, most of the predicted cooling had to do with estimates on increasing aerosol emissions. However, the Clean Air Act was very effective at reducing aerosol emissions. And no, that doesn’t make the Clean Air Act responsible for the warming, it just means that it lessened the negative forcing of anthropogenic aerosols (which were harmful in other ways). Real Climate has a good rundown on this trope.

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

•Ocean acidification (unexplainable by solar activity)
Strange at the same time Maple trees are in decline because of the increasing of alikanity in the soil. Make me wonder if something else is in the works.
Maybe this is just from the over use of chemicals in the soil, and/or farming methods.

•Humidity is increasing
It's sure not translating into rain/snow fall. So are we also seeing air pressure increasing or decreasing?

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

I have to agree with Greg, and this was one point where my opinion has been swayed:

"5) The increase in CO2 is due to fossil fuel burning. Not proven, but I agree the numbers add up. What has suppressed the natural carbon cycle? Perhaps the carbon cycle has a long time constant"

...

"In light of the mud slides in WA, we will see more so called weather related issues."

ARGGGHHH. That hillside has slid more times in the last 100 years than people can count. It slid last in 2006, only 7 years ago. The entire town of Darrington, just upstream, is built on an old landslide/logjam that diverted the north fork branch of the Stillaguamish river so it now flows into the Skagit, instead of meeting the south fork of its eponymous river. The rail line was abandoned...then later the old RR grade re-purposed as a wagon road, then an automobile road. As a local newspaperman wrote - the sad thing is that we knew that hillside was unstable and didn't do anything about it. The land there (and about 2 miles up- and downstream) should be condemned, and the houses/property purchased by the state to create a no-build "wild land" zone. Our state did this once before, in my hometown just south of here (Maple Valley) after repeated floods along the Cedar River kept wiping out, about every 5 years, a trailer park built in low ground behind a woefully inadequate river dike. It's not because of global warming, it's because we've only kept records of floods/rainfall amounts/snowmelts on this whole continent for less than 100 years in many places, and certainly less than 200 years on the majority of it. And, because land developers have a lot of pull (read $$$) with local zoning councils. Ok, you might be able to blame clearcut logging for some of those slides...but not global warming...unless global warming and CO2 increases are both really due to deforestation.

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

Temperatures have increased
CO2 concentrations have increased
Anthropogenic contributions to the increased CO2 concentrations vastly outweigh natural sources. Proves nothing
Ocean heat content is increasing (at all depths) Unproven, changes in temp would have to be of the same oreder as changes in atmospheric temp if they were to drive them which they aren't.
Ice coverage is decreasing. symptom
Humidity is increasing. symptom
Sea level is rising. symptom
Outgoing longwave radiation is reduced across wavelengths associated with CO2 (unexplainable by solar activity)). measured over 30 years or less
Increased downward infrared radiation across wavelengths associated with CO2 (unexplainable by solar activity)
The stratosphere is cooling while the surface is warming (unexplainable by solar activity) also unexplainable by computer models, remeber the missing
Nights warming faster than days (unexplainable by solar activity). urban heat effect
Rising tropopause (unexplainable by solar activity). dunno
Cooling and contracting ionosphere (unexplainable by solar activity). measured since when?
Ocean acidification (unexplainable by solar activity). Tiny change, chemically meaningless.

That's pretty much a ragbag of observations many with accurate data lengths of perhaps twice the length of the pause.

You haven't begiun to deal with

global warming is good
adaptation is better than CO2 reduction

Sorry rconnor I can have an opinion on the models, and the last 17 years says that at best they are being misused, and at medium bad they are a waste of time and at worst they are being used to push an idiotic agenda.


Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

Rconnor - you have presented a textbook case of argumentum ad ignorantiam. Since "it" can't be a few things that we know, it obviously must be our pet theory. Natural cycles? Internal variability? Well, we don't understand that, so obviously it can't be that. Puleeze!

Now, to your asinine suggestion that, although we may know models and even computational models, because we don't know climate models we are singularly unqualified to proffer a learned opinion on said models. What a load of codswallop! I have been using computational/numerical models in the style of finite element / finite volume / and finite difference for 20 years, and have almost 20 papers in those topic areas to my credit. Damn right I know a thing or two about "models", and it matters not what is going on in the element/volume, there are certainly some universal truths:
1) boundary conditions: all models are sensitive to their boundary conditions. For climate models, that means what's happening at the edges of the model. Any textbook description of the atmosphere shows a huge variation in temperature as a function of height (and the height being a function of latitude. Albedo is a boundary condition that is a slight function of the near-surface temperature (and geography and geology).
2) Initial conditions: our current climatological data is so spatially and temporally heterogeneous that setting proper initial conditions sufficiently far in the past so as to train or tune the model to match recent history is a fool's errand. Ergo, and training or tuning of the model to match historical conditions is not and cannot be physics-based.
3) discretization and discretization error: the volume size in the current models are woefully inadequate to resolve spatial and temporally-significant weather and climate (climate being merely the time and spatial-integral of weather) phenomenon. I have lived and travelled in some pretty diverse places, and I can say categorically that the spatial grid-size is poor. I've also done numerical simulations (CFD, in this case) where we are trying to simulate phenomenon such as shock waves. The grid size is everything. Have you seen such presentations of upper-level winds such as http://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/isobaric... the features shown (and this is actual data, not a simulation) are very important climactically-speaking and yet the grid-size necessary to resolve such details is at least an order or magnitude greater than what the current generation of models have.
4) volume or element formulation. I have done simulations where there are more than 20 variables per grid (including some that had three distinct temperature metrics - plasmas are a blast to model, BTW). Within a single grid, you can model only the most simple physics. Since the resolution of the current climatological models is so coarse, they try to cram all sorts of extras into each grid. Been there - done that - and it's a fool's errand.
5) Validation: this is something that has been hammered home to me so many times by professors and mentors. Does your model match an experiment or reality? Well, the divergence of the atmospheric temperatures during this long "pause" between the real world and the model world shows that validation is not yet achieved. And this failure of validation is likely due to the above-noted issues.

Now - I agree that the CO2-temperature hypothesis does not need these sorts of models. However, claims of forthcoming catastrophe most certainly do. In fact, everything in this topic that is forward-looking relies on "the models". Without catastrophe, there is no need to "act". I am certainly willing to admit that my philosophical and political leanings bias me against the proposed "actions" required to "save the planet", but being sufficiently self-aware, I also know that my technical understanding of this topic is not clouded by my pre-existing biases. Can you say the same?

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

TomDOT -

You mean to say that crop cultivation and urbanization has an effect on climate, and that its effects have been correlated before with nothing other than human population? Even before the industrial revolution?

Naw.

Couldn't be.

Hydrology, Drainage Analysis, Flood Studies, and Complex Stormwater Litigation for Atlanta and the South East - http://www.campbellcivil.com

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

DanielWW:

I am not that bold, but thank you for thinking I might be. I think it is safe to say I am not only a minority view but even an outlier within engineering, NOT a mainstream thinker when it comes to science. I believe you can rest easy based upon that point due to the lively discussion and engagement you see on this forum.

The truth is that science itself (or more accurately, the scientific method) is not what I consider untrustworthy, it is the interference of human nature in the realms of scientific inquiry. My very first two questions when presented with any modern scientific data is, who paid for it and who gains by the conclusions? It is the same two questions I ask with political, judicial, legal, economic, banking, insurance and the pronouncements of any other endeavor that has anything to do with money.

But being an outlier means I will have no influence that you need to combat to be able to have beneficial discussions. The scientific method in its pure form is a beautiful process. It is the non-scientific prejudices and objectives of participating and controlling human beings that stops me from trusting in general.

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

Simple solution to many problems "Solient Green".

Because most propls can't seem to see beyond the end of there noses, there is a push for solutions that make it go away, with little concern for the externalities.
Fix that problem, and you have fixed many more problems.

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

Wow this debate is still roaring on full speed.

I wonder what the standard of proof really is among the skeptics.
They bring up imperfections in computer models and initial condition capture,
many of which are very likely impossible to ever satisfy to their standards.

So if 50 years from now the climate is much warmer in terms of the sensitivity
to how we have adapted to it and there is much suffering and hunger with
weather routinely setting records for extremes never imagined, will it still
be so important to validate away the last few tenths of a percent of doubt.

Look it is simple. In 2000 years ( 20 one hundred year spans ) the climate
has never done what it has done in the last 100. Something with a rough probability
of 1/20 has happened and coincidentally a known causative effect has presented
itself for the first time in this 100 year span.

We make decisions to take drastic measures on far lower odds. I would give the odds
of Saddam Hussein having used WMD on the USA at less than 1/20 if we didn't invade but
we did it anyway. And that wasn't cheap. Where is the outrage at that waste of money.
Oh, yeah those with the gold made more gold during that one.


RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

Quote:

Look it is simple. In 2000 years ( 20 one hundred year spans ) the climate
has never done what it has done in the last 100. Something with a rough probability
of 1/20 has happened and coincidentally a known causative effect has presented
itself for the first time in this 100 year span.

A dozen known causative effects, many of which are man made, have presented themselves, but the only one the IPCC wants to focus on is the one that makes certain people and organizations money, because they've positioned themselves to capitalize on carbon "trading."

Quote:

We make decisions to take drastic measures on far lower odds. I would give the odds
of Saddam Hussein having used WMD on the USA at less than 1/20 if we didn't invade but
we did it anyway. And that wasn't cheap.

Yeah, and who made the money off that deal?

A: Some of the same people.

Quote:

Where is the outrage at that waste of money.
Oh, yeah those with the gold made more gold during that one.

They sure did. I would never dream of associating the two cases for fear of being called a tin foil hatter, but since you brought it up, there are a lot of really quality parallels.

Hydrology, Drainage Analysis, Flood Studies, and Complex Stormwater Litigation for Atlanta and the South East - http://www.campbellcivil.com

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

"Yeah, and who made the money off that deal?" ...

munitions manufacturers,
army (mostly) equipment manufacturers,
airport security monitor manufacturers,
mercenary (private armies, private security) organisations,
people with lots of maney to invest, who know the right people for advice,
and (with the utmost respect and with no intention to denegrate) VA hospitals
(a lot of money is to be made due to the misery of others) ...

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

2Dye4,
If I write a computer model to predict the next fall of a dice. If I calibrate that model to exactly match the last 100 million falls of the dice, then I have a 1 in 6 chance that it will predict the next fall of the dice. Exactly the same as if the model did not exist. Same with climate models. No one has to prove an alternate theory to disprove a bad technique. The climate changes. Always has. Always will. Models (beyond generating heat) will have nothing to do with either the fact, magnitude, or direction of the next change. When a climate model gets the next value right (random chance says that it must happen occasionally) the world sings hosannas. When the model gets it wrong (normal case), the cheerleaders are out for a drink and miss it. That is the state of climate science. The grid is too course. The boundary conditions have too many forced variables, the grid-to-grid transfers are too weak, and our understanding of the arithmetic that describes fluid mechanics, quantum mechanics, and thermodynamics is inadequate to allow us to predict tomorrow's weather better than 50% of the time (I know that climate and weather are different things, climate is when everyone's future is threatened by the next big scare and weather is a choice between carrying an umbrella or not).

So no, a projection based on a computer model will never satisfy the requirements for "proof" of anyone who has ever pulled the arm on a slot machine or engaged in any other form of activity based on random chance.

David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering

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

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

And to get back to the heat based models.

In the short term they have to model the ENSO effect and whatever the equivalent is in the Atlantic. They can't even predict the timing of the nexrt ENSO peak, never mind its magnitude.

Admittedly over a couple of full cycles it all averages out, and the average length of an ENSO strong to strong cycle is 27 years (on average), so a heat based model should be testable this century. The signals from 30(?) buoys in the Pacific is very useful but does not forecast ENSO.

In the longer term the heat based models have to account for the variation in heat generated by the earth's core, and despite some bluster on this subject, the poles flip in a short period of time geologically speaking (250 years, fastest rate of change observed is 50 degrees PER YEAR), and changes are detectable on an annual scale as well. I do not know how efficient these changes in circulation are, and I'm going to have a little dig around. Given the huge masses, and high velocities, involved, I have a suspicion that ignoring them is rather a silly thing to do in the long term.

Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

Well I was wrong about that. The energy content of the Earth's magnetic field is only 10^19 J or thereabouts, compared with annual insolation of 5*10^24 J it doesn't seem likely that changing it would create much heat. Oh well. plenty more unknowns both known and unknown to look at.

Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

rb1957 " i'd be interested in seeing the thought process. "

3.35E+11 tonnes of carbon from fossil fuel, 1750 to 2007
1.23E+12 tonnes of CO2 due to fossil fuel
2.99E+12 total atmospheric CO2 582 ppm by mass 2007
2.17E+12 total atmospheric CO2 422 ppm by mass 1750
8.23E+11 change in atmospheric CO2 1750 to 2007
67% %age of fossil fuel CO2 still in atmosphere

Which surprised me

Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

beej67

""A dozen known causative effects, many of which are man made, have presented themselves,""

How about listing a few please or link to a list ??

Zdas

So a computer model is completely useless. Then how do you expect one would ever 'prove' a climate change hypothesis ??
Obviously closed form equations are even harder than numerical simulations.
Seems like your framework prevents any conclusion from ever being made. A well known tactic even if that is not your motivation.

And again lets not forget that all we are arguing about is whether to conserve a finite resource or use it up as fast as is economically
possible.

I suspect if the cost of presenting fossil fuel to the consumer were one tenth what it is now we would all be driving some
variation of tracked tank to the supermarket and vigorously defending the need to do so for our quality of life.

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

Quote (2dye4)

So a computer model is completely useless.
Not at all. I have made my career out of numerical simulations (i.e. computer models). When used in their range of applicability, and applying appropriate and understood boundary and initial conditions, ensuring grid convergence (i.e. the answer is independent of the mesh), and ensuring that the constitutive equations are correct, numerical models can provide reasonable answers to well-posed questions. They cannot "prove" anything, however.

Quote (2dye4)

And again lets not forget that all we are arguing about is whether to conserve a finite resource or use it up as fast as is economically
possible.
I have had this discussion with moltenmetal (who got frustrated with these discussions and left) - the two issues are completely separate (and, BTW, I think that there is a case for using liquid hydrocarbon fuels for transportation only, and not for stationary energy generation). If the stated goal is the preservation of hydrocarbon resources, then it needs no pretext of some tangentially-related "global warming". But, that's not what we are discussing - and trying to shift the discussion won't work.

Quote (2dye4)

Look it is simple. In 2000 years ( 20 one hundred year spans ) the climate has never done what it has done in the last 100. Something with a rough probability of 1/20 has happened and coincidentally a known causative effect has presented itself for the first time in this 100 year span.
Um - I'm not really sure what metric you are basing this statement on (probably Mann's fraudulent hokey-stick), but it is demonstrably false, even in the last 100 years (where we actually have instrumental records). The period of 1910-1945 had a rate of temperature increase virtually indistinguishable from 1979-1999 . The overall temperature was warmer during the Roman Warm Period, and then we plunged down into the cold depths of the Little Ice Age, and have then rebounded to the Modern Warm Period. Sorry, but "never done what it has done" is complete bunk! And man's (CO2) contribution only became significant after WW2 (1945), so blaming mankind for anything prior to 1945 is also not in keeping with the CO2-driven CAGW hypothesis.

Try again.

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

""They cannot "prove" anything, however""

If so what use could they be for investigating climate change given the difficulties you and zdas have placed on the solutions.
You surely must understand i said a computer model is completely useless in the context of the discussion we are having.

"" the two issues are completely separate ""

Well I would think that the utility of the current course would have some impact on the policy debate
given that climate change cannot be proven beyond and any doubt much like every other scientific idea.
It is a matter of calculated probabilities of loss, so yes the need for the usage is central to the debate.

"Um - I'm not really sure what metric you are basing this statement on "

Take the scientifically accepted temperature reconstruction of the past 2000 years, calculate a mean and a variance
from the series. Get climate temperature for the last 100 years and calculate its average.

How many standard deviations taken from the 2000 year series is the last centuries mean above the 2000 year mean.

M1 = Mean of 2000 year reconstruction.
S1 = Standard dev of the 2000 year reconstruction.

M2 is the last 100 year mean temp.

what K satisfies this eqn.
M1 + K*S1 = M2

It gives a measure of the hockey stick. And no the hockey stick has not been discredited.

I'll bet if your utility bill had the same shape you would go looking for leaks in your insulation due to the
sudden change indicated by the bump in the graph.







RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

Computer models are useless at predicting the future. Remember that the input to one iteration is the output from the last iteration.

Also the myth of vanishing hydrocarbons just isn't so. Living organisms generate something on the order of 500 millions tonnes of methane per year from biological processes. The number has been huge for millions of years. It has been estimated (I'm across the world from my library so I can't cite a reference) that 0.5% of that mass of methane is captured in silts and aqueous environments. Of the amount that is trapped, most will leak out the edges of the trap long before it can ever be harvested. The Oil & Gas industry is going after something like 1 billionth of a percent of the hydrocarbons that have been created. Hydrocarbons are anything but finite.

When the fossil fuels run out we will just have to get a tiny bit smarter about capturing the results of life. We are already doing it. Many farms are composting animal and vegetable waste to extract the methane to run generators and farm equipment. Many cities are capping landfills and generating power from the trapped gases. We will do more. If the AGW hypothesis is correct (which would really shock me) then we will do more for the climate by capping biological sources than all the cap and trade, all the EPA regulations, and all the IPCC could ever do, simply in our own self interest.

David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering

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

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

No, it’s not a textboox example of argumentum ad ignorantiam, I will give you the textbook example:

What IS an argumentum ad ignorantiam – “My proposition is true because you cannot prove it to be false” or “Your proposition is false because it has not yet been proven true (in my mind)”

What is NOT an argumentum ad ignorantiam – “I have a theory which predicts, if true, some consequences will occur. Those consequences have been demonstrated to be in agreement with empirical observations. The predictions of counter-theories are not in agreement with empirical observations.”

With the proper definitions in mind, let’s review what I said:
The anthropogenic climate change theory states that human influences, primarily through the release of CO2, are affecting the climate and causing the surface temperature to warm. The theory predicts various physical consequences as stated above. These predictions have been shown to be in agreement with empirical observations. Furthermore, counter-theories, such as the change in climate is caused by orbital cycles or solar activity, make predictions that fail to agree with or directly oppose empirical observations.

Beyond that, I have explicitly stated what reasonable, plausible observations would cast doubt on the theory for me:

Quote (rconnor)

  • If ENSO neutral years showed a notable decline in temperature trends over a significant time-span --> it doesn’t, they show a very consistent warming trend, even during the “pause”
  • If both ocean heat content and surface temperatures showed a notable decline over a significant time-span --> it doesn’t, OHC shows an increase, especially in the deep ocean, during the “pause”. This is exactly what you’d expect to happen in an La Nina dominated period.
  • If during the next positive PDO/IPO period, the temperature trend does not resume warming --> we’ll see

That’s not argumentum ad ignorantiam, that’s how science is done. That’s how theories work.

Now, what IS an argumentum ad ignorantiam is, “I’m not convinced by the data, therefore the theory is false”. If you claim to not have that stance and instead believe it is inconclusive, then you must remain open to the evidence. Reviewing the science at WUWT or CATO isn’t really being open to the evidence, it’s looking for a comfortable and convenient spin that fits your apriori assumptions

TGS4’s rundown of climate models – this is a great rundown of models but, unfortunately, it contains many naïve or incorrect assumptions regarding how climate models are structured. This just emphasis my previous point – you may know about models but you don’t understand climate science or climate models. If you want to understand, I recommend the following reads from Gavin Schmidt of NASA, one publication from NASA and aClimate Model FAQ on his blog, Real Climate.

Regarding TGS4’s question to me regarding biases - you got me, my love for paying taxes has biased my view on the science.

Regarding the warming rate in the early 20th century, look at atmospheric aerosols during that period. The amount of anthropogenic CO2 released (much smaller than today but still non-zero) mixed with the lack of aerosols and the fact that 1910 was a solar minimum and 1940 was a solar maximum all combine to account for the warming during that period without needing to adjust any forcing values for CO2, aerosols or solar activity. It’s not an argument against the theory: it is consistent with our understanding of climate science.

I’ll add that we now have lower solar activity than in 1940, more aerosols, are in a negative PDO but have much higher global temperature. Please explain how, if CO2 isn’t influencing temperatures, this could be the case. (again, this is NOT an argument ad ignorantiam because the scientific community’s theory can and DOES explain it)

Also, weren't you arguing that temperature trends mean nothing and are a useless metric? I guess you forget that when you can make a (mistaken) argument using them. Well, regardless, I can disprove theses arguments by whichever way you like.

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

""The Oil & Gas industry is going after something like 1 billionth of a percent of the hydrocarbons that have been created. Hydrocarbons are anything but finite""

REALLY ??

I had something typed to say until I realized what today's date is. Good one ZDAS04.

Now if you are serious .....

There are some holes that need filling. When speaking of the hydrocarbons that have been created
are you meaning everything created back through the millions of years life has inhabited the planet ??

If so this is not relevant because nature also destroys hydrocarbons over the same time span so the figure
is irrelevant to what is stored in the Earth.

Also I eagerly await beej67 answer about the dozen other plausible man made causes of the warming we are seeing.







RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

(OP)
Obama seems to be following in Reagans footsteps... both cow farts and burps.

http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/033114-69...

cow

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

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

It is actually April 2 where I'm at, and I was serious. Hydrocarbons are created everywhere all the time. Methane is the single most renewable substance on the earth. I keep reading about dairy farms that are totally self sufficient on power (swamp gas off digesters run generators and compressors for CNG for vehicles). The very best of them capture something like 1% of the methane generated on their properties. Land fill capping is the municipalities wheel of fortune for the next decade.

Yes, there are many processes that convert methane into other stuff. Some (large) amount of it leaks into space as well. The part that survives and can be captured economically will satisfy our energy needs in perpetuity (to say nothing of any biogenic methane that we capture won't become a greenhouse gas, certainly a much larger reduction in GHG than all the cap and trade ever done). This is not conjecture. The technology has been developing for decades and it is getting pretty damn cool. Capital costs tend to have a 2-3 year payout and the capital equipment bought has a multi-decade track record running on fossil fuels. The most "renewable" energy on the planet.

David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering

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

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

"Well I was wrong about that. The energy content of the Earth's magnetic field is only 10^19 J or thereabouts, compared with annual insolation of 5*10^24 J it doesn't seem likely that changing it would create much heat. Oh well. plenty more unknowns both known and unknown to look at."

Well, I was probably wrong in saying I was wrong. The major energy content of the core's energy is kinetic energy, the magnetic field is a side effect of the core's convective activity. An analogy would be a loudspeaker. We think it is there to make noise , all it mostly does is turn electricity into heat.

Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

GregLocock, see my responses in bold below:

Temperatures have increased Agreement

CO2 concentrations have increased Agreement

Anthropogenic contributions to the increased CO2 concentrations vastly outweigh natural sources. Proves nothing some argue that the increase in CO2 concentrations are from natural sources. I agree, it’s silly but it does disprove that

Ocean heat content is increasing (at all depths) Unproven, changes in temp would have to be of the same oreder as changes in atmospheric temp if they were to drive them which they aren't. NOAA data and the second part is just false

Ice coverage is decreasing. Symptom …of increasing energy (while aerosols are increasing, solar activity is decreasing and CO2 is increasing). I agree.

Humidity is increasing. Symptom …of increasing energy (while aerosols are increasing, solar activity is decreasing and CO2 is increasing). I agree.

Sea level is rising. Symptom …of increasing energy (while aerosols are increasing, solar activity is decreasing and CO2 is increasing). I agree.

Outgoing longwave radiation is reduced across wavelengths associated with CO2 (unexplainable by solar activity)). measured over 30 years or less You’re point being? 30 years is not insignificant and requires a physical explanation. I’ve got mine, what’s yours?

Increased downward infrared radiation across wavelengths associated with CO2 (unexplainable by solar activity) No comment?

The stratosphere is cooling while the surface is warming (unexplainable by solar activity) also unexplainable by computer models not true at all, explainable and predicted by the theory, produced in models and observed in nature, remeber the missing …hotspots? Ya, remember John Christy’s quote? “It is likely that a net spurious cooling corrupts the area-averaged adjusted radiosonde data in the tropical troposphere, causing these data to indicate less warming than has actually occurred there”. Remember this rebuttal to the argument, found in the comment section of the Spencer blog post which incited this trope (which Spencer never responded to)?

Nights warming faster than days (unexplainable by solar activity). urban heat effect part of Watt’s imagination, see Berkley Earth Space Team data which was specifically designed by skeptics past (Muller) and present (Curry) to account for urban heat effect. They concluded that it had no effect on the data.

Rising tropopause (unexplainable by solar activity). Dunno Doesn’t surprise me

Cooling and contracting ionosphere (unexplainable by solar activity). measured since when? I don’t have the exact date on hand but what’s your point? Do you have a physical explanation of how this could happen on its own or by solar activity? Probably not but the CO2 theory can.

Ocean acidification (unexplainable by solar activity). Tiny change, chemically meaningless. Not really here to argue this point but it does demonstrate the increase in atmospheric CO2 and it’s interaction with other parts of the climate system

That's pretty much a ragbag of observations many with accurate data lengths of perhaps twice the length of the pause. ragbag? All major predictions of the CO2 theory demonstrated to be in agreement with empirical observations is “ragbag”? This is when I know you’re closed off from discussing this issue seriously

You haven't begiun to deal with

global warming is good Compelling argument! Such nonsense. A little bit of warming would be nice for my location but would negatively affect those in other areas. I’m not apathetic enough to say that’s a “good thing”. Continued warming beyond that would continue to adversely affect more and more areas and do a number on the biosphere. When our climate “changed before”, it usual resulted in some pretty wide scale extinctions and massive changes in the biosphere. A rundown of the “good” changes you speak of can be found here or here

adaptation is better than CO2 reduction Again, compelling argument! Again, such nonsense. I like the quote from John Holdren:
[quote John Holdren]We basically have three choices: mitigation, adaptation and suffering. We’re going to do some of each. The question is what the mix is going to be. The more mitigation we do, the less adaptation will be required and the less suffering there will be.”

See the Stern Review, German Institute of Economic Research Report, Watkiss et al. 2005, they all report massive long-term advantages to mitigating climate change versus adaptation. Mitigation costs and climate related damages amount to ~$12 trillion in 2100 and ~$30 trillion by 2200. Without mitigation, the damages are estimated to be ~$20 trillion in 2100 and ~$75 trillion in 2200.

Furthermore, while reducing emissions by 10%, BC’s GDP has kept pace with the rest of Canada, even when it was the only Province with a carbon tax. Further it has allowed the province to drive down income and corporate tax rates to some of the lowest in Canada. Furthermore, it’s provided millions of dollars per year to low income families. Seems like carbon taxes don’t lead to the economic dystopia some think they do.


Sorry rconnor I can have an opinion on the models, and the last 17 years says You have offered no new defense of the “pause” as a valid argument after my 13th time debunking it. It remains a non-valid argument that at best they are being misused, and at medium bad they are a waste of time and at worst they are being used to push an idiotic agenda.

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

Quote:

""A dozen known causative effects, many of which are man made, have presented themselves,""

How about listing a few please or link to a list ??

First and foremost, agriculture and urbanization reduce the net vegetative total on the Earth. While relatively carbon neutral, this reduces the energy 'removed' from the system by photosynthesis processes - an energy balance term that is almost universally ignored by atmospheric chemists when they model climate.

Agriculture and urbanization also make drastic changes to the global albedo, causing more heat to be absorbed by the earth and less to be reflected. This is another energy balance term that is not only ignored by atmospheric chemists, some of them in the IPCC have had the gall to claim that our current level of agriculture and urbanization has produced a net cooling effect on the earth, even though the effect of urban heat islands is verifiable, and can be seen both from space and in local weather patterns.

Then of course there's a third major energy balance term that's ignored by climate scientists related to the other two - the hydrologic cycle itself. Every jump a molecule of water makes on its path through the hydrologic cycle is a loss of energy in the energy balance of the planet, which is ignored by the atmospheric chemists. The hydrologic cycle is the earth's primary mode of self-cooling. In fact, as the earth warms, and more water enters the atmosphere, the hydrologic cycle increases and bleeds off more heat. This again is measurable, in sea water temperatures several degrees lower after a hurricane passes over a region, but it's again ignored by the atmospheric chemists.

And the hydrologic cycle spills back into the albedo thing above, as well! Clouds are white. White reflects light. Increased cloud cover itself reduces global albedo. Another energy balance term ignored by the climate scientists.

Next, there's the effect that agriculture and urbanization has on the hydrologic cycle, by breaking the chain. Agricultural land produces less efficient evapotranspiration than fallow land, particularly the forests and grasslands typically plowed under for agricultural use, so that's an impediment to the earth's ability to cool itself. Urbanization has an even more profound impact on the hydrologic cycle, because you're sealing the rainwater away from the groundwater, making streams flashier, reducing base flow, and cutting that cycle off anywhere you build a city. Which, again, is ignored my the atmospheric chemists. So there's another energy balance term they ignore or downplay.

Then you've got direct heat, from the giant heat exchanger everyone has on their house and place of work. You've got direct heat from all the technology we use. You've got direct heat from the power plants we use in industry and power generation. This direct heat again can be seen from space, with satellites, but the IPCC does everything they can with some very sketchy science to show they shouldn't have to account for that energy balance term.

Then you've got changes in the fauna of the planet begot by human population expansion. I stuck this link in the last thread:

http://xkcd.com/1338/

Mammals are very hot creatures by comparison to everything else on the planet. We have spread not only ourselves throughout it, but a fantastically large amount of other mammals, in terms of mass. That again ties in with all the aforementioned agricultural energy balance terms, but it creates new ones as well. There's a lot more methane in the atmosphere now than there used to be, due to the proliferation of livestock, and methane is a much more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2, chemically speaking, but its energy balance term too is ignored or downplayed by the atmo chemists.

Hey, check out the hockey stick on methane:



Looks familiar, doesn't it? It's the same hockey stick as carbon. And yet the atmospheric chemists are claiming that anthropogenic carbon is somehow worth more than total carbon to justify their models (after calibration) while not saying the same thing about methane. Why couldn't it be that methane is worth more than we expect?

Or perhaps, just perhaps, it's all of these things. And the real hockey stick we need to be calibrating our models to, is this one:



Every single one of the energy balance terms I mention above all have the same hockey stick shape. A climate model that looked at any one of them in isolation and none of the rest could be calibrated to that same hockey stick shape and still produce good predictive results. But the quality of the predictions would say nothing about actual causation, because all of these things are correlated to one thing: human population.

Now, why aren't the climate scientists looking at these other factors? Why in fact are they trying their best to downplay these other factors, intentionally, with some very sketchy science? I don't know for sure, but I'd guess it has something to do with where they're getting their funding.

Hydrology, Drainage Analysis, Flood Studies, and Complex Stormwater Litigation for Atlanta and the South East - http://www.campbellcivil.com

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

beej67

I think you broke some thermodynamics with that post.

Removal of vegetation -> "" While relatively carbon neutral, this reduces the energy 'removed' from the system by photosynthesis processes ""

This removed energy is only stored in carbon form for a very short time at the surface, it is released back immediately upon decay.

""IPCC have had the gall to claim that our current level of agriculture and urbanization has produced a net cooling effect on the earth""

Some have claimed that forests absorb more radiation and warm the land more than lighter colored farmland. No doubt urban areas capture more
heat. If forests capture more heat than open land then it is likely this effect has provided marginal cooling.

""Every jump a molecule of water makes on its path through the hydrologic cycle is a loss of energy in the energy balance of the planet,""

No I don't think so, energy cannot be created nor destroyed only transferred.

The cloud thing -- OK yup I buy that, but has anyone proven an increase in clouds is likely in the MMGW scenario??

The Earth does not cool or heat itself through vaporization or condensation of water, it is part of a closed system.

The direct heat produced by our energy usage activities is trivial compared to solar insolation. Not a factor at all.

""Mammals are very hot creatures by comparison to everything else on the planet"" Not relevant, again a closed system.

The Methane is a valid factor, however methane does not last long in the atmosphere before decomposing.

I count two valid issues in your post, both of which are considered in climate science.

So you are 0 for 12 issues that are valid and not considered in climate science.

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

"methane does not last long in the atmosphere before decomposing" So why is the EPA trying to regulate it?
Follow the money.

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

Go back and review the 1st law of thermodynamics, 2dye4. I will admit I was a little sloppy with my words above, so lets be clear on the thermodynamic ramifications here.

If the earth is a closed system, and things requiring energy are happening in that system, then that energy cannot also be simultaneously encountered as heat. Think about how much kinetic energy is in convection in the atmosphere at any given moment, and then think about how much more kinetic energy there is if we get more hurricanes due to global warming. That kinetic energy must come from somewhere, and that "somewhere" is the same pot of energy that the "warming" comes from.

Think it through.

Quote:

Removal of vegetation -> "" While relatively carbon neutral, this reduces the energy 'removed' from the system by photosynthesis processes ""

This removed energy is only stored in carbon form for a very short time at the surface, it is released back immediately upon decay.

The carbon is released back. All of those processes require energy while they're ongoing, and when those processes are eliminated from the closed system on a large scale, due to something like urbanization, they're no longer utilizing that energy. So the energy is experienced in some other form, such as heat.

Quote:

Some have claimed that forests absorb more radiation and warm the land more than lighter colored farmland. No doubt urban areas capture more
heat. If forests capture more heat than open land then it is likely this effect has provided marginal cooling.

Go stand in a forest. Go stand in a corn field. Look at a forest on IR from space. Look at a corn field on IR from space. The mental gymnastics necessary to claim that corn fields cool the planet and forests warm it boggle my mind. Again, the main disconnect here is that the process of "being a forest" takes energy.

Quote:

""Every jump a molecule of water makes on its path through the hydrologic cycle is a loss of energy in the energy balance of the planet,""

No I don't think so, energy cannot be created nor destroyed only transferred.

I phrased it poorly. Every jump a molecule of water makes in the hydrologic cycle requires energy, and so when more molecules are making those jumps, less of that energy is experienced in the system as heat.

Quote:

The cloud thing -- OK yup I buy that, but has anyone proven an increase in clouds is likely in the MMGW scenario??

Dampening effect often ignored by the atmo chemists:
More heat = more water vapor = more clouds

Anthropogenic warming effect often ignored by the atmo chemists:
less plants = less transpiration = less clouds = more heat

Quote:

The Methane is a valid factor, however methane does not last long in the atmosphere before decomposing.

And yet, we have this pesky hockey-stick graph above.

Hydrology, Drainage Analysis, Flood Studies, and Complex Stormwater Litigation for Atlanta and the South East - http://www.campbellcivil.com

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

Beej67,

Much of what you said is correct in premise but dead-wrong in the conclusions you draw from it, while other statements are dead-wrong in both premise and conclusion.

Comments along the lines of cloud cover is an “energy balance term ignored by the climate scientists” is just so utterly wrong. Where do you get these conclusions from? Nothing is backed up by anything close to quantitative data or research. It sounds like you’re working off a lot of hunches, gut-feelings and eye-balling of graphs, all of which is in direct contrast to the conclusion of piles of peer-reviewed scientific studies.

Having said that, I’m in agreement with you in principle. Human actions, related to consumption (which, yes, is a function of population), are having major effects on the planet. The planet has never seen anything like us before as we’ve broken out of a lot of natural controls. We haven’t fully beat the “predator-prey” or “supply-demand” natural control but we have made ourselves very resilient to it. This has been accomplished largely through exploitation of natural and human resources. This exploitation is only going to get worse and worse if we want to continue down a consumption-centric, infinite growth paradigm.

I disagree with you, and the science does as well, that CO2 emissions are much less of a concern than those you brought up. However, they are part of the same problem that, largely, has the same solution. We need to curb consumption. I’m not willing to advocate for any population control measures (and most experts predict that the planet will do that for us at ~9 to 10 billion people). This leaves us with reducing the consumption/person. Improved efficiencies of technologies do that. Better city planning does that. And regulations or taxes on consumption do that.

All these solutions need to be either accompanied or preceded by massive cultural shifts. We need to erase our materialistic, consumption-is-success or consumption-is-status mentality. This is the antithesis of the current Western zeitgeist (a culture that the developing world would love to emulate) and therefore will not happen easily. I have my doubts over whether it can happen at all.

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

beej67 I think you are still skirting the laws a bit.

""If the earth is a closed system""
Well it isn't or we wouldn't be alive here or having MMGW. The premise is that the heat flux in to the Earth from the sun
is balanced by the heat flux out of the Earth, but the steady state point is altered by greenhouse gasses.

From a thermodynamic perspective any alternative theories of the causes of the Earths temperature changing MUST
involve a mechanism to alter the net heat flux the Earth receives from the sun period...

Anyway some of your issues impact the albedo of the surface and have valid effects on the net heat flux.
And luckily these issues are easily resolved by analyzing the spectrum of solar energy absorbed.

Did you know plants are green because light of green color is utilized poorly by photosynthesis, plants reflect it away
and capture much of the other visible spectrum.

In summary heat is being exchanged on Earth in nearly an infinite number of ways, but if these process do not provide
a method to increase or decrease the rate of heat flux across the boundary that is the Earth system then they are not
an issue.

Give it a thought for a spell and you will see what I mean.



RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

Re the ragbag comment. You have cherry picked phenomena that your hypothesis agree with, you have not listed those that do not, and you have not listed alternative explanations for the ones you have chosen. These are hallmarks of Cargo Cult Science. Feynman must be laughing his socks off.

You have also listed sub phenomena, ie those with obviously a common cause. If the globe is warming then absent other effects we would expect the sea level to rise for two reasons, and we would expect increased water vapour in the atmosphere and ice to melt.

Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

Still, if water vapor is increaseing, and it is raining less, than shoulden't the atomspheric pressure be increasing? Am I missing something?
I just need to know how this equasion balances?


RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

a warmer atmosphere can support a higher humidity ?

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

rconnor - your knowledge and understand of numerical models (specifically control volume discretization schemes of the type used in GCMs) is fantastically underwhelming. And your appeal to authority consists of all of two articles that are 5+ years old, that address exactly nothing of my criticisms, is also telling. I understand that you desperately want to believe the catastrophe foretold by these models, but you probably would have better luck with the Oracle at Delphi.

Dr. Schmidt's article @ NASA tries to describe weather models as being initial value problems while climate models are boundary value problems. However, with climate being the time-integral of weather, I find that explanation to be lacking. Furthermore, the time-discretization described in the articles (20-30 min) implies an attempt to either simulate weather or the average of weather - both of which are doomed to failure on the order of about 144-150 time-steps (I'd have to find the article, but a recent Environment Canada article described the accuracy of long-term forecasts as being worse than chance 3+ days out).

From a numerical (control volume) modelling perspective, the mesh used is absurdly too coarse. It matters not the equations used to describe what happens INSIDE the control volume, although I doubt (but indeed do not know for certain) that the equations are much more than second-order - most likely they are linear. I have a difficult enough time generating a CFD model of natural convection up the outside of a heated cylinder with a similar number of grid points as used by these GCMs - the emergent phenomenon are extremely difficult to capture, let alone simulate.

To further describe my disdain for the discretization scheme, I offer the follow: I live in a location where the weather and climate can be vastly different in the span of hours and km. The difference between -20°C and 10°C is as small as whether the chinook wind stays aloft at 1000ft or drops to the surface; the difference between drought and flood is off by 1/4 mile (Dominion Land Survey distances were in miles...) from a strong thunderstorm; and winter temperatures of 10°C or -10°C depends on which side of the jetstream you are one - and can vary within 50km. Until we can figure out what causes and sustains weather events such as blocking highs, Omega-patterns, or even Rossby waves, any climate model is doomed to failure.

Finally, the outcomes of the GCMs predictions diverge from reality. Full stop - they made predictions and their predictions failed. The models are not validated in the non-tuned time, and therefore something (see above) is wrong. And this failure is on the global "parameters". On regional predictions, the modellers themselves admit to the models being pathetic (perhaps not the spin-doctor words they use, but that is the essence). And to that, I apply the legal phrase falsus in unum, falsus in omnia - if we can't even get the little things right, how do we have confidence in the whole? We can't; we shouldn't; and I, as one who is knowledgeable in the field, don't.

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

GregLocock, cherry picked? What observed global climatic phenomena have I missed that are inconsistent with and unexplainable by the CO2 theory? (and it’s oh-so-rich that you would accuse me of cherry picking…)

My guess is that you have two: tropospheric hot spots and the “pause”. Neither are inconsistent with OR unexplainable by the CO2 theory and our understanding of the science. Both have been addressed at some length. Not including false counter-arguments isn’t being biased, it’s being rational. You’ve offered no defense in light of my debunking of these arguments. Either do so or stop regurgitating the same nonsense.

Let me do the leg work for you: WUWT had a “lengthy” list of “failed observations” the other day. Maybe you could link that? Although they are nothing but isolated, regional, seasonal predictions that has nothing to do with the Anthropogenic Global Climate Change Theory as a whole, so maybe you had the good sense not to include it because it was nonsense. There is a massive difference between short-term, spatially and temporally, predictions of seasonal weather and the predictions of long-term, wide scale changes in global climate. Again, none of them are inconsistent with and unexplainable by the CO2 theory and our understanding of the science. If you don’t understand the science then they might not be explainable but that matters not to me.

Or maybe you’ll bring up the 538 article by Pielke that says extreme weather events haven’t been increasing. This has been debunked over and over and over and over and over and over and again. Again, this is not inconsistent with and unexplainable by the CO2 theory and our understanding of the science. If you cherry pick the evidence and ignore the vast amounts of contradictory research then it might not be explainable but that matters not to me.

The main predictions of the CO2 theory are that increased levels of CO2 should cause:
- A decrease in outgoing longwave radiation along bands associated with CO2 – check
- An increase in downward radiation along bands associated with CO2 – check
Leading to…
- A radiative imbalance – check
Leading to…
- Increased energy accumulation within the system (OHC being the best measure) – check
- Cooling stratosphere - check
- Warmer surface temperatures – check
Leading to…
- Increased humidity (positive feedback to increase temperatures) – check
- Decreasing sea ice – check
- Rising sea level (partly due to decreasing sea ice, partly due to thermal expansion) – check

That’s not “ragbag”, that’s not “cherrying-picking”, that’s a scientific narrative. Again, without the use of models, you have a robust theory that provides an explanation for the physical mechanism behind the changes in our climate and agrees with empirical observations.

As to alternative explanations, I have described two – “it’s changed before” AKA “MAGIC!” and changes in solar activity, as these tend to be the most popular. The first is woefully unscientific and not a scientific counter-theory by any stretch. The second explanation has difficulty explaining many phenomena and has short term cycles that cannot explain long term trends. Furthermore, long-term solar trends have been on the way down since the 1940's but temperatures are much higher. Cosmic Rays and cloud seeding is another hypothesis but I’ve already linked about 6 papers that demonstrate that is not likely to have much effect on long term temperature trends. I’m not aware of any observed phenomenon that effects long term temperature trends that is better explained by a counter-hypothesis. I’d be opening to hearing such arguments.

You’ve started to talk about the Earth itself causing this warming trend. I don’t believe I’ve come across a paper that purports what you are talking about. Can you provide the link to one?

Also, beej67 has repeatedly been saying that “it’s anthropogenic but not caused by CO2”. Again, he has offered nothing to support this. It’s counter to vast amounts of peer-reviewed research. I, and the science, agree that humans have an effect on the climate outside of CO2 but I, and the science, observe that it has a much smaller effect (on global climate change) than CO2.

There’s also the null-hypothesis, which is favoured by some. There is a physical mechanism behind the wide scale, trending changes in our climate. If no theory can provide such an explanation, then you revert back to the null-hypothesis. However, the anthropogenic CO2 theory, as demonstrated by its agreement with observations, does provide a robust explanation for the physical mechanism behind the changes. It’s less important that no other hypothesis comes close to the explanatory power of the CO2 theory (although it’s true), the important part is that the CO2 theory is in such agreement with observations.

So you’re chastising me for not including counter-hypothesis that I’ve already demonstrated to have severe inconsistencies with observed changes? Should I also include the theory that aliens are driving climate change through epiphenomenal telepathy?

Regarding Feynman, one of us has repeatedly referred to empirical data, peer-reviewed research, provided detailed explanations of those studies and offered point-by-point rebuttals. The other has not used a single reference, has categorically rejected much of the information provided (admitting to not reading it) and picks-and-chooses which points he will harp on. One side is supported by the science, the other is supported by ideologically-driven self-reinforcing ignorance of the science. Feynman would certainly not approve of one of us.

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

TGS4

""However, with climate being the time-integral of weather...""

I don't think this is true. Does 'climate' include the seasons ?? I think so
and this has nothing to do with weather.

And i still disagree that a fine grained fluid dynamic model is needed to predict the warming.
You did reply the last time we discussed this with something that sounded a touch convincing but
I forgot what it was.

Surely the warming inside a large greenhouse could be accurately calculated without modeling the
fluid dynamics of the interior.

And as a final note , the fluid dynamic solution is impossible to achieve for the Earth so
the requirement is tantamont to deciding to ignore the issue. Can't we infer some level of
warming will occur without the heat flow dynamics of the global winds ?? After all the heat
is captured it will 'be' somewhere so the average temp is increased which is what the discussion
metric is in the first place.

""Finally, the outcomes of the GCMs predictions diverge from reality. Full stop - they made predictions and their predictions failed""

Correction, they made predictions of the increase in temps per increase in CO2 concentrations.
To say the climate predictions were of absolute future results is ridiculous. This can not be
done even without any changes in the makeup of the atmosphere, so how can we expect climate
scientists to do it.
No the predictions are of the marginal temp increase given marginal CO2 increase. The temperature
estimates have always had a strong random component and always will, the problem breaks down
to probabilities.

The task is to in some way quantify the random process that is non CO2 forced portion of global
climate temperature to gauge what the likelihood of the current industrial era being manifested without
a CO2 forcing consideration.


RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

Quote (rb1957)

a warmer atmosphere can support a higher humidity ?

Not really but sorta.

Two air parcels of different temperatures hold different amounts of water at the same percent relative humidity. That's why it's called "relative humidity." Humidity is the ratio of (the current partial pressure due to water vapor in a parcel) to (that parcel's equilibrium vapor pressure). The denominator varies with heat. When the heat goes up, the amount of water that can be stored in the atmosphere goes up, as does the amount of water actually evaporating, and the activity in the hydrologic cycle increases.

Truthfully, global warming might save mankind from the impending fresh water crisis, by creating more activity in the hydrologic cycle. Folks don't like to talk about that though.

Quote (rconnnor)

Also, beej67 has repeatedly been saying that “it’s anthropogenic but not caused by CO2”. Again, he has offered nothing to support this. It’s counter to vast amounts of peer-reviewed research. I, and the science, agree that humans have an effect on the climate outside of CO2 but I, and the science, observe that it has a much smaller effect (on global climate change) than CO2.

Well I don't intend to quit my job and go do a PHD thesis on the subject just to win an internet argument, which is what it would take to defeat your Appeal To Authority. But I would like to respond to this. I didn't say it wasn't caused by CO2. I said some of it probably is, but nobody knows how much, because you cannot prove how much simply by calibrating a forecasting model to CO2 as "the science" has done. I have repeatedly shown why doing so is bad science. I could calibrate a forecasting model purely to methane and get similar results, because methane and CO2 have the same historical hockey stick. I could calibrate a forecasting model to square miles of urban land and get similar results, because square miles of urban land has the same hockey stick. I could calibrate a forecasting model to any other potential factor that changes climate and get similar results, because they all have the same hockey stick. The hockey stick is people.

My opinion is born out in the IPCC's actual research once you look at the numbers, because their own predictions vary so wildly on equilibrium climate sensitivity from one study to the next. The best ones in AR5 went down quite a bit, to about half the number the IPCC is still claiming.

And all of this doesn't even broach the fact that carbon trading won't fix anything. Let's presume, purely for the sake of argument, that the only thing in the whole world we're doing to to change the climate is burn oil and coal. If that's the case, the only way to stop affecting the climate is to completely stop burning oil and coal. And even if we did so, the globe would continue to warm at the rate it was before we started burning coal and oil instead of the rate it's warming now. It would still warm. It was warming before.

So what's the point of these carbon credits and carbon taxes again? Wouldn't it be smarter policy, and a better use of our collective resources, to start preparing ourselves for life on a warmer planet instead?

Hydrology, Drainage Analysis, Flood Studies, and Complex Stormwater Litigation for Atlanta and the South East - http://www.campbellcivil.com

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

"You don't need a fine grained model ..."?????? The current grid size is down to only slightly smaller than the state of Colorado. Remember that everything within a grid cube is treated as homogeneous. So I will average Raton, with Cortez, with Sterling, with Craig, with Vail, with Denver. Elevation spread from about 2500 ft to 12000 ft. Annual snowfall ranging from a few inches to dozens of feet. The results of this average are dominated by the heat island adjustments applied to Denver and Denver becomes the surrogate for the gridblock even though most of the forcing effects take place in the high mountains.

Then you look at the ocean grid blocks. The Japanese current is about 50 miles across. It dominates the climate of the Pacific rim. It is in a grid block nearly 300 miles across.

I have a CFD model of a single pressure vessel that uses 6 different grid sizes. It is a lot smaller than the earth, where we use one grid size.

David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering

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

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

Quote:

And i still disagree that a fine grained fluid dynamic model is needed to predict the warming.
The warming predicated on a doubling of CO2 (given the logarithmic laboratory LWIR-spectral relationship between CO2 and temperature) is about 1°C. I don't think that you will find many credible skeptics who will disagree. However, 1°C doesn't get you to a catastrophe, so "feedbacks" are required. I can create a 1D equation predicting CO2 concentration and temperature with no need for and grid.

However, it is the feedbacks that need the GCM simulation. And they do a very poor job of it. Positive feedbacks are needed for catastrophe, so it is positive feedbacks that are programmed into the simulations. Clouds are very poorly treated by the current generation of GCMs, yet they constitute the primary nature of the feedbacks. And they are poorly treated because we don't really have a sufficient understanding of them - especially how they initiate, grow and finally how they disperse. And the GCMs that include coupled-ocean-atmosphere are worse because we so little data about the intricacies of currents (as indicated by zdas04) and deepwater processes.

You are indeed correct that the predictions of the GCMs are based on emission scenarios and cannot (nor ought not) predict such things as vulcanism. That said, the actual emission trajectory has been on the high-side of the "business-as-usual" case, which as generally the high-outliers in the model ensembles. Even the model runs simulating lower emission scenarios have over-predicted the atmospheric temperature rise (an atmospheric temperature rise hat has been stalled from anywhere from 9 to 17+ years, depending on which flawed metric you choose - the average of these say it is at least 13 years). So, the models fail. Simple.

To summarize:
- the GCMs are needed to directly calculate the feedbacks from CO2-increased LWIR.
- the physical processes w.r.t. those feedbacks are not well understood, hence a first-principles approach from the GCMs
- with this approach, the grid size is woefully inadequate, both from a computational perspective and from a experiential one
- when run beyond their tuning/training period, the models consistently over-predict temperatures

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

Sunlight comes in through the clouds, warms the surface of the Earth, which tries to
radiate long wave IR back out into space. More CO2 lets less heat back out.

Why do you need to resolve where the wind is blowing and will be blowing in order to estimate the extra heat that will be trapped ??

I am not a climatologist, but it seems the scenario requiring a detailed and impossible fluid dynamic prediction
is not necessary. It is however convenient if you want to skew public opinion.




RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

""the GCMs are needed to directly calculate the feedbacks from CO2-increased LWIR""

Why are detailed fluid dynamic models needed for the feedbacks.

Why is it not possible to estimate cloud cover without knowing the intricate dynamics of how the wind will blow all over the planet.
Weather forecasters seem to be able to do it over the short term knowing only a few things like humidity and temperature.

We know of a positive feedback effect of snow cover which causes colder air temperatures which causes snow, no detailed fluid dyn models needed.
We know of a drought situation where the dryness causes higher temperatures which further eliminate moisture from a region, NFDMN (no fluid dny model needed )

We know the sun will cast a more overhead projection in the summer northern hemisphere and we predict it will be warmer as a result ( NFDMN )

Make the case for why whatever feedback could not just occur due to spatial averaged warmer air.


RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

Quote:

Sunlight comes in through the clouds
Beyond a threshold of optical depth, no it doesn't. It increases the SWIR reflected back to space which doesn't heat the lower atmosphere or the earth. Clouds do, however, re-reflect outgoing LWIR and slow the cooling process.

A day is cooler when it is cloudy compared to when it is sunny. A night when it is cloudy is warmer compared to when it is clear.

Why do I care about winds? In one word: advection. Winds are the transport processes for heat. Winds (in the form of, for example Hadley Cells) advect heat from the tropics to the poles - cooling the tropics and warming the poles.

Quote:

...it seems the scenario requiring a detailed and impossible fluid dynamic prediction is not necessary. It is however convenient if you want to skew public opinion.
I think that you are saying here that I have presented an impossible condition, which therefore makes the scientific case for "doing something" nigh impossible. Of course I could also read that to say that these GCMs, being completely inadequate to the task, are nevertheless convenient for skewing public opinion. I would tend to agree with both of those interpretations.

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

It snowed in Farmington, NM yesterday with an ambient temperature of 51F. The snow stuck to grass and tree limbs until it melted. My wife says it was kind of pretty (I'm on another continent right not so I didn't see it).

The "Positive feedback loop" of "snow causes colder air and colder air causes snow" is just laughable. Even this "simple" system is too complex to describe without getting into the arithmetic of thermodynamics and fluid mechanics. Were it even true in the short term the world would be covered in glaciers.

Net positive feedback loops cannot be stable even in the short term. An avalanche is an example of a positive feedback loop--the falling mass accelerates which increases the momentum available to dislodge lower material which further increases momentum, etc. A few tens of seconds after the start of an avalanche it has reached a stable resting point and stops. If that were not true then then an avalanche that started at the top of the Andes would not stop until it reached the bottom of the Mariana's Trench. But the positive feedback loop is not stable and cannot exist for more than a few seconds. Snow/cold surface temps is anything but a positive feedback loop.

David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering

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

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

Quote (TGS4)

the outcomes of the GCMs predictions diverge from reality. Full stop - they made predictions and their predictions failed

This overly simplistic, under-informed statement is common amongst skeptics but needs unpacking. When do climate models “fail”? If climate models “fail”, does the theory fall apart?

----When Do Climate Models “Fail”----
This is a bit of a subjective question. An easy answer would be when observed temperature trends fall outside the predicted range of climate model runs. 1)Which temperature data set? 2) Which confidence range does it need to lie outside? 3) Which climate model runs? 4) For how long do they have to lie outside the confidence range? The answers are usually : 1) average of GISS, NCDC and CRU, 2)95%, and 3) average of all CMIP3 runs. 4) ranges from 1 day for “skeptics” to multiple years to a decade, let’s say 3 years.

So, let’s look to see if the average of the major temperature data sets lies outside the 95% confidence interval for the average of all model runs for at least 3 years. From AR5 SPM, Figure 1.4 (Dark Blue = GISS, “Mustard” = NOAA, Bright Green = CRU)


“But…but…the leaked draft version of that graph is the right one! The IPCC tried to cover it up with the other one! You’re cherry-picking!” said the “Skeptics”.

Let’s make sure we understand why it was changed – it was wrong. In the leaked draft version, all series (models and observations) were aligned at 1990, a single year. Observations inherently include the random year-to-year fluctuations, whereas models do not as they are the average of numerous runs off numerous models. So to aligned to a single year, a hot one at that, makes the projections of the models appear hotter than they actually are. In other words, they took the projected trend from the models and attached it to the 1990 data point (which was hotter than the trend leading up to that). What should happen, and what did happen in the final report, is the projected trend line should be attached to the trend line leading up to 1990. That’s not “masking the truth”, that’s correcting a statistical error. If you’re curious, more info can be found here.

This is what the draft version did:


And here is the same projected trends but, correctly, applied to the TREND leading up to 1990 (it looks almost identical to the IPCC final report):


Or another way of looking at it, the trends since 1990:


So, NO, climate models have not “failed” to predict temperatures accurately.

----If Models “Fail” (which they haven’t), does the theory fall apart?----
We could stop here but let’s address the consolation argument, “well they may not have “failed” but they are certainly trending away from observations”. So let’s revise are second major question to, “If Models momentarily diverge from observations, does the theory fall apart?”. Again, we need to unpack this statement – 1) What is causing the divergence? 2) Is that error a crucial aspect of the theory? 3) If yes, is the divergence long enough and/or drastic enough to point to a serious flaw in the theory? We will take each question one at a time

1) What is Causing the Divergence?
We come back to the “pause”. If that pesky short-term memory issue is coming up again, please re-read any of my 13 previous posts on the subject. The basic answer is that we are in an negative PDO where La Nina events dominate, creating a short-term decrease in surface warming. Models do not attempt to accurately match ENSO periods with reality as ENSO is stochastic. However, the PDO is also cyclical and is purely about the short term storage and release of heat in the oceans – it cannot effect long-term trends.

Another stochastic element of climate that cannot be predicted is volcanoes. Again, volcanoes only have a short-term effect.

The last element that is difficult to predict is human actions. We appreciate this when discussing CO2 emissions and no one has an issue with their being different trends that represent different emission scenarios – we don’t expect the models to tell us what the emissions will be. However, few “skeptics” also realize this applies to other emissions such as aerosols. Recently, anthropogenic aerosol emissions have been higher than estimated, largely contributed to faster than expected growth in the developing world. More aerosols means less energy enters the troposphere which has caused incoming solar forcing to be less than estimated.

What do temperature trends vs model predictions look like when we account for these effects? The first image is the as-is model (CMIP5) vs observation trends (average of GISS, NOAA and CRU):


Now when we account for the La Nina dominated period by inputting the actual ENSO values into climate models, we get the following:


When we update the aerosol and volcano values to match the actual observed trends, solar forcing gets adjusted and the trend looks like this:


2) Is the Error (ENSO, Aerosols) a Crucial Aspect of the Theory?
Some of you I’m sure are saying “well you’ve just tweaked the models to get what you wanted!”. That is incorrect. All that was changed was:
- ENSO was set to match observations
- Volcano and aerosol (solar) values were set to match observations.

No one, including climates models, can predict when ENSO and volcano events will happen. Both of these are short term and have no effect on long-term trends. Aerosol adjustments came primarily from updated anthropogenic emission numbers (they were higher than previous projections). Again, models cannot predict emission trends from either CO2 or aerosols, you have to tell them what you think they’ll be and they tell you what temperature that will lead to.

So all that we have “tweaked” are aspect that are not predictable and, in the case of ENSO and volcanoes, have only short term effects. We have not adjusted anything related to CO2 sensitivity, cloud feedbacks, albedo effects, water vapour feedbacks, etc. The manner in which the models calculate all the interactions between CO2 and the environment, the various forcings and feedbacks and the way energy is moved around the system remain untouched – these are the “crucial” elements of the theory and the accuracy of climate models. Therefore, without making any adjustments to any crucial elements of our understanding of climate science, models are shown to be in excellent agreement with observations.

Beyond providing a definite NO to the question “Is the Error a Crucial Aspect of the Theory?”, we can also conclude that the crucial elements of the CO2 theory, when modeled, do an excellent job predicted temperature trends. The estimated effect of feedbacks and forcings are, firstly, very accurate and, secondly, well represented within climate models.

3) If Yes, Is the Divergence Long or Drastic Enough to Point to a Serious Flaw in the Theory?
Given that the answer is a clear NO to 2), this question doesn’t apply. Furthermore, reviewing the data actually says that the theory is even stronger than we thought.

I’d also like to illustrate just how spurious of an argument the “pause” is by showing the temperature trends of various sets vs a true pause (a flat line) vs a continued warming trend from 1997 on.



That’s your “pause” for ya.

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

Sorry, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, the onus is on those who propose ridiculous notions to do the heavy lifting.

We walk into a lab. We measure various properties of CO2. We plug those proerties into a climate control model and tweak the gain on those properties by a factor of two three or four in order to match the historical record, and claim that the gain represents positive feedback effects. My eyebrow raises.

The reason I don't put a whole damn lot of effort into analysing your posts is mainly that I am fairly sure it won't make any difference what you say, what I say, or what the scientists say. The third world will continue to burn ever increasing quantities of fossil fuel until something better comes along.

As a matter of typical statistical cluelessness, taking the standard deviation of the output of a bunch of similar models as setting any sort of uncertainity in the real world is a joke. I know you didn't do that analysis in the first place, you are just regurgitating handy talking points, but it gives an imprimatur of statistical authority that doesn't exist. The climate boys originally came unstuck because of shonky stats, they are still doing it.



Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

Great charts and graphs. What's the solution other than more taxes?
Engineers aren't supose to yell about problems, they are supose to solve them. So propoes a solution or be ignored.

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

This needs to be highlighted from Greg's post:

Quote:

We walk into a lab.

Science! So far so good.

Quote:

We measure various properties of CO2.

Science! Still good.

Quote:

We plug those proerties into a climate control model

Science! Right on track.

Quote:

...and tweak the gain on those properties by a factor of two three or four in order to match the historical record,

Not Science.

Not.

Science.

Not without first proving causality in some other way. Calibrating models way past their physical properties in order to match historical record, while discounting other effects that also track the same historical hockey stick as carbon is not science. Not science.

Quote:

...and claim that the gain represents positive feedback effects. My eyebrow raises.

Everyone's eyebrows should raise at that. Everyone's should. Doesn't matter whether the models look right or not. A model calibrated way outside the physical properties of CO2 to match historical data should, by all rights, prove that CO2 isn't the primary culprit, not that it is. In fact, if you have to triple some physical properties of the CO2 in your model to match the historic record, then that should be a very good indication that CO2 is about one third of the problem. And then, to make your models better, you should spend some time looking at what other effects also correlate well with carbon, and pay closer attention to how those effects are included in your model.

That would be science.

Hydrology, Drainage Analysis, Flood Studies, and Complex Stormwater Litigation for Atlanta and the South East - http://www.campbellcivil.com

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

""The "Positive feedback loop" of "snow causes colder air and colder air causes snow" is just laughable.""

Laugh away ..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice-albedo_feedback

http://umaine.edu/maineclimatenews/blog/2011/07/06...

I doubt if highly refined fluid dynamics models were involved in developing this accepted theory.

""Sorry, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, the onus is on those who propose ridiculous notions to do the heavy lifting.""

You mean the completely accepted theory of greenhouse gasses, without which our planet would be demonstrably colder ??
Extraordinary claim -> NO
Ridiculous notion -> NO

Why do you climate skeptics talk in circles, eventually coming back to positions you once went silent on.

BTW not all 'models' are partial differential equation models and thus don't need a grid size.

How about a one dimensional initial value problem model proposed in 1981 and proved surprisingly accurate.
https://atmos.washington.edu/2003Q4/211/articles_o...



RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

It seems to me that AGW, at this point in time, is little more than a religion. One of my favorite sayings from Mr. Lionel Hutz, the n'er-do-well attorney from the television series The Simpson's: "Well judge, heresay and conjecture are KINDS of evidence!"

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

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

Quote (GregLocock)

the onus is on those who propose ridiculous notions to do the heavy lifting
Climate scientists are doing the heavy lifting, hence all the papers, data and reports I reference. I have repeatedly said that although counter-theories fail miserably to account for the observed changes we’ve seen, that is not my primary reason for agreeing with the theory. It is because of the explanatory power of theory, validated by the empirical evidence, that is the reason I agree with it. It’s the reason why I changed from a skeptic to a “believer”. It’s the reason why I debate against the ignorance of “skeptics” and help provide information for skeptics.

You asked for alternative explanations, I gave them. They don’t work. If your working theory has some merit, I’d like to hear about it. If you don’t want to provide anything to support it then I’m, obviously, not going to be convinced.

The “appeal to authority” that TGS4 has talked about is comical. Since when is backing your statements with peer-reviewed literature an “appeal to authority”, while linking to WUWT is a scientifically compelling defense? This strange inversion (or, more aptly, perversion) of the standards of supporting evidence is just woefully unscientific. If the WUWT articles had something accurate and valid to say, I wouldn’t have a problem with it. But when they are obviously false, I do.

You can always ignore the evidence or claim it isn’t compelling enough for you. Anti-vaxxers say the same thing. Young Earthers say the same thing. I can’t help any of you that choose to remain ignorant.

Quote (GregLocock)

tweak the gain on those properties by a factor of two three or four in order to match the historical record
Blatant sophism. I have already addressed this false claim. You continue to be wrong.

Quote (GregLocock)

The third world will continue to burn ever increasing quantities of fossil fuel until something better comes along.
I share the same skepticism that we can come together to find a solution (although I don’t blame the developing world for an issue we created and exacerbate due to our excessive and ever-increasing consumption). However, that is NOT an excuse to be ignorant of the science. If more people understood the science, we could start having a productive dialogue on solutions. As long as a vocal minority continue to spew ignorant arguments, that’s not going to happen. (Cranky, this addresses your comment as well. How can we have a discussion on solutions when you categorically reject the problem still? I will gladly engage in a dialogue about solutions if you agree with the theory.)

This just emphasizes that your contention with the science comes from the proposed solutions, not from the science itself. You then take your apriori rejection of the science and comb through reports to find ones that sound nice to you. Your credulity and lack of true skepticisms leaves you vulnerable to believe falsities such as “the “pause” disproves the theory” or “because ”it’s changed before”, the theory is invalid”.

I am continually charged with this same acquisition. As TGS4 believes, I “desperately want to believe the catastrophe foretold by these models”. Which is to say, I desperately want to pay higher taxes and have restrictions put on my consumption. The absurdity of such a statement is obvious. What is true is that I desperately want to avoid future damages caused by climate change and am willing to pay higher taxes and have restrictions put on my consumption. I don’t want to but I will. It would be so much easier to stick my head in the sand and say “it ain’t going to happen”. That is perhaps why I started off as a skeptic but that is not, for me, a valid excuse to continue to ignore the science. To quote Sagan, “our preferences do not determine what’s true”.

Quote (GregLocock)

taking the standard deviation of the output of a bunch of similar models as setting any sort of uncertainty in the real world is a joke
The shaded area on the graph is the range of model runs and the bands are the range at 2035, the AR4 bands on the right are the mean of all runs at 2035, +60%/-40%.

Regarding my earlier question to GregLocock, you accused me of cherry-picking so I asked “what observed global climatic phenomena have I missed that are inconsistent with and unexplainable by the CO2 theory”? You haven’t responded to this. Did I capture your examples in the rest of my post?

It has failed to predict ENSO events? Yup, but it never claimed that it could.
It has failed to predict volcanoes? Yup, but it never claimed that it could.
It has failed to predict anthropogenic aerosol emissions? Yup, but it never claimed that it could.
When corrected for those three, models match observations extremely well. So, the aspects of climate where the theory claims to have predictive and explanatory power, it is able to predict and explain extremely accurately. Furthermore, the aspects of climate where the theory claims to have explanatory power but not predictive power, it is able to explain extremely accurately and that explanation can be used to correct for these factors extremely accurately.

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

that's a funny looking graph for global temperature ... it shows that in the early 90s things were cooling, and then things started to warm slightly, hic-cuped in 98, then increase slowed again. it shows about 0.4degC in about 20 years ... about 2deg in 100years ... no?

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...


Are these two statements contradictory.

1 Deviations from the model predictions over short time spans is expected and does not reflect model accuracy.
2 The climate model should be judged as matching observation only over a proper time interval determined by statistical properties.



RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

Seriously rb1957?

1992 – Mount Pinatubo volcanic eruption
1998 – Largest ENSO event on record, which may have caused the shift into the negative PDO phase

2dye4, I agree, the argument is nonsense on every level…but it shouldn’t really come as a surprise.

To fully appreciate just how stupid it is, let’s run down the number of ways the argument “models have failed to predict temperature trends, therefore the theory is wrong” is so utterly false:
1) The time period is too short to draw any conclusions (we should stop here…but there’s more)
2) Models have NOT failed to predict temperature trends (we should definitely stop here…but there’s STILL more)
3) The minor, short-term deviation is caused by effects that are inherently not predictable (by the theory, models or anything else)
4) When these effects are accounted for, model trends match observed temperature trends remarkably well

So, it’s 1) inconclusive and insignificant, 2) fundamentally and demonstrably false, 3) a non-sequitur and 4) actually validates the antithesis are its original assertion. It couldn’t be more wrong. And this argument is the foundation upon which “skeptics” use to (falsely) assert that climate models are rubbish and so is the anthropogenic climate change theory. It is the crux on which all other arguments are derived from. And it’s so utterly wrong. It’s so wrong it actually validates the models and the theory.

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

In my actual experience, any statement that juxtaposes the terms "model" and "accuracy" is grossly inappropriate. Further, "the climate model should be judged ..." is implying that computer models can prove something. They can't. At their best (which can be very good) they can illuminate fruitful areas for further (non-model) study.

David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering

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

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

""In my actual experience, any statement that juxtaposes the terms "model" and "accuracy" is grossly inappropriate. Further, "the climate model should be judged ..." is implying that computer models can prove something. They can't. At their best (which can be very good) they can illuminate fruitful areas for further (non-model) study. ""

A model is a hypothesis and as such cannot in itself prove anything, so you are correct on this basic facet of logic.

A rock dropped from your hand falls to the ground. That is a hypothesis and I defy you to prove it true.

If you think about if for just a bit there is no distinction whatsoever between a 'computer' model and any other type of model.
A computer is a calculating device and anything it does could be done by humans given enough time.

Now one can raise objections about the numerical accuracy of computer calculations given their fixed precision but other than this
a model is a model is a model.

Is a program that calculates your payments on a loan given principle and interest rate a 'computer model' and does it 'accurately' 'predict'
your payments.
Not all climate process require mathematical "note I didn't say computer" models that diverge into chaos after a period of time.
To the man that owns a hammer every problem looks like a nail.

Zdas and TGS4 are fluid dynamic modelers and they read their field into the very basics of climate estimation probably for dual reasons, one
they don't like the theory and the possible impact it would have on their lifestyles and vocation and two they want a seat at the table.

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

2dye4 - you DO understand that the GCMs are finite volume fluid dynamic simulations that attempt to reproduce sufficient details to be relevant for forecasting purposes? Ergo, I have specialized knowledge and experience to provide review and evaluation. Et tu?

I have no rebuttal to the simple ODE from Hansen et al 1978 (I think) that you were kind enough to link to. Although, there has been sufficient time since to validate that simple equation as compared to the difference in CO2 concentrations. And volcanoes in the interim don't matter because they are short-term phenomenon.

Rconnor - my comment about you wanting the catastrophe is that you see absolutely no silver lining in any data. Is there not ANY good news?

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

I can not in all honestly say I believe the theory of AGW.
I am willing to admit that increased CO2 can't continue without becoming a problem. So I am willing to entertain solutions, excluding taxes.
I just don't believe the politics have any goal than to reduce our freedom. And there agenda is more taxes.

The latest solution for stock market volitity, tax trading in the stock market (what a suprise).

So Rconnor, what solutions do you have?

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

Mt Pinatubo was 1991, for what it's worth. I have a tiny fraction of one of it's many cubic kilometers of ejecta sitting on my mantle.

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

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

TGS4, the “pause” looks like a silver lining, I want it to be a silver lining, but it’s not a silver lining. That’s the problem – we all want this problem to not be true so it is easy to be tricked into thinking something shows the problem has gone away when it hasn’t.

I have explicitly stated what, in my mind, would cast doubt on the theory and, subsequently, the problem. They’re clear cut and very reasonable. Two of the three are invalidated directly by the data and the third one depends on the next major El Nino event(s). Experts suggest that there is evidence that such an El Nino could occur later this year (although we are still in a negative PDO).

Cranky, again, I can have this conversation on solutions but it would be meaningful if you have an apriori rejection of taxes. You can have non-consumer changes such as improved efficiencies of technologies, improvements to building practices regarding insulation/HVAC design, better city planning (no more urban sprawl) and continued R&D into renewable and utility scale energy storage. However, this is insufficient; changes are required at the consumer behavior level.

People will not make the necessary behavioural changes on their own. We are too good at following the “path of least resistance” - the cheapest, easiest, quickest way of doing something which is usually the most energy intensive. You need some measure in place to reward reductions in consumption or deter excessive consumption. Unfortunately, the stick beats the carrot when it comes to changing people’s consumption habits. Again, I wish it was the other way but it’s not. A mix of the two is nice (tax cuts for energy efficiency improvements to your home is one nice way) but there needs to be some amount of “stick”. Revenue-neutral taxes are the best “stick” I see.

You are, of course, going to reject this. If you’re unwilling to discuss taxes then we cannot have a meaningful conversation on solutions. I feel I’m better off explaining why the problem is a serious issue. Serious enough to validate some form of behaviour-altering “stick”.

ALL, the fundamental argument for the “skeptic” camp has been demonstrated to be inconclusive, completely false, a non-sequitur and is so wrong that it actually validates the antithesis of its original assertion and no one is willing to offer defense? Frankly, there isn’t one or at least not a rational, scientifically accurate one. But seeing as that doesn’t seem to deter “skeptics”, I expected at least something.

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

(cranky, it should read "would NOT be meaningful if...". My apologies.)

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

Quote (rconnor)

TGS4, the “pause” looks like a silver lining, I want it to be a silver lining, but it’s not a silver lining. That’s the problem – we all want this problem to not be true so it is easy to be tricked into thinking something shows the problem has gone away when it hasn’t.

I'm not so sure everyone wants the problem to not be true. I think quite a lot of people really want the problem to be true, and have gambled a lot of money, time, and effort on it being true. I think that's why the IPCC isn't pointing out the good news:

http://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2014/02/Ove...

Hydrology, Drainage Analysis, Flood Studies, and Complex Stormwater Litigation for Atlanta and the South East - http://www.campbellcivil.com

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

…beej67, this is the second time you’ve posted this. It is still n o n s e n s e (each letter links to a paper, not referenced in the report, that contradicts the conclusion of the report) from a shoddy institution and written by an “amateur” climate scientist and a freelance writer. Climate scientist, Steven Sherwood, described it well:

Quote (Steven Sherwood)

The report is standard cherry-picking. It offers no new evidence not already considered by the IPCC, relying very heavily on a few strands of evidence that seem to point toward lower sensitivity while ignoring all the evidence pointing to higher sensitivity.

It relies heavily on the estimate by Forster and Gregory, which was an interesting effort but whose methodology has been shown not to work; this study did not cause the IPCC to conclude that sensitivity had to be low, even though both Forster and Gregory were IPCC lead authors and were obviously aware of their own paper.

Or from Ed Hawkins:

Quote (Ed Hawkins)

Remarkably for a report published by the GWPF, the authors agree with mainstream climate scientists that significant further warming is expected ... It is great to see the GWPF accepting that business-as-usual means significant further warming is expected. Now we can move the debate to what to do about it.

Piers Forster, same Forster as above, even debunks the article. It’s kind of a big blow when the author of the paper that you use at the core of your argument says that your argument is wrong.

All, still no rebuttals to my post at 4 Apr 14 17:45? No one is willing to offer support for the core skeptic argument, that sits as inconclusive AND completely false AND a non-sequitur AND is so utterly wrong that it validates the antithesis of its original assertion?

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

It has been shown over and over that electric customers don't respond very much to changes in the price of electricity, so the stick won't work except to create public outrage. The tax on electric customers is a political favarite, because it directs customer anger at someone other than the politications.
The problem is the customers are becoming wiser at where the price increases come from. i.e. the politations soon won't be able to hide behind the news media.

This will also increase the price of electricity, which makes price sensitive products, and jobs, move to being produced in lower cost countries, where they may not have the same AGW taxes. I.E. lost jobs, but no reduction in CO2.

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

rconnor - adjusting actual data is a no-no. Adjusting, shifting time-histories to fit the hypothesis is antithesis to real science, although it is par-for-the-course for post-normal science.

For the actual CO2 emission trajectory, the models have over-estimated the temperatures. Period. You can try to adjust the data as much as you want, change the start-date, shift the temperature-profiles at the start-date, etc, it doesn't change the above-noted conclusion that the atmospheric models run hot.

Your ad hominem against Lord Lawson is pathetic, but very typical of the warmists: attack the person (Roger Pielke Jr. or Judith Curry, for recent examples) and not their arguments. Shut down debate (there is no debate, the debate is over, etc) and avoid and shun FOI requests to avoid the disinfectant of sunshine are all typical MO for warmists. Or, even sue for libel when opponents speak out (Mann v Ball, Mann v Steyne, etc).

Re: silver lining - you still understand that this is all about forecasts of doom 70-100 years in the future? Can you at least acknowledge that the warming observed from the end of the Little Ice Age has been beneficial? And the consensus is that warmth up to and including 2°C is beneficial, and that further warmth may be beneficial to some? Or is it all doom and gloom from you?

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

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

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

Quote (rconnor)

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

Not really. From your link:

Quote (rconnor's link)

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

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

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

Quote (AP5)

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

Quick! Someone start crafting policy!

Quote (rconnor)

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

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

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

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

Hydrology, Drainage Analysis, Flood Studies, and Complex Stormwater Litigation for Atlanta and the South East - http://www.campbellcivil.com

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

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

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

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

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

Curry – All I said was that I couldn’t recommend her site as a credible, unbiased source for information due to recent arguments that have been demonstrated to be nothing but sophism.

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

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

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

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

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

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

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

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

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

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

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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




RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

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

- Steve

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

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



Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

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

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

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

(OP)

Quote:

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

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

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

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

2dye4,

"How about a one dimensional initial value problem model proposed in 1981 and proved surprisingly accurate.
https://atmos.washington.edu/2003Q4/211/articles_o..."

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

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

Quote (rconnor)

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

Then how about you just spoon feed me this part:

Quote (beej67)

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

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

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

Hydrology, Drainage Analysis, Flood Studies, and Complex Stormwater Litigation for Atlanta and the South East - http://www.campbellcivil.com

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

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

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

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

It's interesting as I sit and contemplate how the 1-d model works, that the atmospheric lapse rate can affect that radiation model. That lapse rate depends on how you model all layers of the atmosphere, and upper layers can impact this. Those upper layers (ionosphere) are known to change quite rapidly and extensively in volume, resulting in a rate of LEO spacecraft orbital decay that very closely follows the sunspot cycle (see picture below, from http://www.solarstorms.org/Svulnerability.html). So...maybe there IS a direct causal link for climate vs. sunspots, and the Maunder mininum is not really the myth the climate non-skeptics would try to make us believe. Sure would like to read those two references now.

picture: http://files.engineering.com/getfile.aspx?folder=8...

Caption from the website:

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

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

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

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






Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

Quote:

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

I'll do you one better.

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

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

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

Hydrology, Drainage Analysis, Flood Studies, and Complex Stormwater Litigation for Atlanta and the South East - http://www.campbellcivil.com

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

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

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

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

Greg

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

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

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

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

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

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

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

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

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

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

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

you free to assume whatever you like !

personally, the lack of response is due less to the overwelming rationalisation of your position and more to do with resignation to the futility of the exercise.

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

rb1957, I do not disagree with you. It is rather futile to offer unscientific, unsupported, opinion-based rebuttals, that amount to nothing but “I don’t believe that peer-reviewed literature your referencing”, to a scientific issue.

But maybe I will be surprised with a well-thought out, well-referenced rebuttal…although I’m not holding my breath.

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

Quote (rconnor)

“quadrupling the measured greenhouse effects of carbon” – they do not “quadruple” the measured greenhouse effect. The greenhouse effect is what it is in the lab. However, this causes positive feedbacks such as increased water vapour, decreased albedo, etc, which further increase the temperature.

That's no different in the model than quadrupling the greenhouse effect of carbon. No different. Those other feedback quantities aren't keyed to historical water vapor levels, or historical albedo, they're calibrated against carbon to make the model track temperature rise. That's bad science. It can lead to good modeling results, but it proves nothing.

Quote:

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

It is true. They are calibrated models. The feedback terms are knobs that they twiddle until the model matches historical temperatures. Which is good for prediction of future warming based on current trends alone, but is terrible for proving causality and terrible for showing cases other than continuation of the status-quo.

http://judithcurry.com/2013/07/09/climate-model-tu...

Quote:

“carbon credits will fix it” – Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity. Look it up. You can obtain an estimate for where global surface temperatures will settle out to based on a change in forcing (i.e. CO2 concentrations). The greater the CO2 concentration, the greater the temperature rise to the new equilibrium point.

The globe was warming before the industrial revolution. The globe began warming at a higher rate after the industrial revolution. That's not "equilibrium."

But lets pretend, falsely, that you are correct that the globe wasn't warming before the industrial revolution. The only way to stop warming according to the words you just wrote is to stop all CO2 emissions, because every pound of carbon released increases the atmospheric concentration of carbon, which pushes the new equilibrium point higher. If your presumptions are true, then the only way to stop global warming is to cease all carbon emissions entirely. Not tax them. Not trade them. Cease them entirely.

Quote:

With aggressive mitigation measures, but not so aggressive as to send us back to the stone age like some here are suggesting, it’s possible to keep the equilibrium temperature at a less dangerous level.

No. You just said that when carbon concentration goes up, the globe gets warmer.

And you're also continuing to ignore that the globe was warming beforehand. If we cut CO2 emissions to zero the globe still warms, just at the pre-industrial revolution rate. The glaciers still recede, just not as fast.

Hydrology, Drainage Analysis, Flood Studies, and Complex Stormwater Litigation for Atlanta and the South East - http://www.campbellcivil.com

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

beej67,

You continue to disregard the data that rconnor has provided. There are mechanisms within the atmosphere to remove carbon. It is not necessary to eliminate all carbon emissions. At any rate of carbon emissions, there will be an equilibrium point where the atmospheric concentrations level out and the global temperature also reaches equilibrium.

Perhaps an example might clarify. My wife decided she really likes burning candles. She now keeps a small candle burning in our living room at all times. As soon as one burns out, she immediately replaces it with another. We happen to live in an area with a very mild climate. We never run our heater or air conditioner. And, all of our windows are sealed shut. I have calculated the heat addition to our home from this candle. According to my calculations, the temperature in my living room will exceed the melting point of iron within a year. Does this seem like a valid analysis of the situation? Or, is it more likely that the temperature in my living room with reach some new equilibrium point. That equilibrium point will still change from day to night and from season to season. But, that new equilibrium point will be at a higher temperature than it would have been without the candle burning.

Replace the candle with a 1000 watt heater. The temperature in my living room will rise again and will reach another equilibrium point at a higher temperature. This does not require that the temperature at this new equilibrium point will remain absolutely constant. It will still have variation based on other factors. But, the temperature in my living room will be higher than it would be if I turned off the 1000 watt heater.

Johnny Pellin

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

JJPellin--could you elaborate on the mechanism by which carbon is removed from the atmosphere?

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

trees ?

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

CO2 is removed directly from the atmosphere by plants. In addition to that, some is removed by the hydrological cycle. It is washed out of the air by rainfall and ends up in the oceans. In solution in water, it participates in number of different chemical reactions and biological processes. Some of these reactions tie up the carbon in various reaction products, some of which end up trapped in sediments. Limestone is a classic example of carbon that was removed from the atmosphere and trapped in rock.

Johnny Pellin

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

formula CaCO3, is created when Ca ions in hard water react with carbonate ions creating limescale. Ca(OH)2 + CO2 → CaCO3 + H2O

Trees aren't the only way to remove CO2 from the air.

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

Quote:

There are mechanisms within the atmosphere to remove carbon. It is not necessary to eliminate all carbon emissions.

Were those mechanisms absent before the industrial revolution? If not, then the only way to get back to the rate of pre-IR warming is to eliminate carbon emissions.

Quote:

At any rate of carbon emissions, there will be an equilibrium point where the atmospheric concentrations level out and the global temperature also reaches equilibrium.

The globe was warming before the IR. The globe has been warming for the past 22 thousand years. Even if the "CO2-and-only-CO2" folks are correct, which I doubt for reasons laid out above, completely eliminating CO2 emissions simply cause the globe to revert back to it's pre-IR rate of warming.

Quote:

Perhaps an example might clarify. My wife decided she really likes burning candles. She now keeps a small candle burning in our living room at all times. As soon as one burns out, she immediately replaces it with another. We happen to live in an area with a very mild climate. We never run our heater or air conditioner. And, all of our windows are sealed shut.

This is a great example. Thanks for it.

Quote:

I have calculated the heat addition to our home from this candle. According to my calculations, the temperature in my living room will exceed the melting point of iron within a year. Does this seem like a valid analysis of the situation?

No.

No it doesn't.

Now what would you do if a bunch of people plotted the average temperature in your living room from the months of December to May, and used that data to build an energy model of your living room. Then, in order to explain the rise in temperature from December to May, they calibrated their models against the amount of "anthropogenic candle wax consumption" in your living room? Their data looks great, by the way. Every day you consumed wax from candles the temperature went up. Their models are clearly predictive. They show that at this rate of warming, in another 12 months your living room is going to be well over 100 degrees F.

Now, the amount of energy added to your living room by the candle itself doesn't itself account for the entire warming trend, so they calibrate all the other possible "feedback effects" to warming from anthropogenic candle wax consumption. They claim that although only a few degrees worth of living room warming are directly due to the candle, the candle's effect must clearly be feeding back and causing all the rest of the warming.

They have models, after all, which they've calibrated, and which predict your living room climate fairly well from December to May. They're quite predictive.

Now I ask you, are these predictive models adequate scientific proof that all the warming in your living room from December to May is due to anthropogenic candle wax consumption? Or did the living room modelers forget one pretty important element of the scientific process when they decided to analyze your living room? The correlation is great. Is that correlation enough to prove causality with a calibrated model?

Hydrology, Drainage Analysis, Flood Studies, and Complex Stormwater Litigation for Atlanta and the South East - http://www.campbellcivil.com

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

Re: trees removing CO2 from the atmosphere...

Ask a random lay person what trees are made of and they'll answer "wood". Ask where that wood comes from and they'll normally give an answer along the lines of "through the roots". Push further and ask about the carbon part that makes up wood and you get a blank look.

- Steve

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

Beej67,

Model Tuning
From Gavin Schmidt of NASA,

Quote (Gavin Schmidt)

Are climate models just a fit to the trend in the global temperature data? No. Much of the confusion concerning this point comes from a misunderstanding stemming from the point above. Model development actually does not use the trend data in tuning (see below). Instead, modellers work to improve the climatology of the model (the fit to the average conditions), and it’s intrinsic variability (such as the frequency and amplitude of tropical variability). The resulting model is pretty much used ‘as is’ in hindcast experiments for the 20th Century.

From Hegerl et al comments to Curry’s “Uncertainty Monster”

Quote (Hegerl et al)

The authors [Curry and Webster] claim that ‘The 20th century aerosol forcing used in most of the AR4 model simulations (Section 9.2.1.2) relies on inverse calculations of optical properties to match climate model simulations with observations’ and thus claim ‘apparent circular reasoning’. This is incorrect. The inverse estimates of aerosol forcing given in 9.2.1.2 are derived from observationally based analyses of temperature and are compared in Chapter 9 with “forward” estimates calculated directly from understanding of the emissions in order to determine whether the two are consistent. But it is critical to understand that such inverse estimates are an output of attribution analyses not an input, and thus the claim of ‘circular reasoning’ is wrong. The aerosol forcing used in 20C3M (see http://www-pcmdi.llnl.gov/projects/cmip/ann_20c3m....) climate model simulations was based on forward calculations using emission data (Boucher and Pham, 2002; references in Randall et al., 2007).

Pre-Industrial Warming
Here is the temperature trend since 1400:


As posted before, here is the temperature trend of the last glacial-interglacial transition (red - Antarctic temperature, Blue - Global temperature, yellow dot - CO2). Note the settling to the new equilibrium point.


So beej67, you do realize that the warming of the last glacial-interglacial period, which took place over ~10,000 years, ended ~10,000 years ago?

In your “rebuttal” to JJPellin you state “completely eliminating CO2 emissions will simply cause the globe to revert back to its pre-IR rate of warming”. Firstly, it’s not that simple. Secondly, the pre-IR/post-interglacial period had a pretty flat temperature profile. Thirdly, what are you basing that one?

Not much pre-industrial warming since the last glacial-interglacial transition. It appeared to hit a new equilibrium point in the Holocene. Now, through anthropogenic actions, we’ve kick started another shift in climate. What temperature it equals out to is dependent on where we hold CO2 levels at.

Holding CO2 Concentrations Steady (Doesn’t) Mean Stopping All Emissions
“Every pound of carbon released increases the atmospheric concentration of carbon”. Why do rb1957 and JJPellin need to explain to people that there are naturally processes that sequester carbon? The problem is that we are releasing carbon at a much faster rate than it is being re-stored and this problem is exacerbated by deforestation. The solution is to reverse those two problems.

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

1) "modellers work to improve the climatology of the model (the fit to the average conditions)" = tuning, in my mind.
2) i guess there was no "little Ice Age" in the 1600s, 1700s ?
3) a second comment on your termperature graph ... since Mann '98 is proven (in my mind) to be a "fabrication", other reconstructions based on the same data showing the same response must be treated with the same "skepticism".
4) "you do realize that the warming of the last glacial-interglacial period, which took place over ~10,000 years, ended ~10,000 years ago?" ... only if you don't extend you graph to the left, further back in time, as see that things were much hotter

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

So you contend that glacial recession started in 1890? Be careful how you answer.

Read the study linked in the Curry blog above.

http://www.mpimet.mpg.de/fileadmin/staff/klockedan...

They took their model and calibrated it three ways, and got answers that were 3K off depending on the calibration methods.

Quote:

Figure 1 instead shows the absolute temperature evolution from 1850 till present in realizations of the coupled climate models obtained from the CMIP3 and CMIP5 multimodel datasets. There is considerable coherence between the model realizations and the observations; models are generally able to reproduce the observed 20th century warming of about 0.7 K, and details such as the years of cooling following the volcanic eruptions.

Yet, the span between the coldest and the warmest model is almost 3 K, distributed equally far above and below the best observational estimates, while the majority of models are cold-biased.

Calibrated models are great at predicting the future of the status-quo alternative. They are not great at predicting other alternatives, because one modeling parameter may be overcompensating in error for another modeling parameter that's under-utilized in error. That all works out if you're just predicting our future, but it blows up if you're predicting the results of adopting different policies. It's bad science.


Quote (Somptingguy)

Ask a random lay person what trees are made of and they'll answer "wood". Ask where that wood comes from and they'll normally give an answer along the lines of "through the roots". Push further and ask about the carbon part that makes up wood and you get a blank look.

I got similar blank looks right here on this forum when I mentioned that burning wood is a completely "carbon neutral" energy source. :) Even had half a dozen people trying to argue the point with me. It was humorous.

Hydrology, Drainage Analysis, Flood Studies, and Complex Stormwater Litigation for Atlanta and the South East - http://www.campbellcivil.com

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

there you go "curry" and "blog" in the same sentence !

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

rb1957 (and beej67),
1) I’m not saying that they do not tune models. The assertion being made is that parameterization and other such “control knobs” are tuned in order to match historical temperature records directly (i.e. chasing the noise). That is incorrect. The “knobs” are tuned to create a better representation of their specific aspects of the climate system. These adjustments can only be made in the range established by observations or peer-reviewed study. Once that is achieved, they run the GCM to see how they compare to observed temperature trends. If there are discrepancies, they aim to resolve them by reviewing how the subsystems or the interaction between subsystems are represented. Again, this is done to better represent those aspects, with the indirect result being a more accurate representation of historical temperature trends. They do not blindly tune these parameters, such that they behave in a way outside of observed, experimental or theoretical expectations, just to match the GCM to historical temperature trends.

This is made clear in the paper beej67 referenced:

Quote (Mauritsen et al 2012)

Climate model tuning has developed well beyond just controlling global mean temperature drift

Quote (Mauritsen et al 2012)

The MPI-ESM was not tuned to better fit the 20th Century. In fact, we only had the capability to run the full 20th Century simulation according to the CMIP5-protocol after the point in time when the model was frozen.

Quote (Mauritsen et al 2012)

The impacts of the alternative tunings presented were smaller than we thought they would be in advance of this study, which in many ways is reassuring. We must emphasize that our paper presents only a small glimpse at the actual development and evaluation involved in preparing a comprehensive coupled climate model

I don’t disagree with the Mauritsen et al paper. It outlines the modeling process and highlights some accurate concerns. My contention is with the unfair and, at times, untrue stretching of its conclusions, which are directly disproven by quotes from the paper itself. Curry actually did not make this mistake (at least not directly). She said very little about the paper besides calibration is poorly documented. She left it up to her readers to misrepresent the paper, which they did in spades.

For more information and to avoid the one-study syndrome, I recommend reading IPCC AR5, specifically box 9.1 on the subject.

2) There was a dip after the medieval warm period, yes. The rate of both the warming during the Medieval Warm Period and cooling of the LIA were much lower than the rate of change seen recently. Furthermore, the extent of warming during the Medieval Warm Period and subsequent cooling of the LIA are not as great as some “skeptics” might believe it is. Much of the “drastic” warming in the MWP comes from only using temperatures from one region and saying it was global (very similar to the faulty argument made about Antarctic temperatures during the last glacial-interglacial period).

3) One-study syndrome. One-study, that has been shown to have serious holes in it by various other studies, shows that Mann ’98 was a “fabrication”. Meanwhile, numerous studies have validated Mann ’98. To avoid this trite topic, I’ll just say, fine throw out Mann ’98 from this discussion. How does this help with beej67’s point (which is what again? He’s hopped between arguments, selectively choosing which rebuttal to address and which to ignore, that I have lost track of his core argument).

4) Addressed in 2. Yes, there was some warming in the Medieval Warm Period. However, it was nowhere near the extent of the warming in the last glacial-interglacial period or recently, for that matter. The rate of warming is an even worse comparison between the MWP and today. So, what’s your point? Does it relate to beej67’s?

beej67, what? I’m saying that there was a major shift in climate about 18,000 years ago and then stabilized around 10,000 years ago. There have been relatively minor variations since then (MWP and LIA discussed above). However, now we are in another shift in climate, this time it appears to be driven by anthropogenic actions. The rate of this change is unlike the last glacial-interglacial period.

But, as stated above, you’ve bounced around from point to point, failing to address half of what I’ve said. I’m at the point that I don’t know what your even arguing for (and I believe you don’t either). Here’s a rundown of your past points:
1) Anthropogenic actions aside from CO2 emissions are the cause of the warming – I’ve referenced a bunch of articles that look at the forcings from various anthropogenic sources and CO2 is the greatest forcing. You haven’t responded to this or provided anything to support your claim.
2) CO2 emission restrictions will not slow temperature rise – Completely off topic from point 1. I discussed equilibrium climate sensitivity. You didn’t really response to this but made the false claim described below.
3) CO2 emission restrictions won’t work because we have to completely eliminate CO2 emissions to keep concentrations at a safe level – Completely off topic from point 1. Regardless, I (and others) have demonstrated that this is false. It’s really silly logic. You haven’t responded to this or provided anything to support your claim.
4) Models are tuned to match historical temperatures – Completely off topic from point 1 and 3. Regardless, I have demonstrated that this is false (twice now). You actually did offer something to support your claim but the problem is, it doesn’t really support your claim.
5) It was warming before the industrial revolution! – Completely off topic from point 1, 2 , 3 and 4. Regardless, I have demonstrated that this is false. You need to provide something to support this claim.
6) Some random article from GWPF – Nothing to do with anything else really. Regardless, I demonstrated that the author of the main paper GWPF used in their argument said that their conclusion was wrong. Your rebuttal was to include a quote which actual validated my point.

Find a topic, define why and how it challenges the CO2 theory, support it with references and then stick with it. This jumping from topic to topic is such a tiresome game by “skeptics”. I’ve actually taken the time to address each individual concern, perhaps encouraging this silliness, and then you or someone else completely changes the topic. It’s gish gallop, pure and simple.

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

Let me fix some of these for you, just so you can be clear.

1) Some warming is from CO2, some is from other anthropogenic sources, and some is natural. The way the models are calibrated leaves how much from each source open to the modeler's judgment, as is absolutely represented in the linked article when they talk about how they do all their calibration by hand, instead of with a computer process.

2) CO2 emission restrictions in the United States will not slow temperature rise a significant enough amount to warrant unilateral US policy on the matter, and good luck getting Russia, China, or India to play along. This is really the only important point out of them all. I've repeatedly asked for you to provide a "peer reviewed journal article" stating that the United States can unilaterally reverse global warming with our emissions policy, and haven't seen one yet.

3) If we presume that all anthropogenic warming is due to carbon, then even if we eliminated CO2 emissions, the globe would continue warming at the rate that it did between 1750 and 1850, which clearly wasn't due to carbon.

4) Models are in fact tuned to match historic temperatures, because if they tune a model, and it doesn't match historic temperatures, they throw the tuning out and redo the model.

5) It was warming before the industrial revolution. This is not false. Glaciers have been receding since at least 1750, depending on where you look, and that is a better indicator of temperature than any global mean record brewed up from mixed observations. Some have been receding since the late 1600s. In fact, when you plot the rate of glacial recession, it's "hockey stick" starts right around the same time the human population hockey stick starts, not the CO2 hockey stick. Go figure.

Hydrology, Drainage Analysis, Flood Studies, and Complex Stormwater Litigation for Atlanta and the South East - http://www.campbellcivil.com

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

What of the recent news that pollution from China is causing the rain shortages in the US. Where are the taxes that will fix that?

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

beej67 - I really don't like glaciers as a proxy for anything, because they are snowfall dependent, which means they are affected by uptake from oceans and so on.

Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

The Arctic Ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot,
according to a report to the Commerce Department yesterday from Consulafft, at Bergen, Norway.

Reports from fishermen, seal hunters, and explorers all point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto
unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone. Exploration expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been met as far north
as 81 degrees 29 minutes.

Soundings to a depth of 3,100 meters showed the gulf stream still very warm. Great masses of ice have been replaced
by moraines of earth and stones, the report continued, while at many points well known glaciers have entirely disappeared.

Very few seals and no white fish are found in the eastern Arctic, while vast shoals of herring and smelts which have never
before ventured so far north, are being encountered in the old seal fishing grounds. Within a few years it is predicted that
due to the ice melt the sea will rise and make most coastal cities uninhabitable.

Oops...

I apologize, I neglected to mention that this report was from November 2, 1922, as reported by the AP and published in
The Washington Post some 90+ years ago.

Darn that pesky global warming... or is it climate changes which have been cycling up and down for eons?

Check out SNOPES: http://www.snopes.com/politics/science/globalwarmi...

Notice how they spin the truth. Interesting how lawyers and politicians can spin the truth until its a non-truth.

PS: I didn't create this. I received this from an old college chum. Not being a climate expert, I can only have opinions. pipe

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

On the other hand, tornado season is off to a much slower start, and there are predicted to be fewer hurcanes this year. I can probally live with that change.

I also see no one wants to comment on China's pollution problems effecting the US. How to fix that?

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

beej67,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Or Arctic sea ice:

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

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

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

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

#3, whatever rate it was caused this:



(source: USGS)

#4 see #1.

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

Hydrology, Drainage Analysis, Flood Studies, and Complex Stormwater Litigation for Atlanta and the South East - http://www.campbellcivil.com

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

GrandpaDave,

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

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

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

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

beej67,

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


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

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

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

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


Temperature, from NOAA:


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


4) likewise

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

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

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

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

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

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

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

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

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

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



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

Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

Quote (rconnor)

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

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

Quote:

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

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

Quote:

(images going back to 1850)

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

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

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2011/06/13/10156...

Their punchline graph:



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



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

Quote:

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

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

Hydrology, Drainage Analysis, Flood Studies, and Complex Stormwater Litigation for Atlanta and the South East - http://www.campbellcivil.com

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

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

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

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

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

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

Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

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

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

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

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

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

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

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

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

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

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

David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering

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

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

Quote (rconnor)

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

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

Quote:

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

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

Quote:

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

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

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

Quote:

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

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

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

Hydrology, Drainage Analysis, Flood Studies, and Complex Stormwater Litigation for Atlanta and the South East - http://www.campbellcivil.com

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

Quote (beej67)

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

Or….

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

Quote (beej67)

Sea level is sea level
No. Wrong.

Quote (beej67)

If you normalize the sea level graph to take out the little ice age, then every inflection point in human population expansion correlates directly with an inflection point in sea level. Even the inflection points before we were mining coal and drilling oil.
What?!? So there’s more people on the planet, so it pushes the land down, which causes the sea level to rise? What does human population (alone) have to do with sea level? If I get accused of confusing correlation/causation when I have a scientifically backed theory to demonstrate causation, then they should burn you at the stake for this one! Sea level rises in response to increasing temperatures and melting sea ice. Increases in CO2 concentrations do both of those things (where the former causes the latter), humans (alone) don’t, humans emitting CO2 do.

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

Quote (beej67)

But your point is one step further, that the anthropogenic forces are essentially due to burning fossil fuels, and are essentially uncorrelated to human population
80jh3480jhaufhiasjdf;!@#$#!@@$#!@$

Quote (rconnor)

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

Quote (beej67)

Yet you would have me believe that as long as we quit burning coal and drilling oil, the human population can continue to grow at whatever rate it likes while having no effect on the climate.
On global climate, perhaps, on the environment and ecosystems, not at all. Ignoring CO2 emissions for the moment, if we continue to consume at the rate we are today, deforestation being one example, we will continue to adversely affect the environment (which will also be detrimental to us). I’ve never questioned that and I’ve never been in disagreement with you on that. I’d advocate just as strongly for reducing our rate of deforestation than I would for our CO2 emissions. I’ve said this to you from the get-go, addressing CO2 emissions also addresses general consumption and I think you hit two birds with one stone. I need to be clear that I am in full agreement with you that humans adversely affect the environment in ways other than CO2 emission. However, when it comes to what human action is causing climate change, then I and the scientific community say it’s mainly CO2 emissions. But that doesn’t, in any way, discredit your (and my) concerns about other anthropogenic influences on the environment.

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

Quote (beej67)

Yet the earth warmed right along with human population growth before fossil fuels were used prominently
Still wrong. Will always be wrong. See those graphs. The 2nd graph I linked above shows 16 different temperature reconstructions that invalidate this statement. So that quote and any subsequent points you derive from it are wrong. Pure and Simple.

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

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

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

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



Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

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

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

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

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

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

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

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

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

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

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

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

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

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

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

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

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

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

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

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

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

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

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

You obviously don't read my notes with any more attention than i pay to yours. Yes, i agree, and am puzzled by, the extra CO2 content in the atmosphere since the start of the industrial revolution is, to within 50% say, equal to the CO2 from the fossil fuels we have burnt. That astonishes me, but I accept it. Therefore IF this economic miracle takes place (I have my doubts) I'd expect the CO2 to rise accordingly. That doesn't bother me in the slightest as the knobs on my mental model are set to 100% reality, not 300%, and the knobs the IPCC don't bother with are waiting to get fired up when the science gets there.

I don't quite see why the rest of the world should be forced into a century long recession because a corrupt and complacent state authority allowed 1500 people to die reasonably predictably. If you seriously think your country couldn't cope with the rather small changes in weather you'll see by 2100 then I guess we'll just have to agree to differ. A nation that irrigates a desert the size of a small country in 30 years is probably capable of building a 1 ft seawall in 100 years.



Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

==> so you’re saying that “they” have been poor in their response to “adaptation” measure thus far. That just furthers my point that “adaptation” alone
Actually, it shows that you're thinking is limited. Don't change the goal of adaptation - change the "they", and their priorities.

Further, if you look at the chart posted by GregLocock on 21 Apr 14 21:05, you'll see that the Americas and Europe are already moving in the right direction. So, why do you want to impose further taxes and penalties on groups that are already moving in a positive direction? The obvious answer is because they're the only groups that you can impose dictates. That tells me that you're not going after the people you need to in order to solve the problem, you're going after the people from which you can forcibly take money.

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

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

Gregs chart would be much more informative if it were in per capita emissions.

Anybody know where one can be found ?

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

Quote:

Superimpose the population curve on it if you want, I don’t care. Population started to rise around 1000 AD, when temperatures started to fall until around 1920.

Then why'd the sea level rise?

Hydrology, Drainage Analysis, Flood Studies, and Complex Stormwater Litigation for Atlanta and the South East - http://www.campbellcivil.com

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

"non-OECD Europe and Eurasia" = the old eastern bloc and Russia ... the collapse of communism seems to align with a significant drop is emissions (and living standard?)
the dip in US in '74 would align with the oil embargo, and concurrent price increase.

this graph says (to me at least) devloped economics use a lot of energy. China's emissions will continue to increase, US will continue to decline slowly. the 28M tonnes (annual total) will increase.

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

So according to that chart, per capita carbon emissions are only increasing significantly in China and the Middle East.

Hrmm.

Sounds like any solution that doesn't merely include them, but is driven by them, won't work, presuming of course that the science is right about it being an only CO2 issue.

Personally, as an environmentalist and hydrologist, I'm much more concerned about the really pressing problems we're going to face in the next 100 years. Mass extinction is a real problem, and it's not because of a half degree Celsius, it's because of habitat depletion and increased vectors for disease and invasive species. The other real problem is what happens when certain areas of the world deplete their historic aquifers and folks start getting into wars over water. Syria and the Dust Bowl are good examples of places where water resources are going to disappear in our lifetimes, and nobody's moving to do anything about it.

The thing that annoys me the most about climate science is that it's hijacked the entire environmental movement, largely through rhetoric, obstructing real, effective conservation. Nowadays the activism is all towards carbon trading, when they should be towards habitat restoration and green building initiatives, which are things we can actually do, and which will also have a measurable and verifiable impact on microclimate.

Hydrology, Drainage Analysis, Flood Studies, and Complex Stormwater Litigation for Atlanta and the South East - http://www.campbellcivil.com

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

I've recently been involved in studying the GHG numbers that the Oil & Gas industry reported in the 2013 GHG inventory. Specifically, I've been looking at the contributions of pneumatic devices to the inventory (28% of the total reported volume from this industry). My assessment of this process (which has been submitted to a peer-reviewed journal for publication) is that this portion was overstated by at least an order of magnitude and more likely by a factor of 20. The other components were overstated by about the same amount according to the people doing the reviews for those areas. Because of the X25 multiplier for methane, Oil & Gas has been credited with 20% of the US GHG inventory.

So, if 20% of the US GHG inventory should be reduced by at least an order of magnitude, if every other industry is doing a similar job of reporting this stuff then the graphs should look really different. It looks to me like everyone is terrified of a low baseline that would cause them to have to purchase credits in the future so they are being ultra conservative in their assessment of emissions (since there isn't any dounside to reporting a large volume right now). I didn't see any obvious fabrications, but I saw a bunch of people who delayed plans to replace (high emitting) continuous bleed controllers with (low emitting) intermittent vent controllers. Making this change is good for the bottom line (I wrote an SPE paper on this in 2000, you can find it at One-Petro if you're interested) since it is better to sell the gas than to exhaust it to atmosphere, but it isn't a huge IRR project and will have better economics if Cap & Trade happens. This is a case where uncertainty and rhetoric are delaying one of the few projects that both have positive economics and accomplish an environmental goal.

Beej67,
I couldn't agree more with you statement:

Quote:

The thing that annoys me the most about climate science is that it's hijacked the entire environmental movement, largely through rhetoric, obstructing real, effective conservation. Nowadays the activism is all towards carbon trading, when they should be towards habitat restoration and green building initiatives, which are things we can actually do, and which will also have a measurable and verifiable impact on microclimate.
I keep seeing real innovation stifled by proscriptive regulations that allow exactly one solution to a problem. For example the current version of the New Source Prevention Standard (NSPS) Subpart OOOO prohibits wet seals on centrifugal compressors and requires dry seals. If they had said "emissions from compressor seals must be monitored and cannot exceed xxx tonnes/year of VOC" then if some clever guy figures out a better, cheaper, lower emission technique to contain emissions from centrifugal compressor seals it could be implemented without a change in the law--as the regulation is written, there is no incentive to do that research.

David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering

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

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

Everyone’s talking about emission reductions in the US near the end of the graphs as if it’s people, on their own accord, reducing their consumption. That is likely a very minor factor in the decrease. For the major factor, look at the date of the decline. I wonder what happened to the US in 2008….

rb1957, that’s a very interesting insight with regards to the collapse of the USSR. I’m intrigued as to why there would be such a sharp decline. It could be that they were eating the seed corn, so to speak, right before the collapse in a desperate attempt to keep up with the US. Then, when they finally had to disband, the papier-mâché superpower gave way and the system fell back to a more reasonable level.

With regards to the oil embargo, I think that you are right. I also believe that it suggests that people DO respond, significantly, to price changes.

Beej67, I’ve yet to meet any environmentalist concerned about CO2 emissions but apathetic towards deforestation, loss of habitat, etc. As I’ve continually said to you, the issue is about consumption, both how much we consume (far too much) and how we consume (powered by fossil fuels). I’m in agreement with you that (even if it were practical) we can’t simply replace all coal plants with wind farms and continue to rapidly increase our consumption. We’ll never completely wean ourselves of fossil fuels, so the trick is to reduce our consumption as much as we can. Furthermore, keeping CO2 concentrations at a safe level means we need to reduce deforestation (loss of habitat) and increase reforestation. Both have the co-benefit of helping with the climate change and other environmental concerns. We are not in disagreement here. No one concerned about the environment is.

The thing that you need to understand is that reducing our CO2 emissions will help with all the environmental issues you have. Controlling and regulating consumption growth leads to…less deforestation (and less CO2), less over fishing (and less CO2), less urban sprawl (and less CO2), less fertilizer/pesticide runoff (and less CO2), lower building energy costs (and less CO2). And, frankly and unfortunately, most people and all companies need some financial or safety reason to be more environmental conscious and the future effects of climate change are the wakeup call that they need. So, sure climate change science may have taken over as the flag barrier for the environmental movement but it does so with good reason.

With regards to Syria, the conflicts there are largely tied to a persistent drought. According to projections, these sorts of events are likely to get more frequent and more severe in that area with climate change. The effects of climate change aren’t just infrastructure damages from hurricanes and such, they include the resource conflicts you speak of as well. They aren’t included in the “no mitigation” costs assumed above.

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

Check the graph again. It shows per capita carbon emissions going down every year but one since 2004 in OECD America. Can't hang that on the recession.

The thing you're missing again, rconnor, is correlation/causality. I'm fine with reducing CO2 levels in the atmosphere by efforts to expand and restore habitat, but I don't pretend that carbon credits are going to cause reforestation to suddenly occur, nor do I pretend that carbon credits are going to slow AGW while we still promote urban sprawl. I also don't pretend that carbon credits are going to come close to arresting the causes of the global mass extinction that's going on right now, because that mass extinction is NOT due to a one degree rise in temperature. It's due to loss of habitat, real (poisonous) pollutants, and the increased vectors for invasive species and disease. Those are the causes. Them. Not a degree Celsius. We can do a lot more good for our planet by spending the amount of effort we're currently spending arguing about CO2, and applying that effort towards real conservation.

The one verifiable connection between increased CO2 in the atmosphere and our ongoing mass extinction is the coral reefs dissolving due to increases in levels of carbonic acid in the oceans. And the environmentalist are so focused on GW that they've pretty much ignored even that until very recently.

Syria's on a dead aquifer. They'd run out of water regardless, unless something happens to the climate to change it, supercharging the hydrologic cycle in their region of the world. GW may or may not do that - most models have GW producing more rain in some places and less in others, but all properly built models show an increase in the amount of water that moves through the cycle on the whole. That's what heat does. It moves water through the cycle. It's entirely possible that Syria's only hope to rescue them from a very serious and life threatening water supply crisis in the upcoming century is, in fact, global warming. But proving that (or disproving it) would take some complex climate modeling, that we simply don't have the ability to do.

Hydrology, Drainage Analysis, Flood Studies, and Complex Stormwater Litigation for Atlanta and the South East - http://www.campbellcivil.com

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

cooments like "mass extinction is the coral reefs" are like "the glaciers are melting"; i think both respond to their local conditions.

I thought it'd be interesting, since this thread started with NIPCC to see what they had to say. search for "coral reefs" and the top hit says ...
"In light of their several significant findings, Rodolfo-Metalpa et al. conclude that "the conventional belief that calcification rates will be affected by ocean acidification may not be widespread in temperate corals." In this regard, for example, they note that Ries et al. (2009) have reported that the calcification rate of the temperate coral Oculina arbuscula is also unaffected by an increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration of up to 840 ppm, and that a large decrease in calcification was only found at a CO2 concentration in excess of 2200 ppm." ... i'm not sure if "Biogeosciences" is peer reviewed (and FWIW IMHO i don't care)

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

==> For the major factor, look at the date of the decline. I wonder what happened to the US in 2008….
Actually, in both the total emissions chart and the per-capita chart, the clearly noticeable decline began with events in 2005 and 2007, aided by the effects of the recession during those years.
Further details can be found in this document: U.S. Carbon Dioxide Emissions Down 11 Percent Since 2007
From that article,

Quote:

Emissions shrank rapidly during the recession, then bounced back slightly as the economy recovered. But shifting market conditions, pollution regulations, and changing behaviors are also behind the decline.
and

Quote:

emissions from oil climbed steadily until 2005, when they peaked at 715 million tons of carbon. Since then, these emissions have fallen by 14 percent,
emphasis mine. Additionally,

Quote:

Average fuel efficiency, which had been deteriorating for years in the United States, started to increase in 2005 and keeps getting better.
again,emphasis mine, and

Quote:

U.S. carbon emissions from coal have fallen 20 percent from their peak in 2005.
Clearly, 2005 was a significant year.

Quote:

U.S. wind power capacity has more than tripled since 2007
So while the charts don't reflect the realized benefits until 2008 and beyond, the actions causing those effects aren't related to anything that happened in 2008.

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

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

GrandpaDave,

Worth a read. The line “within a few years it is predicted that due to the ice melt the sea will rise and make most coastal cities uninhabitable” was a fabrication. So the “twisting of the truth” looks to be by “skeptics” to trick other “skeptics” into the conclusion that the doomsday-sayers having been wrong about their predictions since the 1922. No such prediction was ever made in that article.

I certainly don’t blame you, you’re a victim of this sort of distortion (or in this case, flat out fabrication) common in places like GWPF (who used the fake quote in a piece to reach the conclusion stated above). However, this is just another example of why people need to be (truly) skeptical of their sources. Which goes back to the original post and this bizarre inversion in the standards of sources of evidences. Blogs and mass forward emails = truth. NASA, NOAA, reputable peer-reviewed journals and 197 National Academy of Sciences = liars and truth spinners.

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

IMHO that's ignoring the undisputed fact that the 1922 article notes very little arctic ice. the article reprint in the link doesn't include the entire article, possibly they had predictions about the future of the arctic ?

i think the point is that in 1922 there was very little arctic ice, inbetween years there was more, and now there's less again ... so what ! in the future there will be more or less than there is today.

maybe the 1922 article didn't extrapolate the current trend into future predictions ... maybe they were smarter (and more honestscientific) than we are today ?

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

Cajun,
Thanks for looking into the numbers. However, the wording in you final point fringes on being untrue and is not supported by the previous quotes. Although events in 2008 had nothing to do with wind power tripling in 2007, you cannot conclude that events in 2008 had nothing to do with reductions in emissions per capita in 2008 and beyond. The recession most certainly did play a part in the reduction, as noted in your first quote. That being said, my comment did under represent the impact of emission reduction measures currently taking place and I appreciate you bringing in the numbers to demonstrate that.

Demonstrating that emission reduction measures have been effective at reducing emission is not an argument against my stance. It is likely that the increase in awareness of climate change is pushing some of the public and, subsequently, some of the government to act in a more environmental conscious manner. As I said before, if emissions can continue to drop in the US without the use of more stringent measures, then I’d be all for it. The best way to promote the reduction of emissions without the need for taxes or other such measures is to properly educate the public on climate change science (cough, cough). However, emissions need to continue to drop at a faster rate and this is not likely to happen on its own, especially within the commercial/industrial sector.


rb1957,
I don’t believe you read the Real Climate article. If you did, you’d clearly see the discussion on what actually happened with arctic ice in 1922. It was indeed lower than normal (for the time) but the reduction was spatially isolated. Furthermore, it has dropped to a much lower extent and at a much faster rate recently.


  • The point that the original article was trying to make in 1922 was that ice in that region was lower than normal. This was true.
  • The point that SNOPES was trying to make was that the ACTUAL article (not including the fabricated line) was true and that “it isn’t substantive evidence either for or against the concept of anthropogenic global warming[/b]. This is true
  • The point “skeptics” were trying to make by fabricating the article to include the extra line at the end was that claims made by scientists where wrong back then and are therefore wrong today. This is untrue. The quote was a fabrication. The extension to anything relevant to today is a non-sequitar (even if the quote wasn’t a fabrication).
  • The point you are trying to make is that ice levels decrease and increase and therefore there’s nothing unusual about the recent decline. This is untrue. Levels have been flat for ~80 years up to 1970 when they started to drop at a rapid rate (I’ll also note that long-term solar cycles peaked around 1950 and have been in decline ever since).
  • The point I’m trying to make is that “skeptics” fabricated the quote to make a stupid argument. This is true. It’s not just trash, it’s not just dishonest trash, it’s dishonest trash that is so stupid that would STILL be trash even if it were honest. So when GWPF uses such trash as a premise for an article or when CFACT tweets about it, you need to seriously question the validity of their work. This is also true.

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

==> you cannot conclude that events in 2008 had nothing to do with reductions in emissions per capita in 2008 and beyond.
What I'm claiming, along with presenting facts to support that claim, is that significant events leading to both overall reductions and per capita reductions starting taking place years before 2008 - as early as 2005. And you can see, no only in the data, but in both charts as well, that the declines began prior to 2008.

What I'm not claiming is that, and I quote,

Quote (rconnor)

For the major factor, look at the date of the decline. I wonder what happened to the US in 2008….
I'm not claiming there is "the major factor". In fact, the data shows several contributing factors. And despite what you may WANT to be true with respect to 2008, the date of the decline, seen both the in raw data and on the charts, is evident as early as 2005.

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

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

2008 = GFC ??

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

Cajun, if all you are concluding is that the recession wasn’t the “major factor” in the drop in emissions then I don’t disagree with you. I admitted that I underestimated the effects of other emission reduction measures taking place prior to 2008. My quote that the recession was “the major factor” appears to be incorrect. I made that statement based off eye-balling the graph and a verbal theory, not statistics. You have demonstrated that nicely by providing hard evidence and I thank you for it.

I merely wanted to clarify that the recession was at least part of the reduction in emissions because your wording made it sound (to me) like you were saying it wasn’t at all. We’re all clear now and I’m in agreement with you.

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

GFC = Global Financial Crises.

David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering

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

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

more from NIPCC (my emphasis) ...
"Reference Cuna, E., Zawisza, E., Caballero, M., Ruiz-Fernandez, A.C., Lozano-Garcia, S. and Alcocer, J. 2014. Environmental impacts of Little Ice Age cooling in central Mexico recorded in the sediments of a tropical alpine lake. Journal of Paleolimnology 51: 1-14.
Cuna et al. (2014) write the "late Holocene paleoclimate is characterized by a warm interval known as the Medieval Climate Anomaly (MCA), ~AD 1000-1300, which was followed by a highly variable, but generally cold period known as the Little Ice Age (LIA), ~AD 1350-1850," citing Crowley and Lowery (2000) and Mann et al. (2009). And they say "many authors have related cooling during the LIA with solar forcing, specifically with the lower solar irradiance during the Sporer (1450-1540) and Maunder (1645-1715) solar minima," citing Bond et al. (2001) and Lozano-Garcia et al. (2007), while noting that "during the Maunder Minimum, solar activity and UV irradiance reached particularly low levels," citing Lean et al. (1995) and Lean and Rind (1999).
As their contribution to the subject, Cuna et al. developed "new information about the nature of the LIA in central Mexico based on a decadal-resolution sediment sequence from high-altitude tropical Lake La Luna, in the Nevado de Toluca volcano," which they did via analyses of "magnetic susceptibility, charcoal particles, palynomorphs [organic-walled microfossils], diatoms, cladoceran [small crustacean] remains and multivariate statistics."

In discussing their findings the six scientists say the coldest period of the LIA occurred "between 1660 and 1760, an interval that broadly corresponds with the Maunder Minimum in solar activity," which they say "is also consistent with the timing of the coldest northern hemisphere temperatures during the last millennium," citing Jones and Mann (2004) and Matthews and Briffa (2005). As for the more recent past, they say "biological assemblages that showed rapid changes during the LIA have remained relatively stable during the last few decades." They also report that these modern assemblages "resemble those in the lake ~500 years ago, during the MCA." And they say that "no clear evidence of modern, human-induced environmental change was recorded."

In light of Cuna et al.'s several findings regarding the climate of central Mexico, there is ever more reason to accept the fact that there is nothing unusual, unnatural or unprecedented about Earth's current level of warmth.

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

Wait a minute. That graph says sea ice extents were relatively flat until 1950. What happened to the 1890 hockey stick? Wasn't AGW supposed to hit big in 1890, not 1950?

What happened in 1950?

Oh yeah. Now I remember.



A whole lot of urbanization, that's what.

Hydrology, Drainage Analysis, Flood Studies, and Complex Stormwater Litigation for Atlanta and the South East - http://www.campbellcivil.com

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

"1890" ? we've been at this for a while !! ... i think you meant 1998 ...bigsmile

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

HAARP, anyone?

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

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

i wonder why "they" predict that population growth will slow ? notice how static growth was in the 1910s and 1940s ... hummmm

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

Hum... Lots of back-and-forth here. I have not seen any real solutions. How about the following:

How about eliminating planes, trains, automobiles and ships at sea.
Reducing the surface human and animal population will also reduce CO2... so lets go
back to the 19th century. This can be achieved by 2 EMP detonations...
One over the Eastern US and the second over the Western US. In a couple of years,
the population here in the USA will drop from 330 million to about 30 million.

sleeping

An extinction event would solve the problem for the entire world and not just require
the USA to solve the world's problem...

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

rb1957, look at the graph of the 16 temperature reconstructions, then re-read the NIPCC article, then look back at the graph. I’m hoping you’ll realize how stupid that concluding line is, that wasn’t from the paper but was NIPCC’s “take” on the paper. It's mindboggling nonsense but that’s NIPCC/CO2 Science for ya.

More humans = more ice cubes consumed = less arctic sea ice. I think you’re on to something beej67! (“Urbanization” is just as unsupported as the ice cube hypothesis…in fact, “urbanization” has been studied numerous times and concluded to not be able to explain the recent warming, so it actually has a worse track record than the ice cube hypothesis)

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

In discussing their findings the six scientists say the coldest period of the LIA occurred "between 1660 and 1760, an interval that broadly corresponds with the Maunder Minimum in solar activity," which they say "is also consistent with the timing of the coldest northern hemisphere temperatures during the last millennium," citing Jones and Mann (2004) and Matthews and Briffa (2005). As for the more recent past, they say "biological assemblages that showed rapid changes during the LIA have remained relatively stable during the last few decades." They also report that these modern assemblages "resemble those in the lake ~500 years ago, during the MCA." And they say that "no clear evidence of modern, human-induced environmental change was recorded."

rconnor, so you're saying that NIPCC are lying when they say and they say that and follow with quotes. pls post the referenced article to back up your claim (that it's "wasn’t from the paper but was NIPCC’s “take” on the paper"). i will see what i can get myself.

i agree that NIPCC has an agenda ... just like Everyone else in this debate. I'm sure they are picking articles that resonnate with their agenda, which might be no more than to be a sounding board for less clamatious reports than the mainstream publishes. face it, if the report says "doom and gloom" and "it all our fault" then it'll get picked up by everyone who wants that message boardcast; if it doesn't they'll mostly ignore it.

i will wrap up with a slightly ad hominine charge ... you are like most of your kind, you can't accept that there can be evidence out there that doesn't support your position; anything that doesn't support your position is "clearly nonsense".

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

Maybe you should have read the abstract before posting. This isn’t going to go well for you or NIPCC.

Did you read the abstract? Do you know the context behind the quote “no clear evidence of modern, human-induced environmental change was recorded” ? Well, NIPCC didn’t actually link to the paper (surprise, surprise) but I found it myself.

Here’s the full sentence: “No clear evidence of modern, human-induced environmental change was recorded, indicating that Lake La Luna is an ideal site in Mexico to monitor future impacts of global change.” It’s talking about the suitability of the site for their sediment analysis because it had not been affected by “human-induced environmental change” (I’m guessing pollution). It’s absolutely not saying that there’s no evidence of human-induced climate change being observed in their analysis.

It says that “modern conditions, established around AD 1910, resemble those during the Medieval Climate Anomaly (ca. AD 1200)”. This agrees with the 16 different temperature reconstructions that show that 1910 had a similar temperature then the Medieval Warming Period…but then temperatures continue to go up…rapidly.

“There is nothing unusual, unnatural or unprecedented about Earth’s current level of warmth” is a garbage statement by NIPCC that was not concluded by the paper, nor supported by the paper.

The NIPCC purposefully took the quotes out of context, failed to link to the actual paper or abstract so reader’s couldn’t confirm and then drew a bull @#$% conclusion not supported by the paper. This is so typical of places like NIPCC, it’s so nefarious and so underhanded.

You’ve been swindled rb1957, like GrandpaDave was swindled. The NIPCC’s deceitful tactics tricked you. Rb1957, it’s not just cherry-picking the papers that support their side and ignoring all the others that don’t, they are lying about what the paper concludes. How many times do I have to demonstrate that these places are BS factories before you start to question the trash that comes out of them?

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

rconner... Why don't you be the first to contribute to saving the planet. Stop breathing CO2 into the air.
You are part of the problem. Oh, I don't follow IPCC and NIPPC so I have not been swindled. It was a bad
assumption on your part. Relax before you have a stroke... sleeping

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

ok rconnor, i'll give you that one. i assumed that the quote wasn't taken out of context ... mea culpa.

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

Rb1957,

The fault does not lie with you. The fault lies with the NIPCC. This is what I’ve been trying to say from the beginning of this thread.

This is what places like NIPCC do, they deceive people into agreeing with a position that confirms their previously held opinion on the subject through misrepresentation, cherry-picking, overstretching conclusions and, at times, flat out making up the science. They tell people what they want to hear and know that most don’t have the time to double check the garbage they spew out. What’s worse is they didn’t even link the paper anywhere, purposefully making it more difficult to investigate for yourself. It’s awful and, given the consequences of the subject, it’s dangerous.

Let this be a stark example of why you should not go to NIPCC or GWPF or CATO for climate science information. This brings us full-circle back to the original point of this thread. If you want factual, unbiased, well-researched, well-documented information, go to trusted scientific institutions like NASA, NOAA, Nature, Science, or the 197 National Academies of Science. If you don’t like what they have to say on the matter, maybe it’s time to revisit your previously held opinion on the subject.

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

Like anything, every time you add a step in between, there is a chance for the meaning to get distorted. I dislike papers that are summaries of existing research and papers for that very reason.

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

So if the problem is population, fix the problem, not tax a totaly different problem.

Maybe not finding the solution to STD's is an answer. Keep doing reasurch, but never find any answers. Sotr of like what they are doing with other problems.

The problem is they are fighting smoking, when they should be encuraging it. Or encuraging bad drivers, and drinking.

Automotive safety should be put as a low priorty, along with health care.

Good thing I don't believe in this theory. I could get very tiried of thinking of dumb ways to die.

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

Post all the graphs you want, but it all comes down to a religious belief:

Quote (RCONNER)

There are two competing groups of sources. These two groups of sources represent the divide in the global warming debate. The groups are such:

Group 1
- American Association for the Advancement of Science
- American Chemical Society
- American Geophysical Union
- American Medical Association
- American Meteorological Society
- American Physical Society
- The Geological Society of America
- US National Academy of Sciences
- Royal Society
- List of 197 Other National Science Academies
- NASA
- NOAA
- Nature
- Science
- etc

Group 2
- A weatherman’s blog
- Koch-founded, right-wing think tank
- etc

So, cranky108, I turn the question back to you. Which group do you believe contains the more credible sources?

Kind of reminds me when those who were religious (Group 1) said the Earth was flat and outnumbered a few (Group 2) who said the data didn't indicate so...under the possibility of being hanged/burned at the stake, or otherwise silenced by the documents that were 'peer-reviewed'.

And of course the Religious like to use Pascal's Wager to show why one should believe in God, just like AELLC:

Quote (AELLC)

If you are correct in saying humans don't cause climate change, and you choose to ignore it...don't do anything...50% chance we will be all starving and dying from thirst.

If I am correct and say we need to do something, and things are done, either the global warming is not reversed by our changes, OR things get much better - the global warming slows down or reverses.

At least my theory gives us more of a fighting chance.

Can't prove God exists....or doesn't exist, so might as well believe. Same with man-made climate change....which use to be called Global Warming until the data proved otherwise.

______________________________________________________________________________
This is normally the space where people post something insightful.

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

As I answered, why would I trust the American Medical Association, to know anything about global warming? Is this just a "me to" reaction, or are they perhaps finding something else when we say ahhhhh.

Only a few of them produce graphs and charts, so I suspect the others are not really doing any of there own data collection.

Good greaf do your own work.

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

Here's the other thing that happened in 1950:

Link

..couldn't have possibly warmed the planet at all..

Hydrology, Drainage Analysis, Flood Studies, and Complex Stormwater Litigation for Atlanta and the South East - http://www.campbellcivil.com

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

Quote (controlnovice)

but it all comes down to a religious belief
What are you basing that on?

Almost all scientists, through largely independent research and representing various fields, nations and scientific institutions, all coming to the same conclusion that supports the core concepts of the anthropogenic CO2 climate change theory does not make it a religion, it makes it a solid scientific theory.

Random, incompatible, cherry-picked or blatantly false arguments (see above) from ideologically driven institutions who receive funding from sources that have a financial or political incentive to promote one side of the debate, regardless of the truth, and represent the vast minority does not make contrarians the paragons of truth and reason, it makes them seem like Young Earther’s or Anti-vaxxers.

Before we hear Greg’s ubiquitous “cargo cult” comment, let me be clear: it matters not which group has the more numerous or the more respected or the more unbiased or the more diverse representation, it matters which group produces the more scientifically accurate arguments.

The anthropogenic CO2 theory is a well-developed, well-supported scientific narrative that has continually shown to have great predictive power and is in strong agreement with empirical observations. The core argument against the theory, that models have failed to track observed temperature trends, has been demonstrated to be 1) inconclusive and insignificant, 2) fundamentally and demonstrably false, 3) a non-sequitur and 4) so false that it actually validates the antithesis of its original assertion.

I have just demonstrated a clear example of one such “skeptic” institution, NIPCC, cherry-picking a paper, pulling the quotes out of context, not providing a link to the original paper and drawing a false conclusion not supported by the paper. You’ll find many other examples in this and past threads from places like GWPF, CATO, CO2 Science, Heartland, WUWT, etc. Furthermore, many “skeptic” arguments are incompatible with each other (i.e. “it’s changed before” and “climate sensitivity is low”) and none of them have been shown to be unexplainable by or inconsistent with the CO2 theory. Beyond not having a valid “knock-down” argument against the theory, “skeptics” also fail to offer any valid counter-theory. Those that they’ve tried (“it’s the sun”, “orbital cycles”) are directly disproven by empirical observations.

It’s not that those scientists that support the CO2 theory are more numerous, more reputable, more diverse and more unbiased, it’s that their theory is continually shown to be accurate.

It’s not that those people that don’t support the CO2 theory are less numerous, less reputable, less diverse and more biased, it’s that their arguments are continually shown to be unsupported, sophism, misrepresentations, cherry-picked, overstretching conclusions or flat out lies. They not only do not have a valid counter-theory but they don’t have a valid argument against the CO2 theory.

Beyond all of this, if one side did actually have a “religious” belief in their opinion, it would be the “skeptics” zealous belief that the free-market is the solution to all of life’s problems. The correlation between climate change “skepticism” and belief in the free-market economics is massive (r= 0.87) and not surprising. As I have continued to say, most “skeptics” rejection of climate change science stems not from an issue with the science but an issue with the possible outcomes of agreeing with climate change science. This is continually demonstrated in threads such as these where one side (“believers”) uses those pretty graphs you spoke of controlnovice and peer-reviewed literature to support their points, while the other side (“skeptics”) uses unsupported statements (like your comment, controlnovice).

Beej67, these guesses just get more and more outlandish (a part of me wants to give you the benefit of the doubt and say that you were joking). To give you some perspective on the amount of heat energy accumulating on Earth, global OHC has been increasing at an average rate of 25x10^13 J/s since 1998 (yup, during the infamous “Pause”). The a-bomb releases 6.3x10^13 J. Try again.

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

Quote:


Almost all scientists, through largely independent research and representing various fields, nations and scientific institutions, all coming to the same conclusion that supports the core concepts of the anthropogenic CO2 climate change theory does not make it a religion, it makes it a solid scientific theory.

Largely independent research? You've got to be kidding. It seems that about half of the 'research' is people using the same data and conclusions to come to their own conclusions.

How many independent sources of historical climate data are there? How many independent sources of current data are there? Not nearly as many as there are reports being generated.

Don't try to pretend it's 'independent research'.

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

Quote (TenPenny)

How many independent sources of historical climate data are there?
The graph above shows 16. No doubt some are built off others. No doubt there are others not included.

Quote (TenPenny)

How many independent sources of current data are there?
Here are the major ones:
HadCRU
GISTEMP
NOAA
JMA
Berkeley Earth
UAH
RSS

All different, independent data sets. In fact, BEST (Berkeley) was specifically designed to remove “biases” presumed to be in the other data sets. Although, after compiling the data it found no such biases ever existed.

Quote (TenPenny)

Not nearly as many as there are reports being generated
Wow. You’ve got to be kidding. Your saying that science can’t build off of past work? So my guess is that each time you use a trig function you reproduce the entire table? Before you use the gravitational constant you re-derive it through laboratory experiments? Basically, each time you use an equation you must, first, redo all of science?

To argue that because there is only 7 major temperature data sets, there should only be 7 published papers is absurd. Every new paper, to varying extents, builds off past work but leads to a new insight. I can’t believe I have to explain this to an engineer.

Even though it lead to an invalid argument, it’s nice that you've plucked one word, from one line as, seemingly, your only issue with my post.

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

Pretty sure your numbers on the H bomb are off by as many as four orders of magnitude, there chief. Depending on the bomb.

Also, Global OHC was flat from 1975 to 1995. Was CO2 flat?

Regardless, I never made the claim that all warming was due to H bombs. I just pointed out that there's lots of interesting ways we humans dream up to make heat.

And when there's more of us making heat, the warmth of the globe goes up, regardless of whether it's CO2 related or not.



I'm sure some of that is from CO2. But the idea that it's all CO2 is something I just don't buy. I especially don't buy the idea that even though warming and human population were clearly coupled well before the CO2 boom, carbon credits will somehow decouple the two in the future.

Hydrology, Drainage Analysis, Flood Studies, and Complex Stormwater Litigation for Atlanta and the South East - http://www.campbellcivil.com

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

what is a global sea level ? (much like what is a global temperature)

is it the average of several locations ? why then does the scatter reduce so much in recent years ? (ok, better instruments, better readers).

rise in sea level before CO2 ? ... maybe it was due to all the shitgarbage we through in it ?

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

""I just pointed out that there's lots of interesting ways we humans dream up to make heat.""

There ya go again throwing thermodynamics to the wind...


Another way to look at it.

Lots of interesting if fragmented attempts to cast doubt on MMGW being posted here. The trouble is the devil is NOT in the
details in this case, it's in the big picture. Whether it is occurring can only be inferred from comparing one statistical
history and inferring probabilities of various departure scenarios with what we observe today and drawing a conclusion as
to whether the random process that generated the history has changed and if so what other causes could there be.

I ask again, why if there is so much room for serious scientific skepticism is there no reputable funded research to
back it up??

Before you wear out your keyboard pounding on it I don't mean funded by the government I mean funded by the industries that
have the most to lose. Why can't BP, EXXON.. etc cough a couple hundred million to get reputable research done and publish it
themselves??

I will say what I think, they know there is no opportunity for reputable research to match their desired conclusions. What else can it be?

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

2dye4--in the early 2000's, Exxon did exactly that. They got a ton of heat from Maine Senator, Olympia Snow. They decided to stop the funding.

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

i think the perception was that "big oil" would bend the research towards it's own goals

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

If big oil did fund a study, would you believe the results? How would it be less reliable than the results funded by big goverment? Both have something to gain and loose in this debate.

So do you bow before big goverment, or follow caplitisem?

More goverment taxes, or more prosperity?

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

Quote:

""I just pointed out that there's lots of interesting ways we humans dream up to make heat.""

There ya go again throwing thermodynamics to the wind...

Sorry, would you mind explaining this comment in the context of a thermonuclear explosion?

The big problem with climate science is that there's simply so much bad science and bad media attached to the bad science on both sides of the issue, that the whole thing reaches 'religion' status no matter what side you're on. Check this article out:

http://www.tampabay.com/opinion/columns/column-flo...

Here we have an article by the guy who was the chief of the EPA under Ronald Reagan, claiming that salt water intrusion in Florida's aquifers is due to global warming.

What.
The.
Nuts.

No, sir, saltwater intrusion is due to well pumping. It always has been, and it always will be, and he should know better. There's very hard science to it, and the very water management districts he's referencing in the article know full well what causes it, but he glosses that over in order to move the needle. That kind of thing as got to stop if any of the science is to be taken seriously.

Hydrology, Drainage Analysis, Flood Studies, and Complex Stormwater Litigation for Atlanta and the South East - http://www.campbellcivil.com

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

First heat can neither be created nor destroyed. That is why we cannot "make" heat.

We can concentrate it but not make it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_energ...

The radioactive elements scraped up to make the bomb would decay on their own releasing the heat anyway, although spread out in time.

I admit there is a publicity kick going on now to raise support for climate change mitigation.

Its doomed to fail, there will always be somebody talking up the skeptic side and to most people that is more palatable.





RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

Where do I go to sign on and get a free T-shirt?

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

2dye4 ? ... surely the explosions release a lot of energy, as the material of the bomb is disintegrated ? agreed, the energy contained within the bomb materials was there before, but would natural decay on unenriched material release the same energy ... ok, maybe, over eons; but by exploding a bomb we put that energy (or heat) back into the atmospehere rather more quickly and so possibly heated the atmosphere (by about 1/2 a gnat).

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

Energy is neather created or destroyed, not heat. Heat is a form of energy.

What if we attempt to rediate more energy back into space than arrives on earth each day, by some amount the equates the amount of chemical energy consumed.
Another option is to install more bird friers so we can increase the amount of energy we recieve on the earth each day, and make global warming happen by green energy sources.

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

i agree; the energy released by a bomb (nuke or conventional) came from somewhere and the explosion releases it quickly into the atmosphere ... why are we talking so much about nothing ??

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

Re: this whole a-bomb thing – it was a silly statement that was proved to be absurdly insignificant. We should have stopped talking about it then.

Quote (beej67)

Also, Global OHC was flat from 1975 to 1995. Was CO2 flat?

~4x10^22 J of energy is “flat”? Looks like you use the same definition for “flat” when discussing the “pause”! Also, that period contained the two largest volcanic eruptions since 1910 (El Chichon and Pinatubo) and was during a positive PDO period (where the oceans are in their heat release phase). So you cherry-picked the dates and it STILL wasn’t true. Another super random, factually incorrect statement.

Quote (beej67)

The big problem with climate science is that there's simply so much bad science and bad media attached to the bad science
That’s what “skeptics” do, they muddy the waters with junk science. The media sensationalizes everything; they need to sell papers. Again, that’s why you should stick to peer-reviewed literature and information from reputable, unbiased scientific institutions. Of course the peer-review process isn’t infallible but it is hands-down the best source of information we have.

And again, if the peer-reviewed literature and information from reputable, unbiased scientific institutions does not agree with your opinion on the matter, it is more likely that your opinion is the issue.

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

Hrmm.



Quote:

The radioactive elements scraped up to make the bomb would decay on their own releasing the heat anyway, although spread out in time.

Fusion /= Decay. Are you seriously saying hydrogens jump into other hydrogens to make heliums spontaneously all the time on their own?

Again, I'm not saying it's a huge impact on the climate, just saying we humans find lots of interesting ways to make heat. And when we do (something) that creates heat from fuel that wasn't going to spontaneously release its heat on its own, then that *is* "creation" of heat in the system. Further, when plants use radiant energy to make more plant via photosynthesis, and that plant matter doesn't get turned around and burned later, then that is absolutely heat-removal for the purposes of climate modeling. Humans impact both things, and both things are ignored in the climate models. The fact that plants are pulling heat out of the system naturally is ignored in the global albedo calculations of the models. Modelers think a forest, a corn field, and a tennis court are all the same effective albedo for the purposes of global warming, and they're not. You can tell they're not from space, with IR photography.


Hydrology, Drainage Analysis, Flood Studies, and Complex Stormwater Litigation for Atlanta and the South East - http://www.campbellcivil.com

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

i guess that's the difference between 0-700m and 0-2000m ... ??
clearly 800-2000m is very active ... ??

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

I post global OHC 0-2000m. You rebut with North Atlantic (60-0W, 30-65N) OHC 0-700m. You, through acts like this, are the problem I discussed early about “skeptics” purposely muddying the waters with junk science. If you think that climate change should show a 1:1 relationship with CO2 across all temporal and spatial subdivisions then you (even more) clearly have no idea what you’re talking about.

First read this article.

Then look at this data from NOAA regarding the global 0-700m OHC:


0-2000m:
See above

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

As I have discussed previously, anything OHC that is pre-full-deployment of the ARGO float system is both temporally and spatially crap. We don't have enough data yet!!!!!

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

a couple points to ponder ...

1) According to ice core analysis, the atmospheric CO2 concentrations during all four prior interglacials never rose above approximately 290 ppm; whereas the atmospheric CO2 concentration today stands at nearly 390 ppm. The present interglacial is about 2oC colder than the previous interglacial, even though the atmospheric CO2 concentration now is about 100 ppm higher.

2) The preceding four interglacials are seen at about 125,000, 280,000, 325,000 and 415,000 years before now, with much longer glacial periods in between. All four previous interglacials are seen to be warmer (1-3oC) than the present. The typical length of a glacial period is about 100,000 years, while an interglacial period typical lasts for about 10-15,000 years. The present interglacial period has now lasted about 11,600 years.

1) makes me think about our effect on the atmosphere
2) makes me think things are going to change soon ...

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

rb1957... think things are going to change soon?

Personal question: Help an old retired fellow engineer.
I have an acre on a tidal bayou in NW Florida. My house
sits about 17-ft above mean sea level. How soon is soon?
With all this scare stuff going around I had better sell
tomorrow and head to Denver and join the pot heads... Right?

I am sorry to say but there are too many self appointed
experts on this thread. Gpa pipe That's weed in the pipe!

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

From the comments made, Fusion=, well maybe some day we can make fusion happen. Fission is what typically happens in atomic bombs. Fusion is what happens in the sun, and it does a good job of keeping us warm.

"makes me think things are going to change soon..." I expect it to be changing all the time, as space weather will show that SOL is not a constant.

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

cranky, we've know how to do fusion for decades. The H-bomb is primarily a fusion bomb, with a fission trigger. 1952. Heck, even the trigger core is probably fission-boosted.

We've also been doing controlled fusion for decades. How do you think all the new heavy elements came into existence? Whacking lighter elements together hard enough that the nuclei fuse.

In September 2013, Lawrence Livermore (Well NIF at Lawrence Livermore) managed to have controlled fusion with a net (useful) energy gain.

What we can't do is controlled fusion with net useful energy output cheaply enough yet. Lockheed's Skunk Works plans to have a 100 MW prototype built in 2017.

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

ITER should be up and running sometime (soon?, '20s?)

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

You mean we stick things togather for fractions of a second and call that fusion? What ever you say. Minor details, not very useful.
Smoke pot, drink, about the same thing. Either way come to work with an after effect and you may not have a job, or ever work in the same profession again.

From the numbers I heard here, 17 feet should be good enough. Besides another huricane will be there sooner than the rising tide.

About the space weather, has anyone compaired the solar maximums with the earth tempetures?

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

Thanks cranky108... IMHO the planet will be hit by a life ending asteroid or the Yellowstone basin super eruption
before I'm flooded out due to CO2. At least I enjoy reading all the opinions and self-appointed experts on this thread.

When I can’t sleep, I read a few more lines. sleeping

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

personally i liked George Carlin's take on things ... "save the earth ? don't worry about the earth, it was here before us, it'll be here after us, the earth's doing just fine !" (expletives deleted)

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

What are you saving the earth for? Or what are you saving it from? If we are saving it so we can be eco slaves, I'm not sure it's worth it.
I guess we can all become goverment parsites, just to avoid taxes.

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

Cranky, being the self-appointed expert here (aka I don’t allow incorrect statements to go uncorrected which is apparently frowned upon here) , allow me to answer your question with regards to comparing solar activity to temperatures and provide GrandpaDave with some more sleep aids.

It’s a popular “skeptic” argument that the sun is driving the recent change in climate. However, this is, rather unsurprisingly, contrary to the evidence. Although changes in solar activity do have an effect on climate, the effect is minor in comparison with other recent forcings, namely increased CO2 concentrations. The dominance of other forcings makes the recent correlation between solar activity and temperature almost indistinguishable. However, it is there and is effecting temperatures.


Regards,

rconnor
Resident Climate Change Expert

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

rconnor - that's quite the moniker that you've bestowed upon yourself. Truly, this is how Dr. Mann was able to become a Nobel Prize recipient. In the truest of warmist mentality, this is how one becomes an expert. Would you like a knighthood to go along with that, from your fellow warmist The Prince of Wales? In further true warmist fashion then, being an expert, I suppose that you will now try to silence debate, or even deem yourself worth too much to be observed talking with such filthy/evil deniers.

From your picture (which you really ought to provide proper acknowledgement - it's from http://solar-center.stanford.edu/sun-on-earth/600p..., but I guess that experts don't need to be bothered with such indulgences), what is the supposed metric for "Temperature Anomaly"? And while sunspot number is also interesting, I would like to know the variation in the spectral intensity at various wavelengths, as well as the strength of the solar wind. And it is also wise to note that there is (as we've discussed) the large heat capacity of the oceans, so it would be expected that there would be a lag between forcing (of any kind) and response, which the simplistic Stanford graph conveniently leaves out - expecting that a one-to-one correspondence in correlation equals causation. (And I'm talking about something a little bit more complicated than - and yet entirely analogous to - the 3-month lag in seasonal air temperatures)

Sorry, what's that - there isn't spectral intensity data (from the far infrared to the far ultraviolet) going back more than about 20 years? Neither for the strength of the solar wind (and the corresponding resultant change in Galactic Cosmic Rays - GCRs)? Oh right, and we don't have ANY reliable data on Ocean Heat Content until the ARGO floats were fully deployed - maybe 10 years worth of data. And the surface air temperature record has been diddled with so much that Jerry Sandusky is jealous. Hmmm - seems that a lack of data isn't getting in the way of such self-proclaimed experts from knowing, to a fraction of a degree, what the thermodynamic response of the earth's surface fluids (air and water) will be 50-100 years henceforth to a forecast change in CO2! Puleeze!

And you goofs trying to take credit from atomic bomb energy releases - do the figgin' math! Incoming solar irradiance PER SECOND is equal to the TOTAL energy output of the largest man-made bomb (the Soviet Union's TSAR). If we converted all of our fossil fuel usage to heat (with absolutely no work, just straight to heat), it would still be less than 1e-5 of the total incoming solar irradiance.

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

Hip Hip Hooray TGS4... It is all about politics now.
The current POTUS, President Obama, says climate change is a fact.
And everyone knows he has never lied and will always tell the
truth... ponder. He's a great orator and Campaigner-in-Chief, but
what he's saying about climate change being fact is puzzling
since the science is incomplete... IMHO.

It is now time to take action and tax the people more and more
and redistribute the wealth... even the new Pope in Rome is
pushing for that.

Ugh... poke

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

Thanks for the additional sleep aids rconnor.

In your opinion, is the science on climate change complete
and is now a fact as the POTUS states? As far as I can tell,
the science is incomplete but the Politian’s will be running
to increase taxes on the America people. So as China, India and
so on and so forth burn away and pollute with CO2, the people
here and elsewhere will go broke.

So what are the real solution? IMHO, the Politian’s are not the
answer. Look what happened to the federal, oops... taxpayers,
dollars invested in green energy. Yes, Obama's friends and donors.

SHOW, er GIVE, ME THE MONEY... thumbsup2

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

I think the political side is going to get much more interesting. If the dog ate my homework theory is correct, ie multidecade ENSO effects have absorbed all the extra heat and hidden it (even in plain sight, the sea temperature difference is tiny), and the multidecade ENSO cycle behaves as usual, that is 30 to 60 years between peaks, then we can imagine a future where for the next two decades:

a) the developing countries will continue to burn all the fossil fuels they can afford
b) CO2 will continue to rise
c) the pause in global temperatures will continue
d) the science will improve/start
e)the positive feedback effects (and of course negative feedbacks) will be better quantified as a result of d
f)the climate sensitivity assigned to CO2 will change as a result of (e)

But for d and e to take place the funding must continue, and therefore the bleatings of useful idiots is actually serving a worthwhile purpose in the long run, if you think that trying to understand the long term climate is a worthwhile exercise, and to some extent I do. Unfortunately for Europe they are sort of committed to taking the bleatings seriously, although Germany is now pursuing a rather more rational path, which I imagine will involve gently explaining to Denmark that relying on windpower for base load is actually an economic nightmare.




Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

So I ran into this website the other day, and it made me think of this thread. I'm not really trying to argue a point here, just share something a lot of engineers might find pretty cool. Although I do think it's fun to pick through these things and identify which have a higher R^2 value than CO2-Temp (0.84).

I present to you, the Spurious Correlation Generator!

http://www.tylervigen.com/





Hydrology, Drainage Analysis, Flood Studies, and Complex Stormwater Litigation for Atlanta and the South East - http://www.campbellcivil.com

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

Sadly the dog ate my homework theory has now been given the boot as a hot contender.

If ENSO affects global temperatures, on a cyclical basis, then its cyclical affect should show up all around the world. So what we should be able to do is a look at the periodicity of ENSO, which we can estimate historically if somewhat vaguely from weather records in China (I think this the weakness in this analysis), and the periodicity of the temperature record in England, which is well established for 350 years, because people have been measuring it as best they can for that long. (This is called data, as opposed to whatever we'd like to call the extrapolations of computer models, same number of letters).

So, best guess for an ENSO cycle is 30-60 years, with some preference for the 30ish end of things. And, no real sign of a strong 30-60 year cycle in the Pommy weather.

So it looks to me like the dog didn't eat my homework.

Now of course, we all know that rainfall is a much better predictor of temperature than thermometers (or at least tree ring width is supposed to correlate to temp not rainfall in worry-wart world) so perhaps we should be looking at trees or rain gauges, not thermometers. Well, I shall leave that sort of nonsense to the Mann and his followers, I'd rather use a thermometer to measure temperature. And before rconnors arcs up, yes, I know, the temperature record isn't perfect, but if you walk out of the 500 year old pub into the 800 year old graveyard and look around where the thermometer is kept, it ain't no airport.

Rather more interestingly, the average annual temperature in central England, in 1660, was within 1/2 degree C of that last year. Ya gotta larf, or else you'd cry.


http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcet/




Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

TGS4,
The moniker – tongue-in-cheek response to GrandpaDave referring to me as the “self-appointed climate expert”.

Missing reference – You got me! I tried to sneak in some science from the sketchy institution that is Stanford! Here’s the source. More Info. Now please go back to having no issues with fabricated quotes from GWPF or blatant misdirection from NIPCC.

I’ve talked about solar activity and temperatures about 4 times now. I included the proper reference the first time I used that image but I get a little lazy when I have to repeat the same thing over and over due to this special “skeptic” form of memory loss. And seriously, disagree with me all you want, but don’t accuse me of not using references in my posts. Or at the very least, call out every post that doesn’t (starting with yourself).

GCR/Solar Activity – I’ve included a link to 6 papers that conclude against GCR’s having a significant impact on cloud formation in the last thread. Here’s a few:
Gray et al 2010 (from the sketchy Stanford Solar Center)

Quote (Gray et al 2010)

We therefore conclude that the currently available data do not provide substantial support for the hypothesized global cloud cover linkage to cosmic rays.

Kazil et al 2006:

Quote (Kazil et al 2006)

our analysis indicates that the variation of ionization by galactic cosmic rays over the decadal solar cycle does not entail a response in aerosol production and cloud cover via the second indirect aerosol effect that would explain observed variations in global cloud cover. We estimate that the variation in radiative forcing resulting from a response of clouds to the change in galactic cosmic ray ionization and subsequent aerosol production over the decadal solar cycle is smaller than the concurrent variation of total solar irradiance.

Kristjansson et al 2008:

Quote (Kristjansson et al 2008)

no statistically significant correlations were found between any of the four cloud parameters and GCR

Kulmala et al 2010:

Quote (Kulmala et al 2010)

Our main conclusion is that galactic cosmic rays appear to play a minor role for atmospheric aerosol formation events, and so for the connected aerosol-climate effects as well.

Possibly more damning than the countless papers stating that solar activity has had minimal impact over the recent warming (Huber and Knutti 2011, Benestad 2009, Lean 2008, Lockwood 2008, Foukal 2006, Usoskin 2005, Solanki 2004, Slott 2003, Solanki 2003, Lean 1999, Schurer 2013,…), the type of warming cannot be explained by solar activity. Nights are warming faster than days. The stratosphere is cooling while the troposphere is warming. Ray Pierrehumbert (U of Chicago) put it best when he said, when referring to the hypothesis that solar activity is causing the recent change in climate:

Quote (Ray Pierrehumbert)

That’s a coffin with so many nails in it already that the hard part is finding a place to hammer in a new one

OHC Data – I agree that the new ARGO Data is by far the best we have but tell me how the trend of ARGO data (black) tracks the pentadal data (blue) in the 0-2000m NOAA graph above? It sits 1.29x10^22 J below the pentadal (comparing 2011 data) but the trend is almost identical. Even if you choose to remain agnostic until after more data is out, there is NOTHING to suggest that conclusions drawn from the pentadal data will be disproven with the ARGO data. In fact, the first 9 years appear to be validating the pentadal data. You also need to keep in mind that all other metrics (global temperature, humidity, sea ice, sea level, glaciers, etc.) all trend in directions that support a warming climate. The CO2 theory not only does an excellent job explaining these trends, it also does a good job predicting them. Whereas solar activity, described above, fails miserably at both.

A-Bomb – Thank you.

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

Of the 14 or so groups that support your theory, how many of them have you quoted? And how many don't do there own studies?

And how much economic theory has been studied to determine the effectiveness of more taxes? Or how many jobs will be lost in this country? Or how it will effect the averige tax payer/voter?

How much study has been done to determine the effects of more power given to the UN?

How much more money will be given to cronies of the president, and how many more will go bankrupt?

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

So this is interesting.

http://www.staatvanhetklimaat.nl/2014/05/01/lennar...

Quote:

Q:
Is there according to you a “climate consensus” in the community of climate scientists and if so what is it?

Bengtsson:
I believe the whole climate consensus debate is silly. There is not a single well educated scientist that question that greenhouse gases do affect climate. However, this is not the issue but rather how much and how fast. Here there is no consensus as you can see from the IPCC report where climate sensitivity varies with a factor of three! Based on observational data climate sensitivity is clearly rather small and much smaller that the majority of models. Here I intend to stick to Karl Popper in highlighting the need for proper validation.

Q:
Mojib Latif once said at a conference of the WMO (in 2009) “we have to ask the nasty questions ourselves”. Do you think the climate community is doing that (enough)? or are others like the GWPF needed to ask these “nasty” questions? If so, what does this say about the state of Academia?

Bengtsson:
I think the climate community shall be more critical and spend more time to understand what they are doing instead of presenting endless and often superficial results and to do this with a critical mind. I do not believe that the IPCC machinery is what is best for science in the long term. We are still in a situation where our knowledge is insufficient and climate models are not good enough. What we need is more basic research freely organized and driven by leading scientists without time pressure to deliver and only deliver when they believe the result is good and solid enough. It is not for scientists to determine what society should do. In order for society to make sensible decisions in complex issues it is essential to have input from different areas and from different individuals. The whole concept behind IPCC is basically wrong.

Quote:

Bengtsson (born 1935) was the director of of ECMWF (European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasting) for 18 years and after that he was the director of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg.

Hydrology, Drainage Analysis, Flood Studies, and Complex Stormwater Litigation for Atlanta and the South East - http://www.campbellcivil.com

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

More from Bengtsson:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2630023/St...

Quote:

The five contributing scientists submitted the paper to Environmental Research Letters – a highly regarded journal – but were told it had been rejected. A scientist asked by the journal to assess the paper under the peer review process reportedly wrote: ‘It is harmful as it opens the door for oversimplified claims of “errors” and worse from the climate sceptics media side.’

Prof Bengtsson, 79, said it was ‘utterly unacceptable’ to advise against publishing a paper on the political grounds.

He said: ‘It is an indication of how science is gradually being influenced by political views. The reality hasn’t been keeping up with the [computer] models.

Hydrology, Drainage Analysis, Flood Studies, and Complex Stormwater Litigation for Atlanta and the South East - http://www.campbellcivil.com

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

Yes... It fits right into Arianna's spinning... pipe

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

Wow!

So a week after Bengtsson joins GWPF, he is forced to resign by bullying within the scientific community.

link

Quote:

Dear Professor Henderson,

I have been put under such an enormous group pressure in recent days from all over the world that has become virtually unbearable to me. If this is going to continue I will be unable to conduct my normal work and will even start to worry about my health and safety. I see therefore no other way out therefore than resigning from GWPF. I had not expect[ed] such an enormous world-wide pressure put at me from a community that I have been close to all my active life. Colleagues are withdrawing their support, other colleagues are withdrawing from joint authorship etc.

I see no limit and end to what will happen. It is a situation that reminds me about the time of McCarthy. I would never have expect[ed] anything similar in such an original peaceful community as meteorology. Apparently it has been transformed in recent years.

Under these [sic] situation I will be unable to contribute positively to the work of GWPF and consequently therefore I believe it is the best for me to reverse my decision to join its Board at the earliest possible time.

With my best regards

Lennart Bengtsson

This is not how scientists are supposed to behave. Behavior like this among the scientific community is directly responsible for the distrust being levied at that community. Period.

Hydrology, Drainage Analysis, Flood Studies, and Complex Stormwater Litigation for Atlanta and the South East - http://www.campbellcivil.com

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

Distrust in the meteorology field? The weather guy I watch is not because he is often correct, but because he is funny.

They almost never predict rain correctly, but they do predict wind correctly.

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

Quote:

Here's another take on this so-called 'controversy': (link)

Good lord.

I understand and expect that sort of brazenly pejorative language from a Huffpo blog, but to read down to the bottom and discover that the author is the head of an academic department at Penn State is simply ridiculous. How can anyone claim to be an unbiased scientist while authoring such obviously vitriolic articles? Seems to me Mann's article supports Bengtsson's claims.

Hydrology, Drainage Analysis, Flood Studies, and Complex Stormwater Litigation for Atlanta and the South East - http://www.campbellcivil.com

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

Two “issues” here:
1) The rejection of Bengtsson’s paper
The paper was rejected because it was not a good paper. Pure and simple. The publisher of Environmental Research Letters, IOP Publishing, released a statement addressing the fabricated accusations put forward by the Times. They even went so far as to release the referee reports. Here are some highlights (my bold):
Referee One:
“The overall innovation of the manuscript is very low”
“The paper does not make any significant attempt at explaining our understanding the differences, it rather puts out a very simplistic negative message giving at least the implicit impression of “errors” being made within and between these assessments…What a paper with this message should have done instead is recognizing and explaining a series of “reasons” and “causes” for the differences.”
“And I can’t see an honest attempt of constructive explanation in the manuscript.”

Referee Two:
“On the second point [regarding developing an “understanding why any apparent inconsistencies and differences might exist”], the manuscript has little to offer”
“the authors have only superficially demonstrated possible inconsistencies. Moreover, in addressing the question of “committed warming”, the authors have inexplicably used the wrong equation
“Even before making this error, there is a troubling shallowness in the arguments describing apparent discrepancies in estimates of forcing and equilibrium climate sensitivity.”

With comments like that, Bengtsson seems like a perfect fit for GWPF!

Bengtsson even went so far as to denounce the Times story:

Quote (Bengtsson)

I do not believe there is any systematic “cover up” of scientific evidence on climate change or that academics’ work is being “deliberately suppressed”, as The Times front page suggests. I am worried by a wider trend that science is being gradually being influenced by political views. Policy decisions need to be based on solid fact.

For completeness, I included the latter portion of the quote. However, it’s rather odd that he’d say that amidst joining (and then leaving) a political advocacy group. It appears to be even more hypocritical given some of his politically charged comments, such as referring to global warming activists as “romantic green Communists” (translation).

2) The “harassment” of Bengtsson over him joining GWPF
It’s not like climate “skeptics” would EVER harass climate scientists! Joking aside, when these allegations come out, regardless of who is targeting who, it is ugly and unnecessary. However, the extent of the “harassment” is unknown. Outlets have asked for specific examples of the harassment, none have been provided. Lots of speculation, very few facts.

I’m sure that colleagues and fellow scientists told him that joining such an institution would seriously damage his credibility. Given the garbage we’ve seen come out of GWPF, I would suggest that it was probably sound career advice.

All-in-all, more rubbish from a rubbish paper about a rubbish institution. But a nice distraction for “skeptics” to use, given all the reports that have come out as of late indicating the severity of climate change.

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

If China is going to continue to put carbon into the air, and probally more if we continue to buy from them. What is the real goal that we can achieve?
Is the UN goal obtainable? Or is this wishful thinking, or worst economic sucide?

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

Reading more into that Michael Mann character... he's a real hoot. I'm not sure I'd call him the most unbiased source of scientific commentary, given how he butters his bread.

Hydrology, Drainage Analysis, Flood Studies, and Complex Stormwater Litigation for Atlanta and the South East - http://www.campbellcivil.com

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

3
The randomness of these posts drives me up the wall. Let’s recap the conversation since May 2:

- Unrelated article by rb1957 from NIPCC regarding the LIA in central Mexico record (followed by a bunch of random posts from various people)
- I show that NIPCC purposefully took the quotes out of context, failed to link to the actual paper or abstract so reader’s couldn’t confirm and then drew a BS conclusion not supported by the paper. (rb9157, graciously accepts this correction) I attempt to bring the conversation back to the OP, which was about the credibility of NIPCC.
- Cranky posts something about taxes
- Controlnovice joins the conversation by attempting to link climate science to religion.
- Beej links to a video about a-bomb tests, suggesting it might be to blame for (at least part of the) global warming
- I address both controlnovice’s (no response) and beej’s random comments
- TenPenny takes exception to a single word in my post
- I address TenPenny’s concern (no response)
- Beej tries to defend this a-bomb/h-bomb hypothesis, says OHC was flat from 1975 to 1995 (no source), posts a doctored image from Joannenova of Jevrejeva et al 2008 (read the actual paper and other papers on sea level reconstruction). Followed by some random posts about funding, fusion and conservation of energy.
- I address the a-bomb thing, provide NOAA data clearly demonstrating that OHC was not flat from 1975 to 1995 (despite it being a cherry-picked period in the first place)
- Beej responds to my graph of GLOBAL OHC 0-2000m with NORTH ATLANTIC OHC 0-700m
- I point out this gimmick. (no response)
- TGS4 comes out of retirement to restate his problem with OHC data
- rb1957 posts some random points about paleoclimate
- More random posts about fusion
- Cranky posts something about taxes. Asks a question about solar influence on climate change.
- I address the question
- TGS4 jumps on the fact I didn’t properly reference the graph. Brings up GCR’s.
- Greg posts something about ENSO, says he’s doing some analysis (I’m not sure what he was getting at so I’m awaiting his results to hopefully clarify)
- I address GCR’s and solar influences in much more detail (no response)
- Cranky posts something about not trusting the UN
- Beej provides another random post about Bengtsson
- I address it
- Cranky posts something about China
- Beej chooses to drop the whole Bengtsson thing without comment and talks about Michael Mann

I get the fact that forum conversations will get side-tracked but this is absurd. It’s nothing but Gish Gallop! Throw enough mud against the wall and hope something sticks. When your argument is debunked, ignore it and move onto the next unrelated argument. All of these are either factually incorrect, unsupported by data/studies, random opinions, superficial, non-sequitars, pure sophism or a combination thereof. This is so representative of climate change “skepticism”.

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

I missed the bullet proving that turning over control of an arbitrarily concocted derivatives market, designed to manipulate all carbon emissions, to the same clowns who crashed the US economy for giggles in 2008, is supposed to reverse global warming, without any participation from China, India, or the Middle East.

Which post was that again?

Hydrology, Drainage Analysis, Flood Studies, and Complex Stormwater Litigation for Atlanta and the South East - http://www.campbellcivil.com

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

Different things appeal to different people, and it is a huge subject that runs across science, economics, politics and psychology. So yes it'll be unstructured.

Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

I think it would be less frustrating for many of us if we broke this problem into subjects that could be explored in detail. For example, one thread could discuss if the planet is really warming or not. Nothing about causes. Nothing about solutions. Just the evidence for or against warming. Another thread could be founded on the base that the planet is warming and talk only about causes. People who do not believe warming exists could choose not to participate in that one. Another thread could discuss possible solutions. This would be nice. But, I already know that it is impossible.

If I start a thread discussing the use of a particular material for pump shafting, I would not expect arguments to break out in the thread about whether that same material should be used for wear-rings. I would not expect people to insist that because this material is a poor choice for wear rings that it should be excluded from use in any pump parts. I would not expect arguments about the safety conditions in one of the mines that produces one of the constituents of that shafting material. I would not expect an argument about the relative merits of API pumps versus ANSI pumps in that same thread. When we are discussing an engineering subject, we do a pretty good job of staying on topic. Why can't we do the same thing when it comes to global warming?

Johnny Pellin

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

(OP)
Like Greg posted, this is a HUGE subject area that includes many sub-topics and as such will naturally tend to wander. I don't think breaking it down as suggested would work; we would just end up with several threads wandering.
Posting specific engineering questions leaves much less leeway for such situations to take root.

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

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

rconnor is upset that:
a) we all don't bow down before his awesomeness
b) some of us don't participate on his schedule
c) many of us don't follow his schedule and discuss topics when he wants us to
d) we don't follow his topical coherence on a topic that is the subject of hundreds of billions of dollars of ongoing research worldwide
e) we don't bow down to the majesty of his quoted pal-reviewed articles
f) we are not convinced, as he is, by the computer gamesimulations, of which he has no professional experience, nor any academic experience, and so relies on the logical fallacy of appeal to authority - the authority of which has demonstrated zero skill in even short-term forecasting ability, let alone long-term ability

Well, cry me a river.

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

The answer is no we don't have to all agree on that global warming/global cooling is real and that taxes are the only way to solve it. Oh, and that it is man caused, and only the UN can fix it.

I disagree with the solution for so many reasons, the least of which is there is only one proposed solution.

I don't want an orginized debate. I want a complete explanation on why your conclusion is the only conclusion that works? And how you came to that conclusion? And for you to answer every question I may have.

No I don't trust the goverment or the UN, nor have they given me a reason to trust them.

And why should we change anything?

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

Folks... Isn't rconner a self-appointed expert who is all knowing on subjects of this thread.
No one should challenge is expertise.

Oops... There I go again. My tongue is stuck against my cheek again.
I am all ears if this isn't so.
bigears

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

Many of you skeptics should be ashamed of yourselves.

Rconner has posted a lot of really good solid information. He has done so with more politeness than I could muster.

You skeptics have.

Ignored evidence counter to your position ( repeatedly )
Keep bringing up these points despite not addressing his criticisms.
Fallen into conspiracy thinking and inditing science itself as for sale without *any* evidence.
And lastly resorted to mocking and insulting rconner simply because you cannot answer his challenges.

I know who is the adult in this room.

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

I know who the adults in the room are, too.

They stay very very quiet.

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

I’m disappointed by your reply TGS4. Not because it is purely ad hominem , as many of my replies have become so curt (due to my frustration with the lack of coherency of the discourse) that they, frankly, merit (or at least spur on) some personal attacks. Instead, my disappointment is because your response seems to offer validation to this charade, at least implicitly. Out of any other skeptic here, I’ve found that when you offer an argument, for the most part you support it with data/references as best you can and acknowledge and response to criticism of your arguments (GregLocock, on occasion you deserve credit for this as well). I believe that your conversations on the BC tax, humidity and models have lead to some fruitful discussions, exactly for this reason. This is why I’m surprised and disappointed that you so bluntly rejected a call for a more rational, higher quality discussion.

I understand that this is a broad topic with many different facets which will lead the conversation to be pulled in many different directions, as GregLocock suggested. However, that is not the issue here or, at least, that is not my issue. The problem is that arguments are not supported and not defended. When a rebuttal to an argument is presented, it is ignored and then another, unrelated argument is put forth. Later in the conversation, the original argument, with the rebuttal still not addressed, is brought up again. This leads to a hodge-podge of posts where nothing is actually discussed or debated, let alone learned.

This forum is one of very high quality; the technical aspects are tremendous. I’m asking that this quality be extended to this conversation. I find it disheartening that by doing so, I’m being tagged as arrogant or forcing others to “bow down before [my] awesomeness”. I’ll fully admit that I am strident, curt and, at times, down-right disrespectful in my responses and so will take the jabs that come from that and accept that I’m partly responsible for the denigration of this discussion. However, this needs to be disconnected from a plea for an increase in the rationality and coherency in this discussion which, to any outside observer, is sorely lacking. Having said this, part of me knows that this just isn’t the place to have a good quality discussion on climate change, as much as I’d like it to be.

(cranky, I’m actually working on a post (new thread) which outlines the theory in its completeness, rather than a piecemeal defense that I’ve been doing thus far. My hope is that it will address many concerns all in one place. It will likely be my last, much to the joy of the eng-tips community.)

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

At any time you propose a change, including new regulation, or taxes, I believe you have a burden of proof as to why a change needs to be made.

There is no reason that people who like the status quo, need to defend that position. Why is this subject different?

The proof maybe in, to Al Gore, but it has not been presented to the satification of other people.

One point is that we may never have all the information on the reactions of ... say the Chineese, so a margen must be accounted for in those cases.

So I ask, if I assume your issue is true, why are economic cripling taxes the only answer?
Why should I trust goverment funded science? Or even why is the AMA even in this discussion.
And what are other countries going to do in responce to our actions?

And why are my other solutions, to a problem I don't believe in, being ignored (like some clame I have been doing)?

I don't expect real answers here, but a better understanding of the complexities of the issue.

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

It may be a good idea to close this thread
down if the creator, ewh, has heard enough.
Does he still come on this thread or did he
start it on purpose to turn engineers against
each other?
pipe

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

Quote:

cranky, I’m actually working on a post (new thread) which outlines the theory in its completeness

Sweet. Don't forget the most important part:

Quote:

...proving how turning over control of an arbitrarily concocted derivatives market, designed to manipulate all carbon emissions, to the same clowns who crashed the US economy for giggles in 2008, will reverse global warming without any participation from China, India, or the Middle East.

Hydrology, Drainage Analysis, Flood Studies, and Complex Stormwater Litigation for Atlanta and the South East - http://www.campbellcivil.com

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

Probability continues to increase for El Nino conditions:

http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_mon...

If I am understanding the arguments correctly, the global average temperatures seen during an El Nino event should be higher, and if they are, will support the climate change consensus explanation of the temperature pause. In an El Nino event, we should be seeing record-high (or near record high) temperatures for the year.

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

(OP)
GrandpaDave,
I do still lurk here, trying to soak in as much info as I can while ignoring the ad hominem attacks... my last post was 22 May 14 8:27.
I have no objection to closing the thread, but a new one will probably pop back up again before very long. There have been over 1400 responses over a series of related threads so far, and my ulterior motive for starting this one was the time it took to load the former thread.

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

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

ewh... That's probably a record on hits... Congrads
This subject will continue for a long time.
I'm still not convinced that the science is closed.
I'm all for clean water and clean air. But I'm not
for shutting down coal and oil as the President's
regulation are doing. The regs should result in cleaner
coal and oil uses and management. Keystone should
move forward.
G-pa pipe

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

Science is simply relative to what is well known and completely understood, with sound postulation and the testing and development of correct theories. I don't think climatology and all of its inter-related mechanisms fits that litmus test just yet. History is full of junk science and quackery, and this area is truly in its infancy. Too much so that conclusions are not even a valid response at this point. After all, the earth was once the center of our solar system. Only after sufficient observation did it finally get sorted out, and if memory serves, one of our great scientists narrowly escaping the chopping block.

When the penalty phase is ramped up and pushed for at this stage of understanding and whole industries slated for obsolescence without sound reasoning, this sets off the alarm bells. We are letting politics once again choose the winners and losers by allowing the science to be corrupted and biased toward whomever is funding it. With funding the way it is, it would take a very mature and insightful body to keep bias out of it, but when you pay for something, you want your money's-worth, right? This is why people are so skeptical, myself included.

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

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

If they'd just hurry up with those gulf stream turbines we could have all the free energy we need, usable as regular base load without all the hassle of wind and solar. Seems like a much better thing to throw federal money at than carbon freakoutery, regardless of whether you believe the freakoutery or not.

Hydrology, Drainage Analysis, Flood Studies, and Complex Stormwater Litigation for Atlanta and the South East - http://www.campbellcivil.com

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

Nice link, Tom. Agree, let's see where the next El Nino takes us. If by this time next year, the global average temperature is fully 1 C or more above the last several years, we may begin to have something to talk about...unless the following La Nina takes all of that anomaly away again and more.

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/05/23/taxpaye...

Yeah, this. This is the kind of BS we definitely don't need.

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

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

If you look at the temperature record of the 20th century it does look as though the basic behavior is a series of sudden jumps, followed by long plateaus. This could be ENSO, or some other oceanic mechanism, absorbing and releasing massive amounts of heat over a cycle with a length of decades. (It's a brilliant arse saving theory because the temperature changes are unmeasurably small and vary spatially, and we only have a few buoys measuring them)

But the jumps and plateau theory looks a bit suss in the long term.

Here's a 5 year moving average of the part of the CET I am working with at the moment. I like the CET as it is actual measured temperatures, not tree rings.



Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

I have a feeling that operational gulf stream turbines would stir up Central English Temperatures. A very big butterfly.

- Steve

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

GregLocock, I’m rather confused as to what your point is. CET is not a global temperature data set. To highlight this, 2010 was globally the hottest year on record for HadCRUT4 (and every other data set) but was the coldest since 1986 for HadCET. While CET may be a very accurate data set, it is not representative of anything besides regional temperatures. Furthermore, I need to ask why your graph stops at ~1975? HadCET data is available all the way up to 2014. My guess would be because you are going off Manley 1974.

I’m unsure of what conclusions you are trying to draw or have us draw from showing a regional data set up to ~1975. It certainly has nothing to do with global climate because it’s purely regional data. It certainly has nothing to do with recent warming because it ends in ~1975 and the trend after ~1980 climbs rapidly. There was a downward trend starting around 2005. The most notable drops occurred in 2010 (which, again, highlights the variability in dealing with such an isolated region and the inability to extend any conclusions globally), 2012 and 2013. However, thus far, 2014 appears to be back to the upward trend seen since 1980. Regardless, the period from 2005 is likely to be highly effected by the high variability of a small region.

Regarding the staircase effect on global temperature trends, ENSO is certainly an aspect and, during some periods, the most dominate one. However, aerosols (both from volcanoes and humans) and solar activity need to be taken into account. None of this suggests lower sensitivity nor does it suggest a natural driver to recent climate change. Quite the contrary actually, as ENSO alone cannot be attributed to a continual rise in OHC and long-term temperature trends and solar activity is moving in the opposite direction than temperatures. Aerosols from natural sources are short term and aerosols from humans are increasing but the fact that they continue to rise while global temperatures and OHC do as well suggests that they have a smaller cooling effect than the warming effect of CO2. A complete understanding of the CO2 theory, ENSO, solar activity and aerosols does both explain and simulate the changes seen in the temperature record. By “brilliant arse saving theory”, I’m guessing you actually mean “best theory as supported by empirical data and our scientific understanding”.

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

Greg...

You must not up set the resident, self appointed expert.
You see if you don't agree or have another opinion you
are wrong.

Oops, my tongue is stuck in my cheek again. Sorry.

G-pa Dave pipe

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

Apparently, if the Lord mentions you by name, you are expected to reply with a well-supported response. Including 8x10 color glossy photos, with circles and arrows, and a paragraph on the back of each one.

Me, I just eat popcorn instead, after he slagged me for not responding appropriately.

Why anyone expects this thread to result in any sort of reasoned discourse escapes me.

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

rconnor - my reply to you is not ad hominem. I am not invalidating your arguments by attacking your person (the very definition of the term). In my post, I make no comment about your arguments. Rather, I am simply ridiculing you, or, if you prefer, exposing you to ridicule, for what I perceive as your whiny attitude of "I have presented the evidence, why won't anyone believe me...".

I do applaud you for not resorting to the inflammatory language used by some of the warmunists. I am particularly puzzled when I get referred to as a denier - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denier_%28unit%29#Den.... smile

However, by not explicitly calling out climate communication idiots like Mike Mann or Dana Nutticelli for their ridiculously over-the-top agenda-above-nuance screech-fests, you end up no better than they are. I suspect that a more-nuanced approach to understanding certainty can be provided by Dr. Curry who has blogged extensively on the topic. Even if all of the evidence that you have presented demonstrates (at least in your perspective) sufficient cause to demonstrate causal relationships and future concern, you need to acknowledge the uncertainty inherent in EVERYTHING related to the evidence, not the least of which is small things like selection bias, measurement uncertainty, etc. You look at a certain line of evidence (or multiple lines of evidence, as you have repeated reminded us) and see not only past certainty but future certainty which compels a particular set of actions. I look at the same evidence and see wide uncertainty bands that demonstrates only past uncertainty and absolutely no future certainty. Therefore, I am compelled to wait for more data. That doesn't make me (or anyone who has the same perspective) #antiscience or #climatedenier or part of the supposedly vast conspiratorial #kochmachine.

And if you bring up consensus, I will keep bringing up h. pylori, phlogiston, relativity and all sorts of other "settled science". And an appeal-to-authority will bring a reminder of that simple chap in the Swiss patent office.

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

Perhaps a good question might be, why does the CET record, which was done with thermometers, not show the long term trend that the other more politically convenient estimates of historical temperature, using tree rings and so on, do? Now I can see there are problems with CET, it is largely influenced by the ocean, and as discussed previously, the ocean temperature does not change much due to the enormous heat capacity compared with the atmosphere. Additionally the UK has its own form of central heating via the Gulf Stream, so perhaps CET is really a measure of the strength/location/temperature of the Gulf Stream, rather than a proxy for the global temperature.

Well when I've finished messing about with ENSO/CET I might have a look at politically convenient temperature reconstructions vs CET.

Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

Hey TenPenny, save me a spot on the Group W Bench, would you? I'm still waiting for rconnor's new thread where he explains, in detail...

...how turning over control of an arbitrarily concocted derivatives market, designed to manipulate all United States carbon emissions, to the same clowns who crashed the US economy for giggles in 2008, will reverse global warming (from all sources) without any participation from China, India, or the Middle East.

He promised us it was forthcoming.

Hydrology, Drainage Analysis, Flood Studies, and Complex Stormwater Litigation for Atlanta and the South East - http://www.campbellcivil.com

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

Ran across this today:

http://www.cato.org/blog/current-wisdom-we-calcula...

Quote:

Using our calculator, you can specify

the carbon dioxide emissions reduction amount (calculated from the 2005 baseline) that will take place by the year 2050 (and remain in place thereafter),
the region which will take part in the emissions reduction plan (the United States, or for the more optimistic, the industrialized nations of the world),
and the climate sensitivity (how much you think the global average temperature will increase as a result of a doubling of the pre-industrial atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration). The United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) modestly-educated guess is 3.0°C, but a collection of reports from the recent scientific literature puts the value around 2.0°C, and based on recent global temperature behavior, a value of 1.5°C may be most appropriate. Not wanting to leave firebrands like former NASA employee James Hansen out of the fun, we include the option of selecting an extremely high climate sensitivity value of 4.5°C.

Quote:

The results from our calculator are produced from climate change calculations performed using the MAGICC climate model simulator (MAGICC: Model for the Assessment of Greenhouse-gas Induced Climate Change). MAGICC was developed by scientists at the National Center for Atmospheric Research under funding by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

It's a pretty great way to apply current modeling to potential policy, in a way that rconnor has been very reluctant to do, whenever someone presses him on it. And the results are quite interesting.

Hydrology, Drainage Analysis, Flood Studies, and Complex Stormwater Litigation for Atlanta and the South East - http://www.campbellcivil.com

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

Quote:

Now I can see there are problems with CET, it is largely influenced by the ocean, and as discussed previously, the ocean temperature does not change much due to the enormous heat capacity compared with the atmosphere.

Wouldn't the ocean's effect make the CET a more accurate representation of the earth as a whole, or is the goal to consider atmospheric temperature only, not the temperature of the earth? I know it's only one geographical location, but if you're considering long term changes due to man's activity, doesn't it make sense to do that in a specific location that has active humans in it?

Where the ocean is in effect a large capacitor, if you are considering the earth, don't you have to include it as part of the system?

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

GregLocock, although humorous, your first response does little to help answer my question. As I am genuinely intrigued by the prospect of your analysis, I am interested in clarifying your intention and methods. Which is why I appreciate your second response as it attempts to address my question. However, your second response only adds to my confusion (or, rather, illustrates my point).

Quote (GregLocock)

why does the CET record, which was done with thermometers, not show the long term trend that the other more politically convenient estimates of historical temperature, using tree rings and so on, do?
Ignoring the unnecessary verbiage, you still have not addressed why using a regional data set up to 1974 is at all relevant to a discussion on global climate change. As I stated, although you feel it is much more accurate than other data sources, it is a regional data set that is not necessarily reflective of global temperatures. Furthermore, your statement that CET shows a different long-term trend than other global paleoclimate data is untrue, on top of being irrelevant.



Clearly, the trends match each other closely, with CET having much higher year-to-year variability. Again, this highlights the inherent variability in looking at such a small regional data set and the inability to project conclusions globally. Beyond that, the only conclusion that could be reached by the comparison is that CET, which you believe is much more accurate, validates the other data sets. Although I feel this is, unfortunately, contrary to your opinion.

The irrelevancy of CET data only grows when you are attempting to provide some link to ENSO events. Why use CET (north Atlantic) data when trying to conclude something about ENSO (which develop in the equatorial Pacific)? Might I suggest looking at AMO, which would be much more relevant to CET data.

There certainly are multi-decadal oscillations (hence the “MO” in AMO) prior to the rapid increase in anthropogenic CO2 emissions, with the temperature trend of both CET (regional, AMO) and BEST (global, AMO and ENSO) following roughly sinusoidal trends. This is in keeping with our understanding of both AMO and ENSO, which have a significant short term effect on temperature, oscillating between positive and negative, but have no inherent mechanism that could result in a long term imbalance. Conversely, after the rapid increase in anthropogenic CO2 emissions, both CET and BEST seem to follow an equation roughly closer to T(t)= sinX(t) + Y(t). Note this is also during a time when solar activity was in decline and aerosols were increasing, both of which should contribute to decreasing temperatures.

To say that ENSO (or AMO) are responsible for the recent long-term warming trend would be contrary to the physical understanding of these phenomena and contrary to both paleoclimate and modern data, including your chosen (but still irrelevant) CET data set. Yet, when the complete picture is taken into account (CO2, solar, aerosols, ENSO, AMO, albedo, etc) you can both explain and simulate temperature trends, with CO2 being central to both paleo and modern observations.

I remain interested in your analysis and am hoping that you can provide clarification if and where I have misunderstood your intentions. However, I also remain skeptical of both the relevancy and accuracy of any conclusions regarding recent global climate change that can be drawn by connection ENSO and CET data up to 1974.

To aid you in your research, this might be of use and this.

TGS4, you were attempting to invalidate my argument by attacking my person. My argument was that the lack of coherency and lack of defense against rebuttals has severely denigrated this debate. You responded by saying I was whining that people weren’t agreeing with me. This purposefully misses the point, in an attempt to portray me as arrogant and whiny (which is likely true but is nevertheless irrelevant). You’ve continued to miss the point in this reply, so let me be clear:

My issue is not that people disagree with me. My issue is that people are unwilling to engage in any sort of debate. When presented with facts and figures that counter their claims, very infrequently do people address such rebuttals. In order for the quality of this debate to improve, from both sides, this needs to be addressed. But after reading these replies, I’m not holding my breath that this will happen. (and if you consider this whining, then I suppose we have different definitions of what a rational dialogue is)

Beej, I have not replied because:
1) by addressing each and every one of your posts, I feel complicit in this nonsensical charade of random, unrelated arguments. At the very least it encourages and slightly validates it, so I will stop.
2) almost all of my criticisms of the litany of unrelated and unsupported arguments you’ve present remain open, without defense by you. I’d encourage you to defend previous arguments before opening new ones.
3) the demand that I address your posts presents a frustrating double standard. It’s a game that I will no longer take part in.
4) IPCC reports clearly outline temperature projections along different emission paths. As you’ve said you read the reports in detail, I’m sure you’re familiar with them and, thus, I shouldn’t be required to restate it.
5) you’ve manufactured a straw man scenario that is not representative of real attempts to reduce CO2 emissions, at least not the attempts I advocate for. You’ve failed to address those that I do advocate for, such as revenue-neutral carbon taxes that have had success in BC.
6) As stated to cranky a while back, what to do to minimize climate change is a separate question than whether or not climate change is caused by anthropogenic CO2. If you don’t agree it’s caused by anthropogenic CO2 than discussing what to do about it is meaningless. If you’re willing to state that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are the primary cause of climate change and that future, unmitigated climate change will be negative, then I suppose I could talk about mitigation measures with you.
7) I’ve been busy organizing, preparing my soccer team for and going to a showcase tournament out of town, which I just got back from.

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

All I am doing is looking at reconstructed ENSO strength, and HADCET, and seeing if there is any correlation between them in a signal analysis sense, using the standard methods I would use when examining the relationship between any two signals. If ENSO does not share signal characteristics with HADCET then it seems unlikely that the ENSO is affecting HADCET, and so the dog ate my homework theory is less believable. If on the other hand one or the other is a leading indicator for the other then we can make testable predictions.

Well I'm glad HADCET is a reasonable proxy for global temps, that's one less argument.

Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

Meanwhile "AUSTRALIA’S peak body of earth scientists has declared itself unable to publish a position statement on climate change due to the deep divisions within its membership on the issue.

After more than five years of debate and two false starts, Geological Society of Australia president Laurie Hutton said a statement on climate change was too difficult to achieve.

Mr Hutton said the issue “had the potential to be too divisive and would not serve the best interests of the society as a whole.”

The backdown, published in the GSA quarterly newsletter, is the culmination of two rejected position statements and years of furious correspondence among members. Some members believe the failure to make a strong statement on climate change is an embarrassment that puts Australian earth scientists at odds with their international peers.

It undermines the often cited stance that there is near unanimity among climate scientists on the issue."

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/health-scienc...#

Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

GregLocock,

Thanks for the clarification. I understand your intentions much more clearly but that also causes my skepticism of your methods to be much clearer. Why would you use HadCET data to study the effect of ENSO? Although ENSO does have a global impact, the regional impact is likely least noticeable in the North Atlantic. Furthermore, while HadCET does indeed track other paleotemperature data sets well, that does not validate the aptness of selecting it for this purpose; it merely invalidates your issue with the other data sets or puts you in a contradictory position if you continue to slag other data sets while promoting CET. The year-to-year variability in CET makes it a very poor choice versus a global data set. The regional noise, which again is very distant from where ENSO events develop, is likely to obfuscate the global trend imposed by ENSO. No better example than 2010 which was a strong El Nino year and was the hottest year on every major modern temperature data set. While, in HadCET, 2010 was anomalously cold (see the drastic drop near the end of the graph).

I would encourage you to use a global temperature data set to ensure your analysis is not skewed by the regional variability in CET. However, it is merely a recommendation and, regardless of the data set, I look forward to your results.

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

Since I am not concerned with annual variation HADCET's aqnnual variabiality doesn't worry me, signal processing which is based on real maths not statistics is quite capable of getting me a multidecadal cycle correlation. I can of course apply the same method to other temperature reconstructions, and I probably will.

However given that the ENSO record is itself a reconstruction, and shares much the same data sources, that seems rather less useful as a check.

Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

Quote:

2) almost all of my criticisms of the litany of unrelated and unsupported arguments you’ve present remain open, without defense by you. I’d encourage you to defend previous arguments before opening new ones.
3) the demand that I address your posts presents a frustrating double standard. It’s a game that I will no longer take part in.

Clearly you're not familiar with the rules of Policy Debate, which state that the affirmative team must defend both their case ("yes there is a problem") and plan ("..and we must do ___ to fix it") whereas the negative team must only show that either there is no problem, or that the problem is not the level the Aff team claims, or that the plan won't fix it, or that the disadvantages of the plan outweigh the advantages. The burden of proof is on you. Sorry you don't like that, but you're the one that's advocating these ridiculous policies.

Here's some reading material:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Policy_debate#Burdens...

The burden of proof is on the guy who wants to implement the policy.

Quote:

You’ve failed to address those that I do advocate for, such as revenue-neutral carbon taxes that have had success in BC.

Oh, I addressed them quite well with the last link. According to the MAGICC model, developed by the National Center for Atmospheric Research under funding by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and presuming a mean climate sensitivity of 3 degrees C (which is generous given the current IPCC literature), the USA could eliminate 100% of carbon emissions tomorrow and only produce a 0.052 degree drop in the 2050 global mean temperature. (0.137 degree drop in the 2100 temperature)

Even if you buy the science, the policy is nonsense.

Hydrology, Drainage Analysis, Flood Studies, and Complex Stormwater Litigation for Atlanta and the South East - http://www.campbellcivil.com

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

Unrelated: good luck with your soccer stuff. I just started playing again last year for the first time since the Clinton administration. It's been a real kick in my aging ass, but I've really enjoyed the opportunity and incentive to get in shape.

Hydrology, Drainage Analysis, Flood Studies, and Complex Stormwater Litigation for Atlanta and the South East - http://www.campbellcivil.com

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

Greg, fair enough. Good luck with the analysis and I look forward to the results.

Beej, and some reading material for you. While I agree that the burden of proof lies with those purporting the theory, they (and I) are not responsible for addressing the clown car of unrelated, unsupported, undefended or indefensible arguments. The circus of arguments is purely designed to prevent an actual debate from being had by continually derailing the conversation and sending it down another path. The tactic works quite well because the topic is changed so frequently that nothing can be discussed long enough to be concluded. This leaves the seed of doubt which is all “skeptics” need to continue to be “skeptical”.

The CATO calculator, quite like the institution as a whole, is carefully-crafted trash. It’s rather obvious to anyone remotely skeptical. Look at the “fine print” section. Look at the emission scenario used as the “base line”. Compare that to actual emission trends. Reflect on the consequences of selecting that scenario, specifically it’s aptness as a baseline in this comparison. Understand what assumptions that scenario makes regarding emission growth (or lack thereof) in developing nations like China and India, who according to you will never willingly reduce their emissions. Reflect on whether these assumptions are consistent with your view.

I really try to think that institutions like CATO are, due to cognitive dissonance, merely innocently ignorant and not nefariously aware of their purposeful obfuscation and sophism (or flat out lies). However, whether it’s GWPF writing an article derived from a fabricated quote, NIPCC purposefully splicing a line from an abstract to trick readers into a conclusion not supported by nor remotely consistent with the paper itself or CATO selecting a “base line” that already includes significant emission reductions to compare against emission reductions, I have a hard time believing that it’s true. There are very smart people at these institutions and I struggle to continue to delude myself into thinking the continuous flow of nonsense that excretes out of these places are nothing but honest and innocent mistakes.

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

Quote (rconnor)

Look at the emission scenario used as the “base line”. Compare that to actual emission trends. Reflect on the consequences of selecting that scenario, specifically it’s aptness as a baseline in this comparison.

Okay.

Quote (cato)

The baseline emissions scenario against which all climate dioxide reductions were measured is scenario A1B from the IPCC’s Special Report on Emissions Scenarios (SRES). Scenario A1B is a middle-of-the-road emissions pathway which assumes rapid carbon dioxide emissions growth during the first half of the 21st century and a slow CO2 emissions decline thereafter.

That matches the combination of carbon-per-capita trends already referenced above, and population trends projected for the areas listed. I refer you to this graph again:



..which shows CO2 per capita already declining everywhere but the Middle East and China, and this graph:



..which shows the generally accepted downward bend in population, particularly in those areas with high rates of CO2/cap increase now, that starts to occur midway through the next century.

Based on that data, the A1B scenario is the obvious and clearly responsible choice to compare against.

Hydrology, Drainage Analysis, Flood Studies, and Complex Stormwater Litigation for Atlanta and the South East - http://www.campbellcivil.com

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

(Thanks beej, I appreciate it. It was a very positive experience for my players and I’m pleased with their performance on the field. I love the game, it’s always been a huge part of my life and I’m really enjoying the transition into coaching. Good to hear you’re getting back into it! Enjoy!)

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

If you're ever in Atlanta, let me buy you a beer. Just to make sure we both understand that this particular disagreement is and always should be civil, especially among professionals. :)

Hydrology, Drainage Analysis, Flood Studies, and Complex Stormwater Litigation for Atlanta and the South East - http://www.campbellcivil.com

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

Beej67,

It’s important to realize that scenario A1B is not the “business-as-usual” option. The reference to the CO2 per capita is misleading. While Europe and the US have made some efforts to reduce consumption, global emissions continue to rise. A1B involves significant changes that reduce growth in global emissions to the point they peak in 2050 and then begin to decline. A strong balance between renewable and fossil fuels is found globally. It also assumes a much more global community where countries are actively working, including China, India and Russia. Are you saying that without any form of climate policy, CO2 emissions will not just slow down but begin to reduce in 2050, such that 2100 emissions will be close to current levels? I find that rather hard to believe as not too long ago you were saying that it will be rather impossible to get China, India and Russia to reduce their emissions, so we may as well not bother. Now are you saying that because China, India, Russia and the rest of the globe will reduce their emissions voluntarily, so we may as well not bother? I trust that’s not the case and, therefore, I trust that you actually don’t agree with A1B being the “business-as-usual” baseline.

It is incredibly misleading for CATO to use A1B as a base line. It really makes no sense whatsoever; CATO is comparing the additional effect of further localized reductions on top of significant global reductions. Of course the difference will appear to be insignificant. It’s like predicting weight gain of a person in 10 years who eats nothing but McDonalds by comparing a carb and fat free diet against a baseline diet of significantly reduced carb and fat intake and then because the difference is negligible concluding that the person should continue with their McDonalds-only diet.

The % reduction in the calculator is based on reductions from a 2005 baseline occurring by 2050. How quickly the reduction takes place, is unknown, however, the full reduction is not realized until 2050 so to compare 2050 temperatures is misleading. So let’s use 2100 as the comparison. However, even this has its problems as A1B global emissions reduce from 2050 to 2100 whereas the CATO calculator holds emissions at the 2050 level. The more you look into this, the sketchier to becomes.

The closest thing to a business-as-usual scenario, and most appropriate “base line”, is A2 or A1FI. Well-known skeptic Richard Tol even agrees that A2 is the most realistic base line future scenario, so let’s go with that. From AR4 WG1 SPM, the best estimate temperature change in 2090-2099 for A1B is 2.8 deg C (1.7 to 4.4 deg C) and for A2 is 3.4 deg C (2.0 to 5.4 deg C). This shows that there is a significant difference depending on the which baseline you select and that difference only gets bigger after 2100.

Beyond the issue with the base line (which to me is a major issue), there is still the question of how the difference is calculated. Yes, they used MAGICC to calculate but there is still plenty of opportunity to twist the values around but they provide very few details. Given the obvious bias in the baseline selection and the history of misinformation from CATO, I’m very skeptical that the analysis was done while trying to minimize any biases.

And beej, only if I can get the second round! I feel we are both conservationalists with much in common, I’d just like to convince you that CO2 emission reduction is also a very important part of conservation haha! You are absolutely right and I do need to acknowledge that my tone can go from strident to downright disrespectful at times (although it’s rather give-and-take). If I am pushing for a more rational discussion, it starts with me engaging with a tone more conducive to a positive dialogue.

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

Quote:

Scenario A1B is a middle-of-the-road emissions pathway which assumes rapid carbon dioxide emissions growth during the first half of the 21st century and a slow CO2 emissions decline thereafter.

Quote:

It also assumes a much more global community where countries are actively working, including China, India and Russia.
Sounds like a whole lot of assuming going on.

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

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

I sent some dialog about the case issue to Cato, they seemed like they'd be interested in updating the model. We'll see.

In the mean time, I stumbled across a graph that cuts to the quick of the actual problem, which isn't carbon, and it isn't warming. It's mankind's proliferation and our incessant need to terraform the environment to suit our comfort.

Hydrology, Drainage Analysis, Flood Studies, and Complex Stormwater Litigation for Atlanta and the South East - http://www.campbellcivil.com

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

You can only extinctify the species you know about. So since we are discovering new species all the time, it follows we have a greater number of extinctions. I'm not saying that graph is wrong, but it needs a more rigorous approach. I have a horrible feeling Bayesian statistics are involved. Also if the human population started to fall that extinction curve would continue to rise.

Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

Beej67, one of the issues that I have with extinction "numbers" is that they are generally based on numerical simulations and not an actual "body count". Considering how many species are estimated to exist vs how many we know of, I'd like to know the taxonomy (genus and species) of the ~55,000 species extinct (is that cumulative or annual extinctions?). In the last couple of hundred years, there were certainly extinctions, but the total number is more in the <100 quantity.

Not that maintaining wild spaces isn't a noble cause. But, please, a little critical thinking about this...

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

To put it more bluntly, if you have no idea how many species there are or or how many there have been in the past how the hell do you think you can you estimate a rate of extinction, or more importantly the rate of change of the rate of extinction? A New York Times Science article says 8.7 million, but 150,000 "new" species are discovered every year (over and above the 50,000 that the graph above claims die off). [Don't like the New York Times as a source? Neither do I. That article is just the first entry in a 146 million entry list in response to the question "how many species are there". Pick your own sources] Do you really think that any of them are really "new"? Just new to us is more likely. Once again, it is our utter arrogance that makes us think that: (1) mankind is the source of all the planet's ills; and (2) mankind can fix anything that is "messed up" (e.g., someone finds that a useful and vital chemical like Chlorine or CO2 is somehow "harmful" then we can rally round and ban them; or we can get together and stop the evil horned owl from eating the eggs of the spotted owl in an almost human-like genocide that the Greenies are trying to "fix").

I firmly believe that the increase in the rate of extinction around the end of WWII in the graph above is a LOT more about an increase in the time available (due to the existence of cheep energy) to study useless factoids than it is about an actual increase in the rate of extinctions. More people looking equates to finding more stuff. If that many people had been looking in 1814 (with the tools they use today), I would bet long odds that the rate of extinctions would be very similar to today's number--and the tools we will employ in this uselessness in 2050 will give us a much higher rate of extinctions even if half the human population dies in a pandemic (likely caused by the snail darter).

David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering

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

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

Greg and David - here's another (and more rigorous) way of looking at the issue of "too many humans" courtesy of XKCD:



http://xkcd.com/1338/

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

Quote:

Also if the human population started to fall that extinction curve would continue to rise.

I don't think so. I think if the human population started to fall, we would probably cease encroaching into habitat. Heck, there's areas of Detroit that are turning back to wilderness. The primary sources of pressure we place on the environment are toxic pollution, habitat loss, and vectors for disease and invasive species.

Quote:

Beej67, one of the issues that I have with extinction "numbers" is that they are generally based on numerical simulations and not an actual "body count".

What, you mean like earth temperature prior to 1900? :)

I've posted that XKCD image before. It's integrally linked to this:



Familiar looking hockey stick, there. Over 20 years, a pound of methane will warm the planet 86 times more than a pound of CO2, purely scientifically speaking.


Hydrology, Drainage Analysis, Flood Studies, and Complex Stormwater Litigation for Atlanta and the South East - http://www.campbellcivil.com

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

I would expect the count of organisms to increase, but not necessarily the biodiversity. Those wild areas of Detroit a populated mostly by feral housecats, packs of dogs, rats, and cockroaches.

Someday you need to take a spin through sub-Saharan Africa, the Amazon Rain Forest, the Outback, Alaska, Siberia, Mongolia, and almost any tropical island in the Pacific. The 3-4% of the earth dedicated to "wild animals" in your cartoon is a tiny bit misrepresented. There are wild moose in downtown Anchorage--not because of habitat loss, but because they enjoy the tasty landscape plants more than their traditional food. Wild caribou herds cluster around the Alaska pipeline because it gives off a bit of heat that reduces their energy requirements slightly (the enviro-wackos claimed that the pipeline would cause these herds to lay down and die out of frustration at this new element in their world, the caribou are thriving, sadly so are the enviro-wackos).

When I look at wild habitat in Alaska (mostly not managed by man in any way) compared to someplace like Yellowstone that has been intensely (mis)managed for over a century I am in awe at nature's ability to adapt to change. A fire starts in Denali National Park, it eventually burns itself out and a couple of seasons later you can't tell it ever happened except that weak and marginal species are not there anymore and the remaining flora is healthier. A fire starts in Yellowstone and they call out the National Guard and every fire squad in the country. The result is catastrophic to the ecology. Marginal and invasive species are pushing out the stuff that was there when the park was formed. We eliminate predators and the deer, elk, moose overgraze the river banks and erosion turns the mountain streams into mud holes.

People are part of nature. Our artifacts are just as "natural" as a beaver dam or a termite mound. Insects put far more "Greenhouse Gases" into the atmosphere than people do. The biomass of bacteria (whose waste decays rapidly to methane and CO2) exceeds the biomass of all plants and animals (I got that from Wikipedia just now, if you don't like Wiki, look for yourself, they are citing peer-reviewed journals). The mass of termites exceeds the mass of humans (and we all know about the methane and CO2 coming off termite mounds). The mass of ants is about equal to humans. Krill is the most populous animated being on earth. People plus domestic animals plus crops represent a biomass around 3 billion tonnes out of a total number just under 600 billion tonnes (call it 0.5%)--the other 99.5% can and will take care of itself quite well thank you.

David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering

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

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

What if burning natural gas, not only produced CO2, but also produced H2O? Would the additional H2O rase the ocean levels? So just how much H2O has been created this way?

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

With tongue in cheek, it's obvious that cattle, pigs, goats, and sheep are the real problem. Perhaps we need more fish and poultry in our diets. cow

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

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

Post #400. No consensus. hammer

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

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

Quote:

I would expect the count of organisms to increase, but not necessarily the biodiversity.

Well sure. On the sort of time scales we live our lives in, biodiversity only goes one way - down. I just think if population growth itself were reversed, the rate of biodiversity loss would be similarly arrested, due to an overall reduction in the sorts of toxic pollution and habitat loss related to population.

Hydrology, Drainage Analysis, Flood Studies, and Complex Stormwater Litigation for Atlanta and the South East - http://www.campbellcivil.com

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

Did you really expect a consensus? This is a discussion board, not a consensus board.

For climate change to be accepted a resurcher should look at every credable alternitate to his theory, and have a reason why it isen't real. Then the theory should be put out for verification he has not forgotten anything. So to go from it is man caused to only taxes can solve it means there should be an answer to any silly question I have. Or the theroy hasen't been vetted properly.

So to clame I am a denigher whan I ask a silly question is a cop out for you don't know, or you don't care, or it hasen't been looked at.

It's this leap I just don't see as anything except as a political ploy.

The problem with biodiversity is that it keeps changing. How much biodiversity has changed that is not man caused? I want to see those numbers.

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

You want to see "consensus"? Talk to Climate Scientists. Anyone who doesn't agree no longer is allowed to call themselves "climate scientists".

David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering

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

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

David, I had that exact thought as I hit the submit button! But really, to call them scientists, that's a bit of stretch. Opinionists, perhaps.

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

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

That's a way to get consensus, vote to odd ball off the island. After all he does not have the team goal in mind.

Have you noticed a trend that Dems tend to cut NASA funding, and repubs tend to increase it? I haven't seen statics on other resurch groups to see if this is a common trend.
I see the oposite for public transportation spending. Different rat holes, different outcome.

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

"Have you noticed a trend that Dems tend to cut NASA funding, and repubs tend to increase it?"

I've actually thought the opposite, since space no longer feeds the military-industrial complex, the repubs are less interested in it, given that it's "government" instead of "market place" doing things.

TTFN
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies

Need help writing a question or understanding a reply? forum1529: Translation Assistance for Engineers

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

Quote (IRStuff)

I've actually thought the opposite, since space no longer feeds the military-industrial complex, the repubs are less interested in it, given that it's "government" instead of "market place" doing things.
While that may be what you'd like to think because that fits the narrative you want to believe, it's simply not true. Since the end of the Apollo program, NASA's budget has steadily declines as a percentage of the total federal budget. In normalized dollars, the numbers have been relatively constant with ups and downs under both parties. But the general trend has been rather minor increases during Republican administrations and rather minor decreases during Democratic administrations. In real dollars, it's not a big issue to either party.

Bill Nye Urges President Obama To Stop Budget Cuts To NASA's Planetary Science Program

Quote (Nye)

Over the last few years, Congress has added back funding for the planetary program that the Office of Management and Budget has cut,"

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

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

Hey Connor,

Cato just posted an evaluation of Obama's proposed emission standards revision, as evaluated with the MAGICC model, for not one, but three very different baseline scenarios: RCP45, RCP6, and RCP85. You'll note that RCP85 is very similar to A1FI, and actually has more emissions than A2.

http://www.cato.org/blog/002degc-temperature-rise-...

Here are the results:





Here's a graph where you can hardly tell the lines apart:



So yeah, there's that.

Hydrology, Drainage Analysis, Flood Studies, and Complex Stormwater Litigation for Atlanta and the South East - http://www.campbellcivil.com

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

From the "if the data doesn't support your argument find another measurement school" http://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/jun/13/pau...

Temperature shows a pause (18 years or thereabouts) so our lords and masters now tell us we should worry about sea level changing instead. That's quite a good one to choose, as it will need a lot of new models, lots of funding, lots of careers. Perhaps even some experiments. However there are an awful lot of unknown unknowns in that model, as you need a good estimate of what is happening temperature wise at your lower system boundary. You also need to consider plate tectonics etc.



Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

All the science is settled P-E-R-I-O-D
So says the President and so it shall be.

Taxpayers... Get ready to pay! pipe

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

Ornerynorsk, while we continue to squabble, US has made some small but important strides towards reducing emissions. The power plant and vehicle fuel efficiency initiatives demonstrates that the President and a sufficient amount of US government and citizenry agree that something needs to be done about climate change.

Beej67, assuming that CATO’s analysis is accurate, and I have severe doubts on that front, what are they, and you, trying to conclude? The EPA proposal (excluding all other emission reduction measures, including the vehicle fuel efficiency regulation) will not have a significant impact on future global temperatures, so we shouldn’t do anything? Let’s return to our McDonalds-only diet analogy. Finding it difficult to drop McDonalds cold-turkey, our friend decides to see what effect switching from coke to diet coke will have on his future health, while keeping everything else the same. Unsurprisingly, the estimates concluded that it will be beneficial but won’t mitigate his future health concerns completely. So are we to conclude that our friend may as well not bother switching to a more healthy beverage choice? And, furthermore, use it as an example as to why our friend shouldn’t make any positive dietary changes?

As is always the case with CATO and other such places, the only arguments they can make are by taking a microscope to one particular issue, incorrectly looking at it in complete isolation and then incorrectly expanding the conclusion to the big picture (or just flat out making stuff up). Yes, the EPA proposal is rather weak in the grand scheme and I would have rather it been more aggressive (are you also suggesting this?) but climate change mitigation won’t happen with a wave of a wand, it will take small but steady steps towards significant reductions. This is a big first step, especially in the US.

730 million metric tonnes of carbon pollution reduction is not meaningless. $55 Billion to $93 Billion in benefits is not meaningless. It doesn’t solve the issue of climate change, not by a long shot. It was never supposed to and everyone, including CATO, knows that. It was supposed to be and is a step in the right direction.

GregLocock, if you’d like to bring up the “pause” perhaps you should start with providing a counter-argument to any of my 13 previous posts on why the “pause” is a dead argument. You have continually said that temperature is a poor metric to use (expect when it comes to the “pause” apparently), now you chastise people for following your advice? It does not matter whether the metric is temperature, OHC (surface, deep and abyssal), humidity, glacial mass, ice extent, snow coverage or sea level, they all show signs of increased energy.

Regarding your plate tectonic theory (I believe geothermal flux is what you are actually getting at), here’s a few bits of literature for you:
- Stein and Stein, 1992
- Davies and Davies, 2010

Estimated surface heat flux = 47 +/- 2 TW, equivalent to 0.09 W/m^2. This is much smaller than the estimated 0.58 +/- 0.15 W/m^2 energy imbalance (using a very conservative value, by the way) and rather insignificant when compared to solar radiation at 341.3 W/m^2. Furthermore, the surface heat flux is very consistent, even over geological time frames, let alone over the past 50 years. Even if the surface heat flux went from 0 to 0.09 in the last 50 years, which it of course did not, it would be too small to account for the changes in climate noted.

Geothermal flux is not a valid counter-theory to recent climate change because:
- It is too weak (roughly 4 times too weak)
- It is too consistent (any change in geothermal flux over the last 50 years would be infinitesimally small)

So GregLocock, I ask you, with geothermal flux proven to be insignificant, solar activity in decline and aerosols increasing, how have temperatures increased, OHC increased, humidity increased, sea level risen, ice extents decreased, snow coverage decreased, glacial mass decreased? If it were “natural”, then all those metrics would be moving in the opposite direction. Meanwhile, the theory that I prescribe to does a darn good job predicting and explaining the changes in those metrics.

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

I assumed plate tectonics referred to changing sea levels. The press are blaming GW (and rising sea levels) for the chalk cliffs at Beachy Head crumbling, without any thought to how they got up there to begin with.

- Steve

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

Quote (rconnor)

the only arguments they can make are by taking a microscope to one particular issue, incorrectly looking at it in complete isolation and then incorrectly expanding the conclusion to the big picture
Hold that thought.

Quote (rconnor)

$55 Billion to $93 Billion in benefits is not meaningless. It doesn’t solve the issue of climate change, not by a long shot. It was never supposed to and everyone, including CATO, knows that. It was supposed to be and is a step in the right direction.
Is it a step in the right direction? How much will it cost to realize that $55 to 93 billion in benefits?

Without including the costs necessarily to realize the savings, it seems that one is looking at a particular issue - the savings - and looking at it in completely isolation. So what are the estimated costs required of a plan that is estimated to realize $55 to 93 billion is savings?

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

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

The estimated cost is $7.3 billion to $8.8 billion.

So yes, it is a step in the right direction - economically and ecologically.

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

Are the $55 to 93 billion savings based on domestic savings or global savings?
Are the$ 7.3 to 8.8 billion cost figures based on domestics costs or global costs?

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

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

Quote:

730 million metric tonnes of carbon pollution reduction is not meaningless. $55 Billion to $93 Billion in benefits is not meaningless. It doesn’t solve the issue of climate change, not by a long shot. It was never supposed to and everyone, including CATO, knows that. It was supposed to be and is a step in the right direction.

A 0.02 degree Celsius step, over the entire century, eh?

And how many species extinctions is that 0.02 degree Celsius step going to save?

(And that's presuming that the EPA is right about CO2 being the only culprit, which I don't believe)

How many species could be saved if we instead threw that 8.8 billion at conservation? That 8.8 billion is 131 times the annual budget of the Audubon Society, to put it in perspective.

Hydrology, Drainage Analysis, Flood Studies, and Complex Stormwater Litigation for Atlanta and the South East - http://www.campbellcivil.com

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

I've been trying to stay out of this discussion, but I'm sorry I can't. Just because the EPA pulled $55-93 billion benefits and $7.2 to 8.8 billion in costs out of clear dry air doesn't make it so. I've been studying EPA's benefit and cost numbers on the Clean Air Act for several years and have found EVERY SINGLE ONE of them to have been invented from whole cloth. As a consultant to the Oil & Gas Industry I've been the primary author or co-author of several thousand pages of documents refuting the cost and benefit claims that the EPA has made under the [legal] guise of the Clean Air Act (you can find them on the docket for Subpart OOOO). Under that act the EPA is obligated to control the emissions of various source pollutants (NOx, SOx, CO, HAP, BETEX, etc.) so regulating those substances at least have a legal starting point even if the final regulations go far beyond any cost/benefit ratio anticipated by the Act itself.

The EPA fact sheet linked above just has big numbers and bold fonts, but writing a number in 24 point bold font does not actually confirm its validity. I know they have a Technical Support Document backing it up, but since I don't represent the coal industry and wouldn't get paid for slogging through it I'm not going to. If it is anything like the Technical Support Documents they've written for Oil & Gas regulations they were prepared by the low bidder to defend a pre-defined agenda--facts be damned.

CO2 and Methane are simply not source pollutants and regulations to limit them do not have a legal justification. Regardless of where you stand on AGW, a regulation without a legal foundation cannot be considered to be a good thing. Next they'll take off after some other pet hypothesis and make the introduction of Chlorine into water systems and swimming pools illegal (it has been proposed) and millions will die. The EPA and the President are out of control on this issue (and many others) and their data is fabricated and absolutely without merit.

David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering

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

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

It's no good bleating on about the 18 year and counting pause in temeperatures not being real as nobody has /proved/ the dog ate my homework theory. It's a good suggestion, but it has not been proved.

Anyway, I said they should be using the heat stored, not sea level. Sea level changes are due to far more mechanisms than just heat stored in the oceans, and as I said, one enormous interface to the system is almost totally unexplored and uninstrumented, so it will be impossible to validate the models. Yet again they have selected a measure which has been monotonically increasing since the last Ice Age, and which shows no acceleration over the industrial age. Another pause.

Here is an excerpt from a paper on NOAA's website, http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/mtsparke...

"One might expect to see an acceleration in the rise of sea level if indeed the effect of the accumulation of greenhouse gases during the last century, and especially during the last half of the century, has had an effect. No researcher to date has convincingly demonstrated such an acceleration. The interannual signal that makes trend determination difficult creates even more of a problem in trying to find an acceleration. The same problem exists with the global air temperature data and trying to conclusively demonstrate a recent intensification in that upward trend.

It is possible that the greenhouse effect has not shown up yet because the ocean has absorbed the heat and transported it in some fashion to its depths."

The last sentence is a zinger. The magical dog ate my homework theory even manages to suppress the expansion of water when it is heated. (OK, it may be that a dominant proportion of the ocean is at less than 4 degrees C, I'll have a look at that)

Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

Well, that's interesting. The average temperature of the oceans is 4 deg C (roughly), curiously this is the max density temperature. The greater depths are typically 2 deg C. So if we can warm the deep ocean up a bit sea level should drop. This is quite a nice graph, illustrating that whatever sea level changes we get, the coefficient of expansion of water is not much of a contributor. For instance if we were to heat the oceans from 4 to 6 we'd see just about zip. If we heated them from 4 to 30 we'd see about 0.5%, or 15m.



Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

I'm glad the climate is changing. Who wants everything to remain constant? No adaptive challenge in that.

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

Can we get a graph of the proposed regulations vs the political climate change? And include on that the increased tax revenue.

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

beej67, perhaps I should use another analogy, closer to your view. A government decides to enact measures to converse a 25 km by 25 km area of forest, while the status quo of deforestation continues everywhere else. CATO performs a “study” that concludes that no species that would have otherwise gone extinct, will be saved from extinction by these measures. Would you still conclude that:
1) The measure should not have been done,
2) By extension, any subsequent efforts to conserve natural habitats should not be done?

Oh, and these measures will have an average net domestic benefit of ~$66 Billion. But you can choose to ignore this if you wish, surely the ridiculousness of the two conclusions still remains.

Now to you dichotomic view that funding can either go to emission reduction or other positive ventures such as conservation, it’s a fallacy. This view is so common amongst discussion on discretionary spending. Well we can either save the environment OR help the poor. We can either fund after school program for inner-city kids OR we can fund NASA. The “OR” is a fallacy in each case because it ignores the vast sums of money wasted in other areas, namely defense budget and the coddling of corporations (which is hideously juxtaposed by apathy, even vilification, towards the most vulnerable members of the society).

Zdas04, can I strike a deal with you? We won’t use references from EPA, Huff Post, Greenpeace etc. if I never have to address any nonsense from CATO, GWPF, NIPCC, WUWT, etc. Let’s stick to peer-reviewed publications, ok?

GregLocock, how would the theory be proved to you? Thousands of published papers? Agreement from all major scientific institutions? Various lines of empirical data that all agree with the theory (and we’ve talked about this before, you never addressed my post at 4 Apr 14 12:26)? Perhaps a time machine to the future to see, first hand, what future climate will be like? Build a 2nd Earth and magically speed up time to see how the system reacts to different CO2 emission levels (well you'd actually need to build more than one extra Earth in that case). Last we talked about what constituted “proof” for you, you almost verbatim described what is currently happening in climate science today. See my response to your ideal test at this thread at 12 Mar 14 12:58 (second last post). You never replied.

While surface OHC (0-700m) has been rather steady during the “pause”, deep OHC 0-2000m has continued to increase. From Abraham et al 2013:


You also seem to forget that we discussed the that deep OHC (below 750 m) warm faster than surface OHC (0-300 m) during La Nina dominated periods and the opposite is true during El Nino dominated periods. This is exactly what would be expected. This is exactly what we are currently seeing in a La Nina dominated period. This should come as no surprise to you given your research into ENSO. From Meehl et al 2011:

(you responded by saying that the ocean is deeper than 2000m, I responded that abyssal OHC is also increasing (citing 3 papers), you did not respond)

I should note that one cannot claim victory in the absence of a rebuttal, and I certainly don't, but it is certainly difficult (and frustrating) to have to address the same arguments again and again without the other side addressing the counter-argument.

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

I didn't read most of your post, but I did see that you put the United Stated Environmental Protection Agency in the same category as the Huffington Post and Greenpeace (who by the way have sponsored hundreds of peer [nee "pal"] reviewed papers). I think that that grouping is simply hilarious. You cited the EPA "fact sheet" for your cost and benefit numbers, not me.

I have two papers currently in the peer-review process and the comments I got back from the peer reviewers on the first one was that I had a typo on page 3 and some hand-drawn arrows in three figures looked hand drawn. Doesn't give me a really warm fuzzy feeling about the whole "peer review" process.

David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering

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

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

Quote:

Oh, and these measures will have an average net domestic benefit of ~$66 Billion.

I'd love to see their math on how a 0.02 degrees Celsius difference over 100 years produces 66 billion dollars worth of "net domestic benefit." I can tell you right now, whatever assumptions they made to brew up that number for their PR group, they're wrong.

Quote:

Now to you dichotomic view that funding can either go to emission reduction or other positive ventures such as conservation, it’s a fallacy. This view is so common amongst discussion on discretionary spending. Well we can either save the environment OR help the poor. We can either fund after school program for inner-city kids OR we can fund NASA.

Sure, just print enough money for everyone! While we're at it, lets throw another ten billion at CO2 and lower it another 0.02 degrees!

/headdesk

Quote:

The “OR” is a fallacy in each case because it ignores the vast sums of money wasted in other areas, namely defense budget and the coddling of corporations (which is hideously juxtaposed by apathy, even vilification, towards the most vulnerable members of the society).

Well if we want to talk about actual budget, then lets talk about the deficit. The beltway clown show has the blue shoe'd clowns claiming that borrowing/printing any less than 42 cents on the dollar is "draconic," and the red shoe'd clowns claiming that borrowing/printing 38 cents on the dollar will balance the budget, and they both hang their hat on the idea that all we have to do is maintain a certain debt-to-GDP ratio and the world is rosy.

Well if that's the case, I've got a better idea. Cut the budget by 60%, borrow or print the other 40%, and do away with taxes. We wouldn't be accumulating debt any faster than we are now, and our GDP would go through the roof. And if that sounds ridiculous, it's because it is, even though it's only half as ridiculous as what we're actually doing.

Hydrology, Drainage Analysis, Flood Studies, and Complex Stormwater Litigation for Atlanta and the South East - http://www.campbellcivil.com

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

You moved the goal posts again. You explicitly said that I had suggested using sea levels, I did not. Now you are back to heat capacity. Yes you are right, it will be difficult to prove the heat capacity dog ate my homework theory. In fact I dare say that within any useful timeframe it will be unfalsifiable. And what do scientists say about theories that cannot be disproved? They are not science.

Incidentally where are the error bars on those graphs?

Now, if the DAMHW theory is correct, the missing heat for the last 12-18 years should show up in that graph. Yet if anything the 0-700 OHC gradient has flattened since 2005, and the 0-2000m marches on at exactly the same rate as before. Now, whatever is happening below 2000m is unknown so we have a complete magic pudding of an untestable theory, because it explains everything while explaining nothing.

I didn't respond to that post because your post was just obvious trolling. If I say something is unknown to me then it is unknown to me.

Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

3
beej67,
You are spot on but don't go far enough in a couple of areas.

The US Constitution clearly and explicitly prohibits the Federal Government from doing things that are not explicitly allowed. For example, the Department of Energy, Department of Education, Department of Health and Human Services, and federal ownership of most of the west are things clearly in the purview of the various states and the federal versions are patently Unconstitional. So to bemoan the plight of the "most vulnerable members of the society" is disingenuous. That sector of society most vulnerable are universally harmed by federal handouts and would be much better served by community, county, state providing the needs. The Federal government has failed miserably (I saw a sign in a gas station today that said "We now accept EBT cards for Lotto Tickets", that is a failed system).

The Federal Government in general and the EPA in particular are standing in the way of the greatest economic boom this country has ever seen. As we transition from importing 70% of our energy needs to being a net exporter of Oil & Gas we stop a $500 million/day drain on the economy. Even a $15 trillion debt can be paid off if you turn that kind of drain into a similar magnitude cash infusion. With the debt gone, the amount of disposable income in the economy becomes staggering and cheep energy is the very best counterweight to that disposable income becoming a driver for inflation. The EPA response to this Renaissance is to keep the economy jittery by proposing stupid controls on existing infrastructure while standing in the way of building replacement infrastructure. Without the "green" drain on the economy, budget deficits go away by 2020 and the debt by 2030 or so. On the other hand, with the AGW scam (yes, I mean "scam" since profanity is frowned on at this site) the US loses its status as the global reserve currency in the next few years, and it becomes impossible for us to ever pay off the debt and some politician is pretty certain to cancel the debt by fiat within the next decade or so, which starts a global depression that doesn't end till the 5 million or so survivors are reduced to living in caves and snarling at each other.

The AGW discussion is really about the survival of civilization (such as it is). The stakes are pretty high on this one and all of rconnor's pretty graphs of adulterated data manipulated by computer models and pal-reviewed papers evaluating the drool on the chin of the tick on the tail that is trying to wag the dog don't mean squat.

David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering

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

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

beej67, great post.

zdas04, best post ever.

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

The statment that " A government decides " is wrong, because a goverment gets it's power from the people. The people must decide, not a goverment.

Present your case to the people, not to the goverment.

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

Oh would that that were true. Some non-elected bureaucrat makes basically every decision that can be labeled "government". I've seen polls that say that fewer than 19% of the nation approve of what the IRS is doing and the number is in the same range for the EPA. That would say that the will of 80% of the people is being subverted by these two septic organizations.

David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering

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

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

Sorry for "not going far enough," I was just trying to keep base politics out of the discussion. But statements like this:

Quote:

Now to you dichotomic view that funding can either go to emission reduction or other positive ventures such as conservation, it’s a fallacy. This view is so common amongst discussion on discretionary spending. Well we can either save the environment OR help the poor. We can either fund after school program for inner-city kids OR we can fund NASA.

...simply can't stand in a discussion about policy. Every policy decision is an OR decision. If not, we could just give everyone a million dollars and a new Maserati. The fact that we chose to spend 8 billion or whatever on lowering the projected year 2100 temperature by 0.02 and we also chose not to give the Audubon Society 99 times more money than they already have reflects a policy choice. A choice that will do nothing to save anything in our environment.

Now, if the discussion turns to government in general as opposed to government specifically related to environmental policy, then yes, I have opinions, which are many, and are strong, and which will heavily derail the thread. :) I feel no need to share them, since I can already list who will agree with them and who will disagree purely from the comments above. And the agreement or disagreement goes back to a fundamental schism in this country over what government is, and what it's supposed to be doing. No amount of discussion board argument is going to bridge that schism.

But even if you start with the premise that:

A) government has a responsibility to protect the environment, and
B) government's resources are not completely limitless, and
C) the EPA isn't lying to us with their models,

..then Obama's most recent emissions gambit is a completely pointless waste of money. And that's not a political opinion, that's just math.

Hydrology, Drainage Analysis, Flood Studies, and Complex Stormwater Litigation for Atlanta and the South East - http://www.campbellcivil.com

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

That's sort of a point, that the math just dosen't seem to add up. It looks more like a political power grab, or tax grab.
You can argue over the first part, but the result just dosen't make since. Fix the political games first.

You just can't replace coal power with wind power.At least at this time. And the difficulty and problems will only increase as you increase wind power.

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

You could replace the whole dang thing with gulf stream turbines though. 100% of US base load could be provided by those things. Basically for free. Just need to figure out a way they won't chop up all the whales and whatnot. But we don't spend our R&D dollars on that because political donors are positioned in other corners of the sector.

Politically, the entire country just boils down to which pile of money can outspend another pile of money to vote themselves more money. That holds especially true in energy policy, with both the blue hats and the red hats.

Hydrology, Drainage Analysis, Flood Studies, and Complex Stormwater Litigation for Atlanta and the South East - http://www.campbellcivil.com

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

Zdas

"" That sector of society most vulnerable are universally harmed by federal handouts and would be much better served by community, county, state providing the needs""

Can you point me to any modern first world country that operates this way as a basis for your assertion.

""We now accept EBT cards for Lotto Tickets", that is a failed system""

So you saw a gas station with this sign up in the window and this indicates we need to dismantle our government and reform it according to concepts that
have never been fully implemented in any modern industrialized society ??

""With the debt gone, the amount of disposable income in the economy becomes staggering""

Well it first has to get in the hands of consumers before its effect becomes staggering. Now the working people are competing directly with
countries where wages are thin. I suppose those 1% might be willing to give up a bunch, maybe dropped from helicopters but I don't see it happening.

If MMGW is not a scam even China will find it in its interest to mitigate climate change to avoid problems, yeah I know that day is a little out from now
but they are currently spending some money to this effect.

Who gave your post 4 stars?






RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

2Dye4,
It is a slow day here and I can take a few minutes to do that.

Quote:

"" That sector of society most vulnerable are universally harmed by federal handouts and would be much better served by community, county, state providing the needs""

Can you point me to any modern first world country that operates this way as a basis for your assertion.

How about the US prior to WWI? The federal government was small. Taxes were very low compared to today's rates. Innovation and entrepreneurship were increasing at an accelerating rate. Oh, you don't consider 1905 to be "modern". Then no, I can't. Every single economy I can think of has been infected by the do-gooder mentality that does so very much more harm than good. For a couple of hundred years, the US said "I really don't care how you monarchies and dictatorships do it, we are going to go our own way". Now all of the sudden we have to look to Portugal, Ireland, Greece, and Spain to learn how to run an economy. Sorry, but I couldn't care less how the PIGS or even the marginally functioning other members of the EU deal with their indigent populations. The concept that the socialist governments of Europe have anything to teach anyone is laughable. Where the populace has admitted that the socialist model has failed, advances are being made. Those places are few and far between. I've spent time in several of them and what they call "freedom" I call "outrageous government interference". The cost of energy in Germany driving people to denude the forests to heat their homes is a really good example of your "modern first world country".

Quote:

""We now accept EBT cards for Lotto Tickets", that is a failed system""

So you saw a gas station with this sign up in the window and this indicates we need to dismantle our government and reform it according to concepts that have never been fully implemented in any modern industrialized society ??

If I have an engineering failure, I evaluate it and determine if it can be fixed or needs to be replaced. EBT is a fairly new program that builds on decades of failed federal programs rife with corruption and mismanagement. I've stood in line at Wal-mart and seen EBT cards used for cigarettes, beer, whiskey, and lotto tickets. I have no problem with calling those things reasonable for a person to purchase, but if money I worked for is to be used for their purchase then I would like to get some benefit beyond increased occurrence of DUI, distracted drivers, and litter. Communities tend to provide assistance in kind (i.e., food, clothes, job skills training). The Federal Government gives money. It doesn't work in the PIGS, it doesn't work in the US. I can look to your "major industrial countries" and see their processes as something to avoid at all costs.

Quote:

""With the debt gone, the amount of disposable income in the economy becomes staggering""

Well it first has to get in the hands of consumers before its effect becomes staggering. Now the working people are competing directly with countries where wages are thin. I suppose those 1% might be willing to give up a bunch, maybe dropped from helicopters but I don't see it happening.

Is there any Obama Propaganda that you will think about critically?

Look at Williston, ND where an entry-level fast food worker makes $20/hour. That hourly rate comes from a labor shortage. That labor shortage comes from corporations spending vast sums of money in the local economy. Same with Lake Charles, LA. I've seen several articles in the financial press (WSJ, Forbes, Bloomberg, etc.) about German companies relocating to the US and paying skilled-worker wages. When a corporation makes a dollar, they either have to spend it on dividends (after tax), salaries (before tax), capital improvements (after tax), or investments. Corporations do not have a nose through which to sniff cocaine, etc. Most dividends are paid to pension funds (which are not dominated by your outrageous "1% slur").

Quote:

If MMGW is not a scam even China will find it in its interest to mitigate climate change to avoid problems, yeah I know that day is a little out from now but they are currently spending some money to this effect.

I don't even think that is a complete thought. I have absolutely no idea what the heck you are talking about.

Quote:

Who gave your post 4 stars?

I don't know. It wasn't me, and site management has explicitly decided not to allow that information to be revealed. Maybe it was 4 people who liked what I had to say? Just a thought.

The bottom line of my position on this piece of the discussion is that "The United States of America is unique in all the history of man, and that uniqueness has been facilitated by the Constitution. The further we stray from that framework, the farther we get from the concepts that have made our success possible". The 10th amendment says "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people". The body of the Constitution does not mention welfare, education, Social Security, or ANY language that authorizes Obamacare. These unconstitutional activities should stop. History tells us that the further we get from the Constitution, the worse off we are (please don't bring up the Great Depression, it was caused by trade restrictions, an epic drought, and the government failing to prosecute fraud on a massive scale)--an argument can be made that the depression ended in spite of the New Deal instead of because of it).




David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering

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

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

"the depression ended in spite of the New Deal instead of because of it"

100% spot on. Comrade Roosevelt did his damndest, though. Unfortunately we've done nothing but add to his travesties instead of undoing them. We toil that government may multiply unchecked.

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

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

I happen to think that some elements of the New Deal, in particular the hydropower stuff that was built under it, did in fact help us get out of the recession, and make our economy more competitive in the decades that followed. I bet if we threw 8 billion dollars at gulf stream turbines (instead of CO2 reduction) we could experience the same sorts of benefits, and might inadvertently reduce CO2 in the process.

But nobody's interested in that, in a country who's politics boils purely down to which pile of money can outspend another pile of money to vote itself more money. Which is where the energy policy of our last two regimes (probably more) came from.

Hydrology, Drainage Analysis, Flood Studies, and Complex Stormwater Litigation for Atlanta and the South East - http://www.campbellcivil.com

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

Here is what happens.

When a society becomes densely populated or advanced enough for far reaching consequences an individuals actions
begin to impact his neighbors. It is the responsibility of government to balance individual
rights with the impacts the exercise of these rights have on others.

So every government will without fail be some mixture of socialist and capitalist tendencies.

When the world was sparsely populated and the USA in particular was a vast frontier of unharvested
natural resources the laws could of course be relaxed. If you decided to pollute your land and set
fire to your woodlot nobody else was harmed.

There are several things that dominate where society is taking us now.

1 Innovation at this point involves concepts and methods too advanced for 95% of the population to work with. New technology
will exclude those below the 95% level in intelligence, me included. This means very little new work coming on line for
a growing population and the number of existing jobs in this category being diminished daily by tech advances.

2 We are so large a population now that we can actually change our planets environment through by product of our activities.
My CO2 emissions are causing you harm whether you agree or not. Eventually it will be obvious.

3 People out of work are a growing percentage of the population per the first point above. What to do to keep these
people satisfied enough that they don't turn to anarchy no matter where they live is a serious problem. Some form
of social redistribution will absolutely be necessary.

That is why government WILL grow in the decades ahead no matter what we may want as individuals.

Lets hear some solutions that don't involve government and are actually practical.



RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

==> Lets hear some solutions that don't involve government and are actually practical.
It is impossible to present solutions that don't involve government when excessive government is a big part of the problem.

==> i]It is the responsibility of government to balance individual rights with the impacts the exercise of these rights have on others.[/i]
Agreed. It is the primary function of government to protect the rights and freedoms of its citizens and when there is conflict between those rights, balance is required. However, and this is the fundamental point of disagreement, it is not the responsibility to provide for our needs, especially when providing those needs comes at the expense of individual responsibility. It is the job of government to protect our ability to take care of ourselves and protect us from predators; it is not the job of government to put a roof over our head, food on our table, and relieve us of our obligations to take care of ourselves.

==> What to do to keep these people satisfied enough that they don't turn to anarchy no matter where they live is a serious problem. Some form of social redistribution will absolutely be necessary.
No, social redistribution is not absolutely necessary. What the government needs to do is provide an environment where people have the ability to provide for themselves and are thusly rewarded for doing so. In fact, social redistribution is often counter-productive. Providing food stamps to allow the alcoholic to buy liquor is counter-productive. Providing excessive unemployment to someone who is out of work is counter-productive to getting them a job. Taking away the rewards of productivity are counter-productive to intents of increasing productivity.

In short, it is the job of government to protect our rights, not provide our needs. Providing the needs relieves symptoms, but it doesn't solve the underlying problem. If you believe there is a practical solution that doesn't involve government, then you're failing to recognize a big part of the problem.

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

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

CajunCenturion,
I'm really sorry that I can only give that post one star. Very well said. I especially like:

Quote (CajunCenturion)

In short, it is the job of government to protect our rights, not provide our needs

Losing track of that point is the source of so much evil in the world.

David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering

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

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

Quote:

Lets hear some solutions that don't involve government and are actually practical.

Eliminate permitting barriers for the gulf stream turbine concept.

What do I win?

..for what it's worth, the threat of automation of everyone's job, including engineers, is right around the corner if you're paying attention to what the CS guys are doing with AI. At that point, we'll have an economy perfectly suited to providing extremely cheap goods and services, and nobody but robots will have the money to buy them. But that really has nothing to do with this thread, and it's nothing we can reasonably prepare for anyway, since nobody really knows how all that's going to shake out. I plan on buying some land and learning to farm. Don't know about you guys.

Hydrology, Drainage Analysis, Flood Studies, and Complex Stormwater Litigation for Atlanta and the South East - http://www.campbellcivil.com

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

Quote (2dye4)

My CO2 emissions are causing you harm whether you agree or not. Eventually it will be obvious.
Fascinating statement. Please define "harm" in the context of CO2 emissions. Please detail current as well as future harms.

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

Quote:

My CO2 emissions are causing you harm whether you agree or not.

So is your food consumption. There's one less steak at the grocery store for me to buy every time you buy one.
So is your marriage status. One less lovely lady on the singles market for me to approach.
So are your children, taking up space in the crowded public schools that my kids could use.

You have to draw the line somewhere.

I get this:

Quote:

It is the responsibility of government to balance individual rights with the impacts the exercise of these rights have on others.

Your right to punch ends at my face. I get that. In fact, that's the very mantra of all those Libertarians the blue media likes to crap on for being selfish. But it is nonsensical to have the government spend a billion dollars to keep my neighbor from throwing his grass clippings in my yard, because the juice isn't worth the squeeze. This CO2 nonsense is the same thing. 8 billion dollars to avert a 0.02 degree rise, and the glaciers still melt. We need to be looking at ROI every time we make policy.

Hydrology, Drainage Analysis, Flood Studies, and Complex Stormwater Litigation for Atlanta and the South East - http://www.campbellcivil.com

RE: Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road...

I just came across this conference ad in the Washington Times:
Climate Change Facts vs Myth
http://climateconference.heartland.org/
Can't tell if it will be truthful or not...

CAUTION: It's in Las Vegas, NV
So you can lose your wages in a hurry.
G-pa Dave pipe

Red Flag This Post

Please let us know here why this post is inappropriate. Reasons such as off-topic, duplicates, flames, illegal, vulgar, or students posting their homework.

Red Flag Submitted

Thank you for helping keep Eng-Tips Forums free from inappropriate posts.
The Eng-Tips staff will check this out and take appropriate action.

Reply To This Thread

Posting in the Eng-Tips forums is a member-only feature.

Click Here to join Eng-Tips and talk with other members! Already a Member? Login



News


Close Box

Join Eng-Tips® Today!

Join your peers on the Internet's largest technical engineering professional community.
It's easy to join and it's free.

Here's Why Members Love Eng-Tips Forums:

Register now while it's still free!

Already a member? Close this window and log in.

Join Us             Close