Catholicism and Climate Change

[JasonSB]

One of the world’s 'champions for AGW, Professor Tim Flannery, Chairman of the Copenhagen Climate Council, recently admitted that the models were flawed.

No, he clearly stated that they (and our understanding of the world’s climate) are incomplete and making them more accurate is an active area of research.

You clearly haven’t read the IPCC reports or you would know this already. For example, from AR4:

Difficulties remain in reliably simulating and attributing observed temperature changes at smaller scales. On these scales, natural climate variability is relatively larger, making it harder to distinguish changes expected due to external forcings. Uncertainties in local forcings and feedbacks also make it difficult to estimate the contribution of greenhouse gas increases to observed small-scale temperature changes.

I don’t know how you can dismiss something when you don’t even know what it says.

I note that you view Tim Flannery as an authority in this instance, where you think he is saying something that agrees with your beliefs; but if exactly the same person in exactly the same situation were to say something that you disagree with, I bet you would dismiss him out-of-hand.

Most importantly, as already shown earlier when discussing “ENSO-adjusted data”, you can prove that over the longer term it doesn’t matter if you don’t get the details right for the simple reason that they cancel out over longer periods:

http://img215.imageshack.us/img215/9748/alladjusted.png

The linear trend for the two series from January 1950 to March 2009 are both 0.12C/decade. Doing what Trenberth and Flannery are talking about allows you to more quickly locate the signal amongst all that noise, but that’s all.

So much for your reliance on models.

So much for your understanding of what the science actually says.

A shining example of your intellectual dishonesty.

Nice.

If you think it’s “intellectually dishonest” to make the obvious point that just because people that you disagree with in certain areas accept something, that doesn’t automatically make it false, then I’ll take it as a compliment.

My argument, supported by links to pertinent references, was all about how vested interests are hijacking the science to further their own agendas.

OK, let’s look at all the links you’ve given, shall we?

Post 522:

You gave a link to a report that showed nearly 80% of the scientists involved agree AGW poses a very serious and dangerous threat to humanity. Yet, for some reason, you don’t actually mention this; instead you report that almost all of them think more work is needed. Quelle surprise!

You gave a link to the Global Warming Petition Project that managed to collect, according to their own figures, just 39 climate scientist signatories. Add in the atmospheric scientists and the total is 152. That’s 0.5% of the total number of signatories. Add in the fact that, according to their own definition of “scientist”, there were more than ten million who were eligible to sign that petition, getting just 31,487 signatories is pathetic. According to real scientific studies on this question, about 15% of the population of “non-publishers/non-climatologists” would potentially have signed, but their petition managed to get just 1%:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/poll_scientists.gif

Your third link was to Wikipedia, listing scientists who disagree with the mainstream position. What you failed to mention was that those scientists also disagree with each other! That page listed five different positions on the climate science, ranging from “It’s not warming” (e.g. Bob Carter) to “We don’t know what’s causing it” (e.g. John Christy) to “It’s correct but it’s gonna be great!” (e.g. Pat Michaels).

Since, as I mentioned before, these lists were used to determine who was “unconvinced about AGW” in order to then establish what their credentials were, all of this had already been taken into account in producing this graph:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/Consensus_publications.gif

As I also already mentioned:

The median number of articles found on Google Scholar that mention climate by those in the IPCC Working Group 1 team – the people who laid the scientific basis for climate change – was 93 articles.

The median number of articles found on Google Scholar that mention climate by signers of public statements sceptical of global warming was two.

So not only was the existence of “skeptics” well known, their relative credibility had also been assessed and, frankly, if you’re rating the opinion of Bob Carter – who “proved” there was no warming by first massaging the data to remove the warming trend(!) – more highly than the mainstream scientists, your intellectual honesty is already plainly on display.

Post 565:

This is brilliant – you post a link to a book launch for Bob Carter’s new book about climate. What possible motive could Bob Carter have for establishing himself as a maverick, eh?

 

[JasonSB]

(Continued.)

Post 600:

You post a link to an article about the Royal Society issuing a new position statement that:

1. Claims there is widespread agreement in the amount of warming since 1850 and that the rise in CO2 is caused by humans;
2. Claims that there is wide consensus that solar heating is causing less than 10% of that caused by CO2, that doubling CO2 will cause 2-4.5 degrees C of warming, that sea levels will rise at least at the rate they have been, and it repeats the IPCC global warming projections; and
3. Claims that models struggle with clouds, regional changes, and long term carbon cycle feedbacks, and that models don’t catch ice sheet breakup so the sea level rise they give is a minimum.

In other words, the new statement basically says what the IPCC report does.

Post 620:

You link to the Global Warming Petition again.

Then you link to a story about the error in Volume 2 (from Working Group 2) about the Himalayan glacier melting by 2035. Volume 1 (from Working Group 1), which establishes the scientific basis for global warming, contains no such error – the IPCC’s glacier experts were correct but the WG2 authors incorrectly relied on an unreliable source instead of using the IPCC’s own results.

If your intent is to use this example to show that vested interests are hijacking the science to further their own agendas, then I have many more examples of the IPCC understating the problem that would argue that the vested interests are hijacking the science but it’s the opposite vested interests – you know, the obvious ones – to the ones you seem to believe.

For example, actual CO2 emissions are at the high end of the IPCC projections:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/CO2_Emissions_Model_Obs.gif

Actual sea level rise is at the extreme high end of the IPCC projections:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/SLR_models_obs.gif

Arctic sea ice extent has actually gone well below the extreme low end of the IPCC projections:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/Arctic_models_obs.gif

A recent study concluded:

“…new scientific findings were more than twenty times as likely to support the ASC perspective [that disruption through AGW may be far worse than the IPCC has suggested] than the usual framing of the issue in the U.S. mass media. The findings indicate that…if reporters wish to discuss ‘‘both sides’’ of the climate issue, the scientifically legitimate ‘‘other side’’ is that, if anything, global climate disruption may prove to be significantly worse than has been suggested in scientific consensus estimates to date”. (skepticalscience.com/ipcc-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm)

Your next link directly contradicts your claims that the Greens will dictate terms to the government: “Dr Emerson said Labor would not be dictated to by the Greens on trade policy.”

The actual story is about Europeans moving to impose trade sanctions on countries that do not put a price on carbon. I would have thought that was actually an essential part of putting a price on carbon (i.e. if you do but you don’t do anything about the fact that your trade partners have not, you don’t solve anything – you just ship jobs and industry overseas.)

The next link is the same.

Then you provide a link to the Green movement’s homepage. They seem quite pleased with recent election results.

Clearly we have differing opinions on how these links to “pertinent references” actually support your argument. On the whole they seem to contradict your argument!

Despite the doubts surrounding the science and the hypothesis of AGW, these groups are pushing for massive social changes that are not in accord with standard morality.

Even if that were true, it doesn’t mean the science is flawed.

If you really care about the rising popularity of the Greens then perhaps the conservatives should stop making themselves irrelevant by holding views demonstrably incompatible with the science and actually participate in the solutions constructively.

This should sound warning bells in you mind.

What sounds warning bells is the demonstrable fact that the IPCC reports are conservative. This is not even surprising when you consider that they need approval from delegates from every single participating country, including the US, China, India, and Saudi Arabia, as I have already mentioned.

Your hypothesis that the Green movement is somehow controlling the science is easily disproven and self-evidently ludicrous. If the Greens somehow managed to get enough money together to fund enough scientists to fabricate an entire body of research, the fossil fuel industry could thwart their entire scheme simply by funding some other research to prove it was flawed. Instead what we have is fossil fuel industry members funding PR campaigns trying to cast doubt on the science.

Unless, of course, you are a supporter of the progressive and relativistic mores which these groups espouse.

No, just a supporter of rational thought processes.

Intellectual dishonesty is one of their most used political tools.

Right observation, wrong attribution.

 

[JasonSB]

This is an interesting graph but I’m confused about the concept of an “equilibrium temperature.” Perhaps you could use the graph you posted showing the Holocene Temperature Variations and point to what should be considered the Earth’s equilibrium temperature.

When you have a system that takes time to respond to a change in forcing, the question of what the response to that forcing will be must always be associated with the time frame you are talking about.

Suppose you are driving in your car at a steady speed of 60 km/h on a flat road with no wind and a constant position on the accelerator pedal. Now suppose you push your foot down on the accelerator so it’s halfway between the old position and the floor. You have added a forcing, and the car responds by accelerating, asymptotically approaching a new speed. Suppose, for the sake of argument, that the new speed is 100 km/h, and that it took 20 seconds for the car to get to within measurement error of that final speed.

In this scenario, the “equilibrium speed increase” from that increase in forcing from pre-acceleration equilibrium speeds was 40 km/h. If you measured the speed increase at 10 seconds, or 5 seconds, or in fact at any time before the new equilibrium was reached, you would get a different speed increase because the car was still accelerating.

Now it’s important to note that the correctness of this statement doesn’t depend on whether the car is actually in equilibrium either before or after the acceleration.

If we add in hilly terrain and gusty winds, for example, the actual speed of the car before acceleration might have been fluctuating all over the place – but the speed that the accelerator’s forcing would have given is still the 60 km/h figure. Likewise, after accelerating, the speed might be going up and down due to other forcings (like gravity and wind) but that doesn’t change the fact that the equilibrium speed increase from the accelerator itself is still 40 km/h.

So other forcings can be varying in time, but that doesn’t prevent us from talking about the effect of this forcing, and what that effect will be when considered in isolation.

That’s what the graph is talking about – double CO2 and we’ll get about 3 degrees C warming from CO2 when the climate has finished responding to the change in that forcing. It will invariably be “still responding” to changes in other forcings, but we can consider those independently.

A consequence of this is that if solar irradiance starts to decline in the distant future due to orbital changes, we can compensate for that using greenhouse gasses – we might double CO2 to intentionally cause a 3C warming relative to what the temperature would otherwise have been, but result in a constant temperature because the temperature otherwise would have dropped by 3C.

In other words, it’s like pushing the accelerator down when you go up a hill, and backing off when you go down the other side. You are using the car’s response to the forcing (of the accelerator) to compensate for the car’s response to other forcings (gravity). AGW means that we are theoretically capable of using CO2 like a gigantic cruise control to avert future ice ages – but we need to step off the gas pedal right now because we’re not going up a hill.

 

[Biff_Hooper]

Greetings all,

The world is being asked to drastically cut human CO2 emissions. What must be true before such an undertaking makes any sense?

biff

Let’s start with the prescribed remedy, drastically cutting CO2 by whatever means are being proposed. Cap n trade, I suppose, is still on the table, so let’s discuss in terms of that specific policy proposal.

First off, it is not unreasonable to expect cap n trade be effective in reducing CO2 levels. If it isn’t, then we ought to be discussing some other remedy.

Second, the benefits of imposing cap n trade ought exceed the costs incident to imposing this regime. If they aren’t, then we ought to be discussing some other remedy.

Third, arguing in the fashion of Bjorn Lomborg, even if the first two conditions are met, we should be satisfied that global warming is such an overriding concern as to trump all other world problems. e.g. even though GW is a problem, might limited world resources be better spent on problems such as fighting world hunger or curbing malaria, etc.?

These comprise what I call the policy burden of proof. The scientific burden of proof is this:

Fourth, CO2 levels are rising and human emissions are causing this.
Fifth, rising CO2 levels are causing the earth to warm.
Sixth, this warming will be dangerous.

My point is that all of these elements ought to true by some reasonable standard of proof. If any one element fails, then the advocated action should not proceed. For example, just because CO2 levels are rising and the earth is warming, doesn’t mean that CO2 is “guilty” and efforts made to reduce CO2 made. Just because the scientific burden of proof has been met doesn’t mean that we should attempt to drastically cut CO2 by means of cap n trade.

So I remain skeptical of this whole global warming/climate change/global climate disruption business. A whole has to be proved and it dubious the case has been made.

best regards

biff*

 

[kimmielittle]

Once again, let’s examine the facts, shall we?

Yes, we should.

Definitions;

Sabotage is a deliberate action aimed at weakening another entity through subversion, obstruction, disruption, or

destruction.

a : an act or process tending to hamper or hurt b : deliberate subversion

Firstly, “sabotage” is such a loaded word, isn’t it? Did they damage a crucial component? Blow something up? Were people killed?

Did they trespass to disrupt? Did they vandalize others properties resulting in damage costs? Did they do so knowingly? Did these acts instill a sense of fear during commission of their acts, at any given level including a fear for their well being ]?

Or did they paint “GORDON” on the side of a chimney?

Yes, along with - One team of people shut down the conveyor belts carrying coal into the plant, and then chained themselves to the machinery.

(They were actually going to paint “GORDON BIN IT”, but they stopped after painting the Prime Minister’s first name after being served a court injunction by the police. My! How I wish we’d known it was that easy to stop saboteurs!)

The crimes where committed as soon as they stepped trespassed ] with intent to disrupt. They admitted their goal.

OK, so now the statement is that “There is simply no doubt but that Hansen supports painting graffiti to achieve his green goals.”

If you admit to this part - you admit to their stated intent, which was NOT to just paint graffiti.

And I said we needed proof that he suggests the use of anything other than legal means, so what do we have here?

This might be true had he not came to the defense of self admitted saboteurs before trails even began.

Oh, yes – a jury made up of randomly-chosen locals decided that the graffiti was justified using the same law that prevents firefighters from being charged with property damage when they break down a door to rescue someone in a fire. In this case, they decided that shutting down that coal-fired power plant was justified on the basis of the damage to the environment that that coal-fired power plant would have had.

Use this excuse the next time you trespass and do property damage to an abortion clinic. You are Catholic - you positively know by Catholic teachings, that abortion kills an innocent life and commits another soul to grave danger.

Given we live in a system where a jury gets to decide whether an action is illegal, and not the government, government agencies, or even foreign nationals, it seems that this fails that hurdle, too.

Not guilty by reasons of insanity, also works in a trial by jury system - but yet, we lock the criminally insane away from the civilized populous.

But even still, did he even support painting graffiti even when it was not deemed illegal?

Actually yes he did. Before trial they admitted their guilt - and Mr Hansen supported their defense. A defense of a reason in a belief - is not the same as not guilty, as you would have us believe.

The McVeigh’s had reason …The boy who killed Tiller had reason…Hitler had reason…the 9/11 terrorists had reason - ALL according to their beliefs.

From his oral testimony he agreed with Al Gore’s statement: “I can’t understand why there aren’t rings of young people blocking bulldozers and preventing them from constructing coal-fired power stations”.

As a Catholic, I find it interesting - your views on “ends justifying the means”. Can you give me reference of the Church supporting this?

Hmm… Does that count as “supporting sabotage”?

Hmmmm ABSOLUTELY!!!

For whatever reason these people hid behind… they are self admitted saboteurs. And Mr Hansen by stating his beliefs in and for their defense - supported their beliefs and actions. Just as you seem to be doing now, by supporting Mr Hansens actions.

 

[kimmielittle]

Once again, let’s examine the facts, shall we?

Yes, we should.

Definitions;

Sabotage is a deliberate action aimed at weakening another entity through subversion, obstruction, disruption, or

destruction.

a . an act or process tending to hamper or hurt b . deliberate subversion

Firstly, “sabotage” is such a loaded word, isn’t it? Did they damage a crucial component? Blow something up? Were people killed?

Did they trespass to disrupt? Did they vandalize others properties resulting in damage costs? Did they do so knowingly? Did these acts instill a sense of fear during commission of their acts, at any given level including a fear for their well being ]?

Or did they paint “GORDON” on the side of a chimney?

Yes, along with - One team of people shut down the conveyor belts carrying coal into the plant, and then chained themselves to the machinery.

(They were actually going to paint “GORDON BIN IT”, but they stopped after painting the Prime Minister’s first name after being served a court injunction by the police. My! How I wish we’d known it was that easy to stop saboteurs!)

The crimes where committed as soon as they stepped trespassed ] with intent to disrupt. They admitted their goal.

OK, so now the statement is that “There is simply no doubt but that Hansen supports painting graffiti to achieve his green goals.”

If you admit to this part - you admit to their stated intent, which was NOT to just paint graffiti.

And I said we needed proof that he suggests the use of anything other than legal means, so what do we have here?

This might be true had he not came to the defense of self admitted saboteurs before trails even began.

Oh, yes – a jury made up of randomly-chosen locals decided that the graffiti was justified using the same law that prevents firefighters from being charged with property damage when they break down a door to rescue someone in a fire. In this case, they decided that shutting down that coal-fired power plant was justified on the basis of the damage to the environment that that coal-fired power plant would have had.

Use this excuse the next time you trespass and do property damage to an abortion clinic. You are Catholic - you positively know by Catholic teachings, that abortion kills an innocent life and commits another soul to grave danger.

Given we live in a system where a jury gets to decide whether an action is illegal, and not the government, government agencies, or even foreign nationals, it seems that this fails that hurdle, too.

Not guilty by reasons of insanity, also works in a trial by jury system - but yet, we lock the criminally insane away from the civilized populous.

But even still, did he even support painting graffiti even when it was not deemed illegal?

Actually yes he did. Before trial they admitted their guilt - and Mr Hansen supported their defense. A defense of a reason in a belief - is not the same as not guilty, as you would have us believe.

The McVeigh’s had reason …The boy who killed Tiller had reason…Hitler had reason…the 9/11 terrorists had reason - ALL according to their beliefs.

From his oral testimony he agreed with Al Gore’s statement: “I can’t understand why there aren’t rings of young people blocking bulldozers and preventing them from constructing coal-fired power stations”.

As a Catholic, I find it interesting - your views on “ends justifying the means”. Can you give me reference of the Church supporting this?

Hmm… Does that count as “supporting sabotage”?

Hmmmm ABSOLUTELY!!!

For whatever reason these people hid behind… they are self admitted saboteurs. And Mr Hansen by stating his beliefs in and for their defense - supported their beliefs and actions. Just as you seem to be doing now, by supporting Mr Hansens actions.

 

[kimmielittle]

Once again, let’s examine the facts, shall we?

Yes, we should.

Definitions;

Sabotage is a deliberate action aimed at weakening another entity through subversion, obstruction, disruption, or

destruction.

a . an act or process tending to hamper or hurt b . deliberate subversion

Firstly, “sabotage” is such a loaded word, isn’t it? Did they damage a crucial component? Blow something up? Were people killed?

Did they trespass to disrupt? Did they vandalize others properties resulting in damage costs? Did they do so knowingly? Did these acts instill a sense of fear during commission of their acts, at any given level including a fear for their well being ]?

Or did they paint “GORDON” on the side of a chimney?

Yes, along with - One team of people shut down the conveyor belts carrying coal into the plant, and then chained themselves to the machinery.

(They were actually going to paint “GORDON BIN IT”, but they stopped after painting the Prime Minister’s first name after being served a court injunction by the police. My! How I wish we’d known it was that easy to stop saboteurs!)

The crimes where committed as soon as they stepped trespassed ] with intent to disrupt. They admitted their goal.

OK, so now the statement is that “There is simply no doubt but that Hansen supports painting graffiti to achieve his green goals.”

If you admit to this part - you admit to their stated intent, which was NOT to just paint graffiti.

And I said we needed proof that he suggests the use of anything other than legal means, so what do we have here?

This might be true had he not came to the defense of self admitted saboteurs before trails even began.

Oh, yes – a jury made up of randomly-chosen locals decided that the graffiti was justified using the same law that prevents firefighters from being charged with property damage when they break down a door to rescue someone in a fire. In this case, they decided that shutting down that coal-fired power plant was justified on the basis of the damage to the environment that that coal-fired power plant would have had.

Use this excuse the next time you trespass and do property damage to an abortion clinic. You are Catholic - you positively know by Catholic teachings, that abortion kills an innocent life and commits another soul to grave danger.

Given we live in a system where a jury gets to decide whether an action is illegal, and not the government, government agencies, or even foreign nationals, it seems that this fails that hurdle, too.

Not guilty by reasons of insanity, also works in a trial by jury system - but yet, we lock the criminally insane away from the civilized populous.

But even still, did he even support painting graffiti even when it was not deemed illegal?

Actually yes he did. Before trial they admitted their guilt - and Mr Hansen supported their defense. A defense of a reason in a belief - is not the same as not guilty, as you would have us believe.

The McVeigh’s had reason …The boy who killed Tiller had reason…Hitler had reason…the 9/11 terrorists had reason - ALL according to their beliefs.

From his oral testimony he agreed with Al Gore’s statement: “I can’t understand why there aren’t rings of young people blocking bulldozers and preventing them from constructing coal-fired power stations”.

As a Catholic, I find it interesting - your views on “ends justifying the means”. Can you give me reference of the Church supporting this?

Hmm… Does that count as “supporting sabotage”?

Hmmmm ABSOLUTELY!!!

For whatever reason these people hid behind… they are self admitted saboteurs. And Mr Hansen by stating his beliefs in and for their defense - supported their beliefs and actions. Just as you seem to be doing now, by supporting Mr Hansens actions.

 

[kimmielittle]

I don’t understand why you need to be so rude (“I will try to put 1 and 1 together for you”) when “get access to YouTube” says nothing about whether your restriction is technical or a matter of permission.

When you keep trying to get me to D/L UTUBES after I told you I’m not allowed…hmmmm , maybe it took a bit more???

If it’s purely a matter of permission then are you incapable of asking for it? I would have thought most parents would be delighted if their child showed an interest in watching a lecture by a Stanford professor, especially if you asked them to watch it with you to make sure it was acceptable.

Until you are in authority or position, it is not in your realm to question the reasons, now is it?

SAY how about the new 10/10 Splattergate UTUBE? Maybe that’s enough reason - in and of itself?

Not being in that situation and having only access to emails I prefer not to judge the exact emotion felt by the participants.

Yet, you offer up excuses for them?

You also don’t know Mr Hansens motives in defense of saboteurs.

What I do see is that they certainly aren’t afraid of their science being refuted.

The Jones - Wang - Wiggly emails showed fear.

If Christy said they “gave up” trying to “prepare” their satellite code for public release after six months of working on it, who are you and I to judge just how much effort it would have taken CRU researchers to meet the requests they were inundated with, and how legitimite their fears were about how much worse it could possible get if they caved in to the early ones?

They produced to FTP servers for ** Like minded ** people.

I fail to see how. The science speaks for itself and there was nothing in the stolen emails to support the notion that the results had been fabricated.

Hmmmm…Wang and Jones through him ] said they could produce records …that they could not. Sounds like fabrication of nonexistent records, to me.

I don’t know why you keep mis-using the word “hypothesis” for “theory”.

 

[kimmielittle]

I don’t understand why you need to be so rude (“I will try to put 1 and 1 together for you”) when “get access to YouTube” says nothing about whether your restriction is technical or a matter of permission.

When you keep trying to get me to D/L UTUBES after I told you I’m not allowed…hmmmm , maybe it took a bit more???

If it’s purely a matter of permission then are you incapable of asking for it? I would have thought most parents would be delighted if their child showed an interest in watching a lecture by a Stanford professor, especially if you asked them to watch it with you to make sure it was acceptable.

Until you are in authority or position, it is not in your realm to question the reasons, now is it?

SAY how about the new 10/10 Splattergate UTUBE? Maybe that’s enough reason - in and of itself?

Not being in that situation and having only access to emails I prefer not to judge the exact emotion felt by the participants.

Yet, you offer up excuses for them?

You also don’t know Mr Hansens motives in defense of saboteurs.

What I do see is that they certainly aren’t afraid of their science being refuted.

The Jones - Wang - Wiggly emails showed fear.

If Christy said they “gave up” trying to “prepare” their satellite code for public release after six months of working on it, who are you and I to judge just how much effort it would have taken CRU researchers to meet the requests they were inundated with, and how legitimite their fears were about how much worse it could possible get if they caved in to the early ones?

They produced to FTP servers for ** Like minded ** people.

I fail to see how. The science speaks for itself and there was nothing in the stolen emails to support the notion that the results had been fabricated.

Hmmmm…Wang and Jones through him ] said they could produce records …that they could not. Sounds like fabrication of nonexistent records, to me.

I don’t know why you keep mis-using the word “hypothesis” for “theory”.

Real scientific theories must be falsifiable. They must be capable of being modified based on new evidence. So-called “theories” based on religion, such as creationism or intelligent design are, therefore, not scientific theories. They are not falsifiable, they don’t depend on new evidence, and they do not follow the scientific method.

Until CO2 is proven the main driver of climate - you will continue to be defending an unproven hypothesis.

 

[Ender]

If we add in hilly terrain and gusty winds, for example, the actual speed of the car before acceleration might have been fluctuating all over the place – but the speed that the accelerator’s forcing would have given is still the 60 km/h figure.

That’s actually a decent response, but it brings up what is for me the biggest hurdle: I simply don’t trust the people involved to tell the truth. The IPCC - and their minions - are like Lucy telling Charlie Brown to step up and kick the ball … she’ll hold it, trust her. In one area after another, once claim after another, the AGW supporters have demonstrated deceit and dishonesty. Why would I believe that, in hilly terrain, gusty winds, and with a dozen other contributing factors I should believe the tire salesman when he says he can isolate the contribution of the tires to my overall speed?

Why would I believe that CO2 is driving the warming we have experienced when it isn’t all that clear how much warming has even occurred? You talk of the models predictions being verified in so many cases, but what of the cases where the models and the data appear to diverge? In this paper by D’Aleo and Watts (scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/surface_temp.pdf) they include graphs (which I am unable to include) showing the divergence between surface temperatures and satellite measurements that, from 1979 to 2008 have grown by almost 0.5 C. Given the shenanigans that appear to be going on both in the selection of and adjustments to the raw surface data, I have little inclination to believe them (C’mon, Charlie Brown, step up and kick it.) Instead, I believe this is a more likely explanation:

These strongly suggest that instead of atmospheric warming from greenhouse effects dominating, surface based warming due to factors such as urbanization and land use changes are driving the observed changes. Since these surface changes are not fully adjusted for, trends from the surface networks are not reliable.

Or, as they state as the very first comment in the paper:

1. Instrumental temperature data for the pre-satellite era (1850-1980) have been so widely, systematically, and uni-directionally tampered with that it cannot be credibly asserted there has been any significant “global warming” in the 20th century.

Ender

 

[kimmielittle]

Actually I was hoping to find out if you agreed with the Royal Society’s statement or not, first.

Do you?

Actually, I thought it was a decent first start by the Royal Society - But much more is needed addressing the “unknowns” of CO2 being the main driver of climate. Or the “unknowns” in and of, the dynamics and diagnosis of radiative forcing and feedbacks.

Maybe, they Royal Society ] will lead the way for IPCC - We can only hope

 

[kimmielittle]

I’m afraid that can’t be helped. The world is full

 

[kimmielittle]

Let’s start with the prescribed remedy, drastically cutting CO2 by whatever means are being proposed. Cap n trade, I suppose, is still on the table, so let’s discuss in terms of that specific policy proposal.

First off, it is not unreasonable to expect cap n trade be effective in reducing CO2 levels. If it isn’t, then we ought to be discussing some other remedy.

Second, the benefits of imposing cap n trade ought exceed the costs incident to imposing this regime. If they aren’t, then we ought to be discussing some other remedy.

Third, arguing in the fashion of Bjorn Lomborg, even if the first two conditions are met, we should be satisfied that global warming is such an overriding concern as to trump all other world problems. e.g. even though GW is a problem, might limited world resources be better spent on problems such as fighting world hunger or curbing malaria, etc.?

These comprise what I call the policy burden of proof. The scientific burden of proof is this:

Fourth, CO2 levels are rising and human emissions are causing this.
Fifth, rising CO2 levels are causing the earth to warm.
Sixth, this warming will be dangerous.

My point is that all of these elements ought to true by some reasonable standard of proof. If any one element fails, then the advocated action should not proceed. For example, just because CO2 levels are rising and the earth is warming, doesn’t mean that CO2 is “guilty” and efforts made to reduce CO2 made. Just because the scientific burden of proof has been met doesn’t mean that we should attempt to drastically cut CO2 by means of cap n trade.

So I remain skeptical of this whole global warming/climate change/global climate disruption business. A whole has to be proved and it dubious the case has been made.

best regards

biff*
Hiyas

Welcome to CAF

 

[kimmielittle]

Then you link to a story about the error in Volume 2 (from Working Group 2) about the Himalayan glacier melting by 2035. Volume 1 (from Working Group 1), which establishes the scientific basis for global warming, contains no such error – the IPCC’s glacier experts were correct but the WG2 authors incorrectly relied on an unreliable source instead of using the IPCC’s own results.

A report by a backpacker that made it **ALL THE WAY THROUGH the IPCC process. **

This is the same process who offer “solutions”.

Even if that were true, it doesn’t mean the science is flawed.

And it doesn’t mean the science is sound.

What sounds warning bells is the demonstrable fact that the IPCC reports are conservative. This is not even surprising when you consider that they need approval from delegates from every single participating country, including the US, China, India, and Saudi Arabia, as I have already mentioned.

Are you referring to the 26 secret meeting members at Copenhagen? ifg.org/copenhagenblog.htm

Your hypothesis that the Green movement is somehow controlling the science is easily disproven and self-evidently ludicrous.

Maybe, not but… “They spent like $100 million and they weren’t able to get a single Republican convert on the bill.”…We do know they are trying to control the AGW Politics

Instead what we have is fossil fuel industry members funding PR campaigns trying to cast doubt on the science.

And you have PR groups affiliated with such groups as RealClimate…Not just A PR group but the Mother of PR groups Environmental Media Services - A Tides Foundation Group of Mr Soros.

Seeing that BP - Shell - Oman fund CRU along with who knows what…I would step back from claiming this

 

[portarica]

JasonSB;7129233:

Act how?

It is precisely the amount of “unknowns”… that are forcing us to weight the “KNOWNS” of the solutions offered. Both have to be weighed and because of the “unknowns” of AGW - it demands we weight the “knowns” of the solutions offered, even more.

The hypothesis of AGW’s “unknowns” … i.e. The dynamics and diagnosis of radiative forcing and feedbacks…leaves no other choice.

Actually the solutions to reducing global warming or whatever term is used would benefit the US in many ways. It is very shortsighted to continue our reliance on fossil fuels at a time when the world economy is moving away from them .

If we sit back and just let the green economy pass us by, we will be in a much more precarious position than we are even now. We have few manufacturing jobs on the horizon now and will have fewer in the future if we wait until we have to import the last energy technology from China.

Right now we are complacent to import our energy sources from unstable countries who support terrorism . The only real alternatives to importation of fossil fuels being considered are more of the same, in form of really environmentally destructive coal, oil and natural gas recovery schemes (to use a description of Ender) that still maintain our dependence on the pricing authority of OPEC. Which suits the oil giants just fine.

I agree that cap and trade is probably not really an answer , except to those that want to monetize the effort to reduce carbon. Incentives to produce clean power , throughout a spectrum ranging from the utilities down to the individual homeowners, would more actively generate jobs if properly constituted and provide more freedom for people determine their own energy solutions.

It is sort of ironic that we as catholics don’t want to consider energy policy in the context of what Jesus taught, in fact it seems that people resist the idea that the ideals of Jesus could make a positive impact in how our energy policy is determined.

I’m sure Jesus would applaud the efforts to safeguard the planet for future generations, I’m not so sure He would be so cool with the avarice involved in the present energy production and delivery systems.

Peace

 

[JasonSB]

Let’s start with the prescribed remedy, drastically cutting CO2 by whatever means are being proposed.

I would rather put it the other way around – let’s start with whether there is really a problem or not. There’s no point talking about solutions until we agree they’re needed.

I’m not going to go through all of the evidence supporting the science again. If you didn’t see my earlier posts and are disinclined to work your way back looking for them, read this summary instead:

skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-global-warming.htm

Those are direct observations taken from the peer-reviewed scientific literature that prove (a) we’re raising CO2 levels, (b) CO2 traps heat, and (c) the planet is accumulating heat. In other words, AGW is real and can be directly and empirically proven.

That in itself doesn’t mean we have a problem, but it does mean we need to investigate. The burden of proof has shifted – if we want to ignore this problem, we need to prove that it’s safe to do so.

So now we need to quantify the problem – is it a complete non-issue, is it the end of the world, or is it in between?

First, we need to determine how much additional forcing the CO2 will produce at a given concentration. This comes from fundamental physics equations coupled with observations and tells us that for CO2, the change in radiative forcing in Watts per square metre (dF) is given by:

dF = 5.35 ln(C/C[sub]0[/sub])

where C is the CO2 concentration and C[sub]0[/sub] is the reference CO2 concentration.

So now we can calculate how many extra Watts/m[sup]2[/sup] a given concetration of CO2 will cause.

The next figure is the one with the most uncertainty, because it’s the result of a large number of interacting systems. It’s the climate sensitivity: how many degrees C would we expect to get from a given number of Watts/m[sup]2[/sup]? For this there are many independent studies that have been done:

1. Comparisons of the change in temperature with the change in forcings during the instrumental period. (These tend to underestimate because the time it takes for the system to respond means that we haven’t seen the full change in temperature caused by the change in forcings yet – just like you can’t tell what speed a given accelerator pedal position will achieve until you’ve waiting long enough for the car to stop accelerating.)
2. General circulation models based on the laws of physics.
3. Comparisons using proxy temperature records over the past millenium. (These are also problematic because of the uncertainty in the temperature record and the uncertainty in the forcings are high relative to the change in both, so they tend to have very wide ranges for climate sensitivity.)
4. The response of the climate to volcanic eruptions.
5. The change since the last glacial maximum. (In theory this suffers from an even worse problem than #3, because the temperatures and forcings are even less well known, however the change in temperature and the change in forcings are so great that the signal to noise ratio is much better than in #3, constraining climate sensitivity much more than all the methods mentioned so far.)
6. Proxy data from the past few millions of years. Similarly to #5, although the measure is even less direct and even less certain, the fact that the changes were so great means it actually gives us very useful results.

Combining all of these onto a single graph we get:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/Climate_Sensitivity_Summary.gif

As you can see, all except two have best estimates right on the 3 C/doubling of CO2 line, and the two that have lower values we would expect due to signal:noise and time lag issues. This is really compelling, because when you have a bunch of different and independent methods giving you the same answer, it gives a great deal of confidence in that answer.

So, the best estimate of climate sensitivity is 3 degrees C per doubling of CO2. From that, the final step is to work out what effect that change in temperature will have:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/Key_Impacts.gif

Now, as I mentioned before, it’s clear that the projections are not perfect – in fact, there are strong reasons to believe they are underestimating the future impacts; the risk is far more likely to be on the upside than the downside:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/SLR_models_obs.gif

http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/Arctic_models_obs.gif

Part of the reason for this is that the Earth hasn’t seen CO2 concentrations like this for about 15 million years, so some of the feedbacks that kick in at higher concentrations aren’t accounted for in any of the studies of climate sensitivity listed above. Also, at the time the last IPCC report was published, models still didn’t have a very good handle on how the ice sheets and glaciers would respond so the rise in sea levels given in the IPCC report didn’t include those effects – the current best estimate of sea level rise is at least double what the IPCC report gave.

AFAIK every possible feedback people have thought of that is not yet accounted for is a positive feedback (i.e. will make the outcome worse) except the effect of clouds, which is both positive (it’s warmer on a cloudy night precisely because clouds trap heat) and negative (it’s cooler on a cloudy day because clouds reflect sunlight) and it’s uncertain which is more important. I suspect it’s a wash, which is why it’s been so hard to decide.

I believe there are no known negative feedbacks that remain unaccounted for – the risk is all on the upside. Right now, to claim that it won’t warm appreciably, you need to argue that there is some unknown effect that will kick in.

 

[JasonSB]

OK, so that’s the science. What do we do about it?

Let’s start with the prescribed remedy, drastically cutting CO2 by whatever means are being proposed. Cap n trade, I suppose, is still on the table, so let’s discuss in terms of that specific policy proposal.

First off, it is not unreasonable to expect cap n trade be effective in reducing CO2 levels. If it isn’t, then we ought to be discussing some other remedy.

Second, the benefits of imposing cap n trade ought exceed the costs incident to imposing this regime. If they aren’t, then we ought to be discussing some other remedy.

Third, arguing in the fashion of Bjorn Lomborg, even if the first two conditions are met, we should be satisfied that global warming is such an overriding concern as to trump all other world problems. e.g. even though GW is a problem, might limited world resources be better spent on problems such as fighting world hunger or curbing malaria, etc.?

These are all excellent and legitimate points.

If we want to reduce CO2 emissions, there are four ways to go about it:

1. Cap n trade. In this system the government issues permits that can be bought and sold on the open market. The advantages are:

a) The total amount of carbon released is predictable and controllable – the government simply issues permits each year based on that year’s quota, and can reduce the total number of permits over time to reduce the carbon footprint.

b) The government doesn’t dictate what the price of carbon should be, the free market does.

c) The government doesn’t determine what solutions will “win”, the free market does.

The disadvantages are:

a) Carbon permits become an investment instrument. If there’s one thing the global financial crisis has taught us, we should be wary of putting our futures in the hands of the folks on Wall St.

b) If there is a collapse in the market for permits (as happened in the EU), they may be so cheap that industry emits more CO2 than it otherwise would have, i.e. it can actually make the problem worse.

c) Either your trade partners need to participate in the scheme or you need to impose tariffs on imports from non-participating countries and give subsidies for exports to non-participating countries in order to ensure you don’t end up simply shipping jobs and industy overseas for no net benefit to the world.

d) It is hard for industry to make long-term plans because although the total amount of carbon that can be emitted is known, the cost is very hard to predict.

e) It’s very complex to implement.

1. A carbon tax. In this system a systematic analysis of the true cost of emitting that carbon into the environment is conducted and it is used to put a price on carbon. (It can be an independent statutory authority similar to a Reserve Bank.) That price is imposed in the form of a tax. The rate can be held constant for a period of time (e.g. five years) and limitations placed on how quickly it can change to give business certainty. It can be made revenue-neutral by either giving commensurate tax cuts in other areas or simply writing every citizen a cheque once a year with their “dividend”. The advantages are:

a) It’s really simple to implement.

b) Businesses can make long-term plans because the price is known in advance.

c) The government doesn’t determine what solutions will “win”, the free market does.

The disadvantages are:

a) Either your trade partners need to impose the same tax at the same rate or you need to impose tariffs on imports from non-participating countries and give subsidies for exports to non-participating countries in order to ensure you don’t end up simply shipping jobs and industy overseas for no net benefit to the world.

b) The amount of carbon actually emitted is hard to predict. (I don’t think this is a huge problem, as the tax rate can be changed over time as required.)

1. Subsidies. The government either invests directly in particular technologies or pays extra for energy produced using particular technologies. The advantages are:

a) Nobody notices that they are paying more, although obviously they must be – any money the government gives out to favoured technologies is money they either raised through taxes or borrowed to be paid back later.

The disadvantages are:

a) The government is picking winners, not the free market.

1. Legislation. The government simply bans certain technologies and/or requires a certain percentage of future energy to come from particular technologies. The advantages and disadvantages are similar to #3.

Since I favour a free market solution and simplicity, my preference is for a carbon tax. I see the fact that coal is allowed to damage the environment (not just through greenhouse gasses, it’s nasty in many ways) without having to bear that cost as a distortion of the free market – externalities should be internalised so the actual price reflects the true cost.

I also don’t like subsidies – there have been obscene amounts of taxpayers’ money thrown at the fossil fuel industry and the nuclear industry and it really has to stop. Right now some money is being given to the solar and wind power industries, and more to the ethanol industry, which wouldn’t be necessary if there was a price on carbon, but it’s still miniscule compared to the amount spent on nuclear power and even tinier compared to the amount spent supporting the fossil fuel industry. I’d rather see a price on carbon and all government support of all industries stopped. Then the money saved could be “spent on problems such as fighting world hunger or curbing malaria, etc.”

 

[JasonSB]

One final point I would like to make relates to this idea that reducing CO2 production is somehow very hard, very expensive, and is going to make the fight against world hunger or malaria more difficult.

I guess the first question is, where does this idea come from? I’m genuinely interested to know, because I’ve seen it raised here a number of times. I have avoided talking about it until now because I didn’t see much point until there was agreement on the problem, but it seems many people find it hard to think about whether a problem exists as long as they have this idea in the back of their minds that the solution is untenable.

It seems to me that the only way you can predict what the costs will be is through modelling. For some reason there are people who are willing to accept predictions that this is going to be hard and/or expensive based on models that have at least as much uncertainty as the science models discussed so far, but they use the uncertainty in the science models to dismiss the science while ignoring the fact that the uncertainty in their models casts doubt on the estimated costs and difficulties in moving away from a carbon-intensive world.

From what I have seen, it’s simply not true. In fact, significant reductions can be achieved with no net negative costs – what the IPCC report calls “no regrets opportunities”.

Here is a report from Germany on the reduction in the cost of electricity that wind power resulted in that more than compensated for the subsidy paid to have that wind power added: isi.fraunhofer.de/isi/publ/download/isi07a18/merit-order-effect.pdf?pathAlias=/publ/downloads/isi07a18/merit-order-effect.pdf

The reason for the cost reduction was that although wind power wasn’t the cheapest energy source available, wind power providers will dump all the power they can generate onto the market whenever they can – there’s no benefit to them in turning off turbines when the price gets too low because there’s no “fuel” to save in doing so. The availability of wind power electricity at whatever-price-was-going meant that customers avoided buying power from peak power generators using more expensive technology when there was enough wind for them to do so.

There are also benefits that are hard to put a precise dollar figure on that are nevertheless highly valued. For example, if the US was able to become completely energy self-sufficient and no longer had to import oil from the Middle East, what would that be worth to you? To the world? It will have to happen one day anyway, simply because oil is quickly running out, so why not get a head start?

So how hard would it be to achieve that goal?

David Mills wrote a paper comparing actual electricity usage with the output of his compact linear fresnel solar thermal power plants and determined that you would need six million acres (a square with 95 mile sides) to meet current US electricity demand. (geni.org/globalenergy/library/technical-articles/generation/solar/ausra/solar-thermal-electricity-as-the%20primary-replacement-for-coal-and-oil/ausra_usgridsupply.pdf)

To put the land use into context it represents:

• about the same amount of land that has been disturbed by coal mining in the US (9,000 square miles);
• about 6% of the area devoted to growing feed for horses before the advent of cars (154,000 square miles);
• about half the area devoted to roads in the US (20,000 square miles);
• about 20% of the land devoted to growing lawn (49,000 square miles);
• about the same as the land devoted to airports and railroads;
• about 10% of the land used for urban areas; and
• about 2.4% of the land used for parks, wilderness areas, and wildlife areas (378,000 square miles).

To top it off, the land that works best for solar thermal is hot, arid land with little rain – i.e. deserts.

Mills then goes on to calculate that if you electrified the US national vehicle fleet so you didn’t need to import oil any more at all it would approximately double the land usage.

That change on its own would provide 17% of the global reduction required to stabilise CO2 at 550 ppm. At what cost?In a somewhat aggressive scenario, if installation were spread over 30 years, then the annual generation replacement cost would be between US$24 and US$52 billion. Each such annual investment would avoid US$48 billion in imported fuel costs each year for the life of the plant.(Emphasis original.)

Even if you discount the figures on the basis that the author has a vested interest in promoting CLFR, this is definitely an opportunity worth investigating.

Meanwhile, wind power is being added at an astonishing rate. In mid-2006, China set a target of 5 GW for wind for 2010 and 30 GW for 2020. Less than a year later they had to double both targets because they had already achieved their 2010 target. By the end of 2009 they had already exceeded 25 GW and are expected to achieve their original 2020 goal at the end of this year, ten years ahead of schedule. I believe their current 2020 target is now between 100 GW and 150 GW.

 

[JasonSB]

If you want to compare electricity generating costs for different technologies, the California Public Utilities Commission has a tool you can download that calculates a cost in cents per kWh, taking into account all capital, fuel, and operating costs, as well as depreciation and taxation: ethree.com/documents/GHG%203.11.10/GHG%20Calculator%20version%203b_Final_to_Post_March2010.zip

Biogas:                                                   9.0
Wind:                                                     9.1
Gas Combined Cycle:                                       9.2
Geothermal:                                               9.2
Coal Supercritical:                                      11.6
Coal Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC):      12.7
Hydroelectric:                                           13.2
Biomass:                                                 16.5
Nuclear:                                                 18.3
Concentrating solar thermal (CSP):                       18.4
Coal IGCC with Carbon Capture & Storage (IGCC with CCS): 19.5

(These costs probably look a lot higher than what you might have seen before for coal or nuclear, in particular. However, the costs you may be familiar with are the marginal costs of generating electricity with existing power plants – the cost of construction, etc., is already sunk (and, in the case of nuclear, heavily subsidised by the taxpayer). The costs above are for new plants.)

Click on the tab at the bottom labelled “Gen Cost”, then look for row 57, “All-in Levelized Busbar Cost California”. The results are in $/MWh, so divide by 10 to get cents/kWh. You can also play with the fuel cost by changing the scale factors in row 139. Row 28 allows you to turn off tax credits. Note that the Solar Thermal cost is for parabolic trough technology, not the cheaper compact linear Fresnel reflector technology I mentioned before.

I think there are two take-home messages from these costs:

1. “Green” technologies like solar thermal and especially wind are right in there amongst all the other technologies that are already in use. They aren’t going to massively change the cost of electricity, which is already quite a small proportion of the household expenses anyway.
2. The cost of those green technologies are actually relatively certain, because they are largely up-front capital investment costs. The fuel-consuming technologies have costs that are highly variable over the lifetime of the plant because the cost of the fuel will fluctuate (and, inevitably, rise). The price of natural gas futures has fluctuated between ~$2.50 and ~$6.00 per MMbtu in the past 12 months alone! Even nuclear is not immune – expect prices to skyrocket in 2013 once the existing Russian supply contracts expire because the Russians have already said they are not going to renew them and instead are going to reserve the rest of their stockpile for future customers of their nuclear reactors. Since Russia is currently providing about 50% of global uranium supply from its nuclear weapons stockpiles, uranium is going to be a highly-sought-after commodity in a few years.

I could go on, but the point is this – a low-carbon future isn’t as scary as you might think, and has all sorts of incidental benefits, like energy independence, that leave many of us wondering why on earth we aren’t racing towards it regardless.

 

[JasonSB]

Yes, we should.

Definitions;

You’re missing the point:

If you (or Ender) consider their actions bad enough to prove your point, then simply say exactly what they did. Choosing to use a vague emotionally-laden word instead, that covers many possible actions, makes it look like you’re trying to over-dramatise the event to support your case.

If the fact that Hansen appeared as an expert witness at their trial to explain the negative impacts of new coal power plants is the best you can do to support your claims about Hansen’s extreme beliefs, then I find it pretty unconvincing, to say the least. I would have thought you’d be able to come up with actual statements that he made to support your case, not indirect arguments based on books he chose to endorse or court cases he chose to appear at. The fact that such indirect and arguable evidence is sufficient to convince you of Hansen’s beliefs makes an interesting contrast to your failure to accept AGW based on all the observations and evidence presented so far.