What level of responsibility do you feel for the negative impacts of anthropogenic climate change?

[LittleSoldier]

The problem with climate change is not because of human carbon emissions. There’s no correlation between human CO2 and atmospheric CO2 or the temperatures; most of the warming is due to oceanic temperature fluctuations. But the problem is that we’re taking away the earth’s natural ability to deal with all of the CO2, whether human or natural–through deforestation. Our destruction of the forests, especially the Amazon, is eating away at the lungs of our planet.

Great post!!

I feel that i should clarify, for everyone, that science cannot prove anything and that includes “there’s no correlation between human CO2 and atmospheric CO2 or the temperature…” That is a hypothesis. Even if study after study is conducted the obtained results can be due to chance. After enough evidence has been found through repeated scientific studies (and hopefully each study identifies problems with previous studies such as errors in statistical analysis, not knowing of confounding variables, etc. and controls for these problems are put into place; after all, fallible human beings are the ones conducting the research and we make lots of mistakes) a hypothesis may become a theory. And that is where it stops. There is no proof ever.

You make this clear with the rest of what you say and I commend you for bringing up a very important point: we may be responsible for damaging the earth’s natural ways of dealing with excessive CO2 and that that damage is not being taken into consideration in some (much?) research. It’s like humans are upstream, damaging the environment, but often studies are conducted downstream without taking our damage into consideration and allowing us to believe that if there is a problem it’s not our fault so why should we change anything we are doing?

A research study usually concentrate on a very limited hypothesis. It’s easy for people not trained in scientific methodology to take the results of one study and decide that is absolute Truth and that’s the end of the story; we’re not responsible, end of story, zip it up, and go. We need to look at as much research as we can and even then we will not know exactly what is going on because not one of us is infallible about scientific matters, not even those with PhDs.

I would also like to point out that much of what I have read as “proof” that global warming is not occurring is based on statements such as, “This is the coldest day on record for this area; ergo, global warming in not happening” or, “This winter was really cold. Look at all those snowstorms and blizzards in the northeastern United States. If global warming existed then it wouldn’t be so cold.” Global temperatures and trends are not based on one day or one year or one area and the statements I posted show ignorance of science and how scientists conduct research.

 

[LittleSoldier]

Not referring to now, but to the future. What’s happening or not happening now was the responsiblity of our forebears. They didn’t understand about GHG emissions, tho science has know about it for over 100 years – even the scientists did not quite understand the extent of the possible negative impacts until about 30 years ago. And the impact science has been coming in ever since year after year, decade after decade “it’s worse than we thought,” “it’s much worse than we thougght.”

The emissions we are emitting today will be impacting future generations for 100s, even 1000s of years. And they project more severe storms in the future. When you add heat into a system, and conditions gear it toward expressing itself in kinetic energy, that’s when the storms will be enhanced. More heat, more vigorous kinetic movement.

My concern is with the future - that of my children and theirs and theirs. They are the ones who will have to deal with the problems we may be exacerbating. If we are engaged in actions which damage the environment (and I don’t mean things that are necessary to life; I certainly don’t believe we should all stop breathing or eating) we are responsible for what our descendants will have to deal with.

I live in the Pacific Northwest. The 101 is the main street in my little town and it also runs from California through Washington. So we get a lot of travelers. I see massive RVs chugging up and down the 101. Some have garages built into them although many are hauling cars. One was so big that it was actually hauled by a semi. I examined that rig as it was for sale. It had a garage with a car in place. I don’t know about the mileage but I don’t think it got very much distance per gallon of gas. I could have lived in that rig. It was HUGE. I see other rigs parked in front of huge houses and sometimes I see garages built specifically to house a huge rig - next to a very nice, large house.

That is what concerns me. I am also concerned about grass farmers that burn their fields after accepting money from the federal government which is meant to reimburse them for *not * burning their fields. When I fly I see a huge layer of brown gunk lying over the San Bernardino/Riverside counties in California. It’s always there. This is what the people who live there are breathing and many are children who have no way of escaping it.

I am concerned with clear-cutting and with plans to cut down redwood trees in national forests. Why do people want to cut these trees down? I think it’s because they make nice furniture. Yet we can plant bamboo, harvest it, use it for furniture and flooring (it is very resistant to insects), and it’s beautiful and not expensive.

We need to learn to choose between what we need (including flooring and furniture which do need to be replaced sometimes), what we don’t absolutely need but want such as an anniversay clock or a nice tablecloth or some extra clothes found on sale (and there is nothing wrong with that), and what we don’t need but want for the wrong reasons and will purchase even though our descendants will suffer because of it. The latter is greed.

I haven’t had time to read this entire thread. I apologize if I have taken it off-topic at any point. I will try to read it all soon.

 

[Ridgerunner]

That is what concerns me. I am also concerned about grass farmers that burn their fields after accepting money from the federal government which is meant to reimburse them for *not * burning their fields. When I fly I see a huge layer of brown gunk lying over the San Bernardino/Riverside counties in California. It’s always there. This is what the people who live there are breathing and many are children who have no way of escaping it.

I am concerned with clear-cutting and with plans to cut down redwood trees in national forests. Why do people want to cut these trees down? I think it’s because they make nice furniture. Yet we can plant bamboo, harvest it, use it for furniture and flooring (it is very resistant to insects), and it’s beautiful and not expensive.

We need to learn to choose between what we need (including flooring and furniture which do need to be replaced sometimes), what we don’t absolutely need but want such as an anniversay clock or a nice tablecloth or some extra clothes found on sale (and there is nothing wrong with that), and what we don’t need but want for the wrong reasons and will purchase even though our descendants will suffer because of it. The latter is greed.

I haven’t had time to read this entire thread. I apologize if I have taken it off-topic at any point. I will try to read it all soon.

Certainly people should not burn if they’re paid not to burn. However, both burning and letting vegetation sit are potentially harmful and certainly wasteful. Better that they graze if there’s grass there. But they’re likely being paid not to graze either. I have long thought the CRP program wasteful, which is what I think you’re talking about.

What is the “brown gunk”? Sounds pretty unappetizing, whatever it might be.

I don’t know about redwoods, but I do know that at a trees greatly slow in their growth and, at maturity, essentially stop growing, and start going downhill. Mature trees do not sequester much in the way of carbon, and declining trees exude it by dropping dead branches to the ground and ultimately rotting themselves. Better to “sequester” their carbon in furniture that will not release it for a long time. If the furniture is good enough, it might remain that way for one or more centuries.

I’m uncertain about bamboo. It’s fast growing, but it also dies and falls to the ground. One has to wonder whether more of it would get incorporated in furniture that would last, than would be left on the ground to rot. But I’ll admit I know very little about bamboo.

 

[lynnvinc]

My concern is with the future - that of my children and theirs and theirs. They are the ones who will have to deal with the problems we may be exacerbating. If we are engaged in actions which damage the environment (and I don’t mean things that are necessary to life; I certainly don’t believe we should all stop breathing or eating) we are responsible for what our descendants will have to deal with.

I live in the Pacific Northwest. The 101 is the main street in my little town and it also runs from California through Washington. So we get a lot of travelers. I see massive RVs chugging up and down the 101. Some have garages built into them although many are hauling cars. One was so big that it was actually hauled by a semi. I examined that rig as it was for sale. It had a garage with a car in place. I don’t know about the mileage but I don’t think it got very much distance per gallon of gas. I could have lived in that rig. It was HUGE. I see other rigs parked in front of huge houses and sometimes I see garages built specifically to house a huge rig - next to a very nice, large house.

That is what concerns me. I am also concerned about grass farmers that burn their fields after accepting money from the federal government which is meant to reimburse them for *not * burning their fields. When I fly I see a huge layer of brown gunk lying over the San Bernardino/Riverside counties in California. It’s always there. This is what the people who live there are breathing and many are children who have no way of escaping it.

I am concerned with clear-cutting and with plans to cut down redwood trees in national forests. Why do people want to cut these trees down? I think it’s because they make nice furniture. Yet we can plant bamboo, harvest it, use it for furniture and flooring (it is very resistant to insects), and it’s beautiful and not expensive.

We need to learn to choose between what we need (including flooring and furniture which do need to be replaced sometimes), what we don’t absolutely need but want such as an anniversay clock or a nice tablecloth or some extra clothes found on sale (and there is nothing wrong with that), and what we don’t need but want for the wrong reasons and will purchase even though our descendants will suffer because of it. The latter is greed.

I haven’t had time to read this entire thread. I apologize if I have taken it off-topic at any point. I will try to read it all soon.

You’re on topic, bec these all relate in one way or another to AGW, its causes, impacts, and mitigation.

I’d only suggest one other thing – garage sales. REUSE is a great way to mitigate climate change.

 

[Mitro]

I think the level of acceptance on both sides of the argument is promising at the very least. Might I suggest an inherent hypocrisy though, when Christians label advocates of climate change as “alarmists”…

I think we can agree that secular people might use that label when we try to teach others about Jesus in order to secure their eternal salvation. People who don’t believe in the good news of Christ may think we are just trying to “alarm” or scare them into submission. But that doesn’t make the message of the risen Christ any less true does it?

Now i’m not saying that as Christians we try to scare people into belief, quite the opposite actually. We feel that without Christ our lives and the lives of others will have serious long-term consequences, both here and in the hereafter.

As advocates of climate change we too feel that this issue will have serious consequences both now and for future generations of Christians and non-Christians alike.

Genesis 2:15
The Lord God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it.

Let us try to avoid name-calling and labeling others and focus on the great task that the Lord has set before us.

Your Brother,

Mitro

 

[manualman]

The costs of doing nothing to solve environmental harms, however, is tremendous. Imagine having a Katrina or Sandy (or even much worse storm) every two or three years, instead of every seven years. Or double or triple the wildfires, droughts, floods, disease spread, and heat waves in the U.S. and around the world. AGW is costing us plenty right now, and will be costing us a huge portion of our wealth in ensuing years and decades. Unfortunately much of these costs (including human health and lives) are already in the pipes for many decades to come; what we need to do now is turn this Titantic around so our ship of life is not totally wrecked.

See this is where I lose my temper. I understand and even concede that the AGW scientists have an interesting hypthesis worth studying on CO2 levels. It’s not accurate to call it a theory yet, because computer model projections are NOT historically a credible means of testing a hypothesis. It might become a theory someday if/when those models actually make predictions that come true.

I’m a civil engineer and understanding and staying abreast of flood risk data is part of my job. There is NOT a documented increase in the incidence of severe weather events. Neither severe hurricanes (wind damage) nor extreme precipitation events (flooding) are increasing in frequency to any measurable trend. There IS a trend of increasing damages from weather extremes, but this is simply a reflection of the fact that we are building far too many and too expensive structures in harm’s way compared to decades past, NOT because it is raining harder or blowing harder.

This is the sort of dishonesty that make be skeptical of AGW claims in general (not that YOU are dishonest, but the sources of said claims are). And this isn’t just me talking, these were the findings of the Illinois State Water Survey at a conference I attended a few years back (arguably the midwest’s best climate agency), presented by Dr. Derek Winstanley (phd from Oxford in Climatology) The AGW computer models do in some cases predict more severe rainfall, but they have not yet proved out in observations at all and their error confidence interval on those is even worse than it is for temperature. In Dr. Winstanley’s words these predictions are so far “Interesting, but useless as predictions.”

 

[lynnvinc]

The Rio Grande Valley is not Germany. Germany is giving up on solar because it’s very costly and inefficient. slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/project_syndicate/2012/02/why_germany_is_phasing_out_its_solar_power_subsidies_.html

And despite the fact that North Sea winds are hurculean and that Germany has spent billions on wind power, Germany is still not gaining much electricity from it, and probably nothing in the way of CO2 emission abatement. telegraph.co.uk/comment/9559656/Germanys-wind-power-chaos-should-be-a-warning-to-the-UK.html

Your articles are outdated and I don’t trust Bjorn Lomborg or UK’s The Telegraph – unreliable sources with bad motives in my books.

Anyway, Germany is still forging ahead with solar and wind, despite less than ideal conditions and without whining about their less than ideal conditions. You have to give that to them. They at least understand that the alternatives of coal-burning and nuclear are worse.

Germany’s goal is to get 35% of their electricity from alt energy by 2020 and 100% by 2050, and they are pretty much on track. With wind now equal to conventional energy in costs and solar very close (will be equal in a year or two), There should be no problem at all for them in doing what is right and good and just.

Where there is God’s will (not to kill) there is a way.

See some more recent articles:

• en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_in_Germany
• “Germany Unveils First North Sea Offshore Wind-Power Network Plan” at bloomberg.com/news/2013-02-22/germany-unveils-first-north-sea-offshore-wind-power-network-plan.html
• “New German Wind Energy Capacity Increases In 2012 By 20%” at cleantechnica.com/2013/02/05/new-german-wind-energy-capacity-increases-in-2012-by-20/#bZOHHRg8HxllrtE7.99 " AT cleantechnica.com/2013/02/05/new-german-wind-energy-capacity-increases-in-2012-by-20/

 

[lynnvinc]

See this is where I lose my temper. I understand and even concede that the AGW scientists have an interesting hypthesis worth studying on CO2 levels. It’s not accurate to call it a theory yet, because computer model projections are NOT historically a credible means of testing a hypothesis. It might become a theory someday if/when those models actually make predictions that come true.

Computer models are only one tool among a vast array they use to understand AGW, including paleoclimatology and real evidence data – including instrumental temps, and various proxies. Laws of physics helped them understand over 100 years ago why earth is warmer by about 30C than it would be without the natural greenhouse effect. They’ve found GHGs associated with past warmings, ususally as positive feedback (released from melting permafrost and ocean hydrates), but also as trigger, such as during the end-Permian great warming and extinction.

Even the computer models are run backwards over the real data to see if they work, before they are shot forward into the future to make projections. And they are constantly being tweaked as new data and factors emerge.

People in lots of fields use computers to help them figure things out, project into the future, and plan – and they are not being attacked as climate computer modellers are.

I’m a civil engineer and understanding and staying abreast of flood risk data is part of my job.

I’d think engineers would be more into erring on the side of precaution than risk. They wouldn’t build a bridge taking into consideration only the average traffic flow, but traffic during the worse rush hour with several tractor-trailers hauling heavy loads stuck there on the bridge.

RE flood risk and engineering, why did Katrina breached the levees and why did Sandy do so much damage…if they had been built for the worst situations? (There was an engineer warning of how climate change could cause such damage in NY, and how it needed to prepare better, but his warnings went unheeded – he at least weather-proofed his own home.)

I would hope more engineers take GW seriously and consideration it impacts when building things. But then the problem is, should we plan for conditions in 2020, that will be exceeded within a decade or so afterwards? I guess no one expects anything to last more than 50 years, so we should be planning for at least 2060 conditions.

More and more heat in the system means greater water evaporation and greater deluges causing greater floods; and also when turned to kinetic energy under certain conditions, more intense storms.

We don’t want to be like the first little pig who built his house of straw.

There is NOT a documented increase in the incidence of severe weather events.

There actually have been quite a few studies that indicate more severe weather events are occurring. See the 2012 report “Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation” at ipcc-wg2.gov/SREX/images/uploads/SREX-All_FINAL.pdf , and check out their numerous sources of studies indicating increase in severe events with even more projected into the future.

Tho one cannot say a particular storm was caused by global warming, they can say the overall increase in intensity does indicate GW is a contributing factor. RE storms, they involve many factors, the latent energy content from heat being just one, so it has been more difficult to separate signal from noise on storms. That’s why it wasn’t until 2005 that the first studies linking increased storm intensity (tho not frequency) to GW started coming in. See: Emanuel, K., 2005, “Increasing destructiveness of tropical cyclones over the past 30 years.” Nature, 436(7051), 686-688.

Other recent sources re weather extremes:

• “Quasiresonant amplification of planetary waves and recent Northern Hemisphere weather extremes” at pnas.org/content/early/2013/02/28/1222000110.short
• “IMILAST – a community effort to intercompare extratropical cyclone detection and tracking algorithms: assessing method-related uncertainties”, Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, pp. 120919072158001, 2012. dx.doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-11-00154.1
• “A decade of weather extremes” at nature.com/nclimate/journal/v2/n7/full/nclimate1452.html
• “Strong increase in convective precipitation in response to higher temperatures”, Nature Geoscience, vol. 6, pp. 181-185, 2013. dx.doi.org/10.1038/ngeo1731

…This is the sort of dishonesty that make be skeptical of AGW claims in general (not that YOU are dishonest, but the sources of said claims are). And this isn’t just me talking, these were the findings of the Illinois State Water Survey at a conference I attended a few years back (arguably the midwest’s best climate agency), presented by Dr. Derek Winstanley (phd from Oxford in Climatology) The AGW computer models do in some cases predict more severe rainfall, but they have not yet proved out in observations at all and their error confidence interval on those is even worse than it is for temperature. In Dr. Winstanley’s words these predictions are so far “Interesting, but useless as predictions.”

I don’t know anything about Winstanley, but I can’t imagine that he would be saying there are no increases globally in flooding, droughts, and storm intensity, and there will not be even greater increases on into the future, bec GW has no impact on these. Maybe he got his degree long ago and hasn’t kept up with the research.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Your articles are outdated and I don’t trust Bjorn Lomborg or UK’s The Telegraph – unreliable sources with bad motives in my books.

Anyway, Germany is still forging ahead with solar and wind, despite less than ideal conditions and without whining about their less than ideal conditions. You have to give that to them. They at least understand that the alternatives of coal-burning and nuclear are worse.

Germany’s goal is to get 35% of their electricity from alt energy by 2020 and 100% by 2050, and they are pretty much on track. With wind now equal to conventional energy in costs and solar very close (will be equal in a year or two), There should be no problem at all for them in doing what is right and good and just.

Where there is God’s will (not to kill) there is a way.

See some more recent articles:

• en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_in_Germany
• “Germany Unveils First North Sea Offshore Wind-Power Network Plan” at bloomberg.com/news/2013-02-22/germany-unveils-first-north-sea-offshore-wind-power-network-plan.html
• “New German Wind Energy Capacity Increases In 2012 By 20%” at cleantechnica.com/2013/02/05/new-german-wind-energy-capacity-increases-in-2012-by-20/#bZOHHRg8HxllrtE7.99 " AT cleantechnica.com/2013/02/05/new-german-wind-energy-capacity-increases-in-2012-by-20/

A 2012 article is not exactly ancient history. Germany is reducing its solar subsidies, upon which the industry depends. It’s like corn ethanol in that way. You can make almost anything work if you subsidize it enough. If German solar was so good, it, like corn ethanol, would not have ever needed a subsidy.

Yes, yes, I know about the “oil subsidies”. Actually, there aren’t any. There are depreciation rules, just as every industry, including the solar industry, has them. But I believe those rules were just amended in the case of oil anyway. Solar, of course, is still subsidized, and not just by rules of depreciation.

In the U.S., solar is subsidized at ever step of the way, including to the ultimate consumer. If one plugs into the power grid, one gets paid at retail, by law, for pushing electricity into the system. That subsidy is paid for by all other users and is of little benefit to anyone other than the person doing it because it pushes electricity into the system at times of low usage…not at the times of peak power consumption. Solar generates nothing during peak consumption, which is at night.

And of course, if one simply brushes off competing sources of information, one always wins, and not because of the merits.

 

[manualman]

1. Even the computer models are run backwards over the real data to see if they work, before they are shot forward into the future to make projections. And they are constantly being tweaked as new data and factors emerge.
2. People in lots of fields use computers to help them figure things out, project into the future, and plan – and they are not being attacked as climate computer modellers are.
3. I’d think engineers would be more into erring on the side of precaution than risk. They wouldn’t build a bridge taking into consideration only the average traffic flow, but traffic during the worse rush hour with several tractor-trailers hauling heavy loads stuck there on the bridge.
4. RE flood risk and engineering, why did Katrina breached the levees and why did Sandy do so much damage…if they had been built for the worst situations? (There was an engineer warning of how climate change could cause such damage in NY, and how it needed to prepare better, but his warnings went unheeded – he at least weather-proofed his own home.)
5. I would hope more engineers take GW seriously and consideration it impacts when building things. But then the problem is, should we plan for conditions in 2020, that will be exceeded within a decade or so afterwards? I guess no one expects anything to last more than 50 years, so we should be planning for at least 2060 conditions.

I’ll just respond to the areas in which I am most qualified.

1. This is called “calibration” and is a process by which the modelers use their educated judgement to adjust (name removed by moderator)ut parameters until ‘predictions’ for past events match the actual observations. I do this professionally with a climate model for stormwater runoff called NRCS TR-20. It’s got maybe 1% of the number of (name removed by moderator)ut parameters that a global climate model would. And you know what? It’s really a funny thing: the results of these models almost ALWAYS get skewed in the direction that the funding source wants the answer towards. This isn’t malfeasance, it’s human nature. It appalls me that the AGW modelers pretend that they are too virtuous for it to happen to them. It displays either an arrogance or an ignorance and I’m not sure which scares me more.
2. As I mentioned, I’m one of them. And I AM attacked whenever my results are going to cost somebody money to comply. It goes with the business. In our industry, the issue has been resolved by having experts on both sides have a shot each review the work and an opportunity to make critiques and defenses of their work. Contrast that with the militant secrecy and refusal to allow tranparency in the modeling and calibration processes in the AGW field.
3. That’s precisely what we do. However, we do NOT design said bridges with worst case assumptions that truck traffic will continue the upward trend for the next 100 years and design today’s bridges to that level. We’d be laughed off the stage for such folly. We measure peak loads as they exist RIGHT NOW and make reasonable projections forward 20 years max.
4. New Orleans levees failed because they weren’t properly maintained and because the builders had missed some failure prone subsoil conditions underneath the levees that should have been fixed before the levees were ever built. Look it up, the levees didn’t actually fail until AFTER the storm had passed. It was saturation of the soil base and seepage through and under the levees that killed New Orleans, not overtopping. And any competent civil engineer will tell you that a levee is a band-aid solution at best. None of us live behind levees. We live on high ground.
5. Engineering is inherently an art of compromise and trade-off. Americans are spoiled by how well we’ve done our work overall. They’ve come to expect zero risk and nearly zero cost. The reality is that even Bill Gates can’t afford zero risk. It’s prohibitive. You should be very glad that we HAVEN’T used your philosophy of design for all risks because if we did, you’d still be living in primitive conditions since zero risk infrastructure would be unaffordable.

 

[Sky_Pilot]

With respect, I cannot accept the wording of the question.
I would have to accept that climate change is indeed anthropogenic, and I am not convinced that is the case.
Such phrasing reminds me of the political mud-slinging question, “Answer yes or no: do you still beat your wife?”

 

[Farsight001]

With respect, I cannot accept the wording of the question.
I would have to accept that climate change is indeed anthropogenic, and I am not convinced that is the case.
Such phrasing reminds me of the political mud-slinging question, “Answer yes or no: do you still beat your wife?”

Then think of this as a thread for those who are trying to quit beating their wives.

 

[lynnvinc]

1. This is called “calibration” and is a process by which the modelers use their educated judgement to adjust (name removed by moderator)ut parameters until ‘predictions’ for past events match the actual observations. I do this professionally with a climate model for stormwater runoff called NRCS TR-20. It’s got maybe 1% of the number of (name removed by moderator)ut parameters that a global climate model would. And you know what? It’s really a funny thing: the results of these models almost ALWAYS get skewed in the direction that the funding source wants the answer towards. This isn’t malfeasance, it’s human nature. It appalls me that the AGW modelers pretend that they are too virtuous for it to happen to them. It displays either an arrogance or an ignorance and I’m not sure which scares me more.

Nevertheless, projections of the most likely climate scenario for our current situation made back in the early 1980s were pretty close to the mark, even considering that the computer power and models back then were very low power and “primitive” by today’s standards. See: realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2012/04/evaluating-a-1981-temperature-projection/

The climate scientists do admit their more recent computer projections have slightly overestimated the warming and they are trying to figure it out, and striving to include as many factors as they can. They don’t get more money if they project high; they are working for salaries.

My own complaint against these modelers is they are NOT taking into calculation the positive feedbacks from nature releasing GHGs due to our initial warming triggering such releases – from melting permafrost and ocean hydrates – which could cause the warming to accelerate once it is really underway (right now it is in its beginnings). They are working on fairly linear models based mainly only our our human emissions and various shorter term factors.

So in my estimation they are grossly underestimating the problem over the next 100s and 1000s of years.

Since my concern is NOT how AGW will be affecting me (I’m already in my mid-60s, so I don’t expect much personal harm from it), but how my actions will be impacting people and God’s creation into the future. There is no statute of limitations in the spiritual realm on the harms I am perpetrating right now by my failures to do the right thing.

1. As I mentioned, I’m one of them. And I AM attacked whenever my results are going to cost somebody money to comply…

Which brings up my original point. Since it actually saves money and helps the economy to mitigate climate change (at least down to a 75% reduction in GHG emissions), and the costs of dealing with future harms of AGW impacts could be astronomical (depending on whether human health and life is figured in), then it would be wisest first to “do no harm” by mitigating.

At the same time we should also be adapting by building better infrastructure to withstand the GW impacts already in the pipes. That will be expensive and require a lot of soul and pocket searching, with ideas being bandied about, like “let the children build it better or deal with the consequences later, while we (the generation in power today) hope the flood doesn’t breach the levee during our lifetime.”

 

[lynnvinc]

A 2012 article is not exactly ancient history. Germany is reducing its solar subsidies, upon which the industry depends. It’s like corn ethanol in that way. You can make almost anything work if you subsidize it enough. If German solar was so good, it, like corn ethanol, would not have ever needed a subsidy.

Yes, yes, I know about the “oil subsidies”. Actually, there aren’t any. There are depreciation rules, just as every industry, including the solar industry, has them. But I believe those rules were just amended in the case of oil anyway. Solar, of course, is still subsidized, and not just by rules of depreciation.

In the U.S., solar is subsidized at ever step of the way, including to the ultimate consumer. If one plugs into the power grid, one gets paid at retail, by law, for pushing electricity into the system. That subsidy is paid for by all other users and is of little benefit to anyone other than the person doing it because it pushes electricity into the system at times of low usage…not at the times of peak power consumption. Solar generates nothing during peak consumption, which is at night.

And of course, if one simply brushes off competing sources of information, one always wins, and not because of the merits.

You may be right – it may not be economically cost-effective for Germany to go solar and wind, esp if you do not calcuate in the costs and harms from local, regional, and global environmental problems caused by coal-burning.

But this just makes me appreciate Germany all the more for what they are doing and sacrificing.

Maybe this time around they don’t want to be a part of the genocide.

We in America are perhaps immune to such softy concerns, having committed genocide on Native Americans without remorse.

Germany learns from its past and goes beyond it on a more righteous path, even if it means sacrifice to their pocketbooks.

If Germany can just hold on a few more years with its alt energy program when solar becomes competitive with conventional energy, and wind is doing a whole lot better (it is now competitive), they will not have to sacrifice so much as they graciously are doing now.

 

[manualman]

Nevertheless, projections of the most likely climate scenario for our current situation made back in the early 1980s were pretty close to the mark, even considering that the computer power and models back then were very low power and “primitive” by today’s standards. See: realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2012/04/evaluating-a-1981-temperature-projection/

The climate scientists do admit their more recent computer projections have slightly overestimated the warming and they are trying to figure it out, and striving to include as many factors as they can.

1. They don’t get more money if they project high; they are working for salaries.

1. I have no doubt that these fellows did their level best to calibrate their models and get an accurate projection. What I’m not sure you understand yet is that calibration itself is where bias and opinion are introduced into model results. When they increase the sensitivity parameters related to greenhouse gases in order to get predictions that match the results, they have functionally built an ASSUMPTION into the model that greenhouse gasses ARE the primary driver of temperature increases. If this IS the blunder they made and there are actually other mechanisms not fully identified that contributed to the temperature rise, then by the principle of error analysis one would expect that when the calibrated model is used to project the effects of FURTHER increases in greenhouse gases that these effects would be OVER-predicted if the actual drivers not identified in the model did not change (whew, what a mouthful!). The fact that this is PRECISELY what has happened (models are significantly over-predicting temperature rises in the last decade), suggests that their calibration isn’t good yet.
2. Few to no serious research scientists have permanent jobs in endowed institutions. The vast majority of them will starve unless they produce study results sexy enough to allow them to sell their NEXT research grant request. This increasingly makes the science business like the journalism business: If you don’t make headline news, you don’t keep the revenue flowing. Attention and money flow to those who make the biggest splash. Findings of “Studies are Inconclusive and More Research is Needed” stop selling papers and grant requests very quickly.

 

[Ridgerunner]

You may be right – it may not be economically cost-effective for Germany to go solar and wind, esp if you do not calcuate in the costs and harms from local, regional, and global environmental problems caused by coal-burning.

But this just makes me appreciate Germany all the more for what they are doing and sacrificing.

Maybe this time around they don’t want to be a part of the genocide.

We in America are perhaps immune to such softy concerns, having committed genocide on Native Americans without remorse.

Germany learns from its past and goes beyond it on a more righteous path, even if it means sacrifice to their pocketbooks.

If Germany can just hold on a few more years with its alt energy program when solar becomes competitive with conventional energy, and wind is doing a whole lot better (it is now competitive), they will not have to sacrifice so much as they graciously are doing now.

“Genocide” is a pretty strong thing to attribute to those who don’t support one’s view of MMGW. And asserting that Americans genrally aren’t bothered by genocide because of actions of a FEW of the ancestors of SOME present Americans a century and more ago, is no less unwarranted.

Germany has an energy problem, and has had one since the Industrial Revolution began. While it has a relative abundance of highly polluting soft brown coal, it has nothing else. It buys better coal from Poland and oil and gas from Russia. Obviously, it is somewhat straitened in energy resources, and is hard put to do very much about it.

The cost per kilowatt hour in Germany is more than twice what it is in the U.S. Not surprisingly, many public buildings are not heated in the winter and private homes of those who are not wealthy are very circumspect in energy use. The fossil fuel generators (and therefore the consumers) are charged for the subsidies paid to the generators of wind and solar. And that’s a good part of the reason why Germany’s cost per kilowatt hour is more than double that of the U.S. Germany will not go to 100% alternate sources anytime soon because the cost would not be softened by cheaper fossil fuel contributors to the grid.

Germany has certain advantages economically. It is right in the center of a very densely populated part of the world. We in the U.S. do not have that. On the other hand, we have immense energy resources and Germany does not. Since U.S. emissions are not increasing, and since total elimination of all U.S. emissions (if it could happen without huge die-offs) would have a miniscule effect on worldwide emissions, it is difficult to see a) why the U.S. should seek to further reduce emissions at all for the sake of a theory that cannot be scientifically proved or b) why adverse consequences that disproportionately affect the poor should be undertaken for the sake of a theory whose governmental proponents so utterly ignore in their own lives as to be entirely unconvincing that they believe it at all, and particularly c) when measures other than making utility costs “skyrocket” would likely ameliorate carbon emissions anyway.

 

[Cat_Herder]

Deforestation is a huge anthroprogenic factor - what would you propose is the appropriate personal response to this issue?

That depends on how much control you have over your paper consumption. If you can go electronic as much as possible, that’s a great start. Otherwise you can “reduce, reuse and recycle.”

It’s worth bringing up that the biggest tree-killer is the government. The government not only uses tons of paper but also demands that citizens use tons of paper to fulfill its requirements. So if you work for or with the government there’s not much you can do, except to use recycled paper and print on both sides if you can.

 

[JimG]

That depends on how much control you have over your paper consumption. If you can go electronic as much as possible, that’s a great start. Otherwise you can “reduce, reuse and recycle.”

It’s worth bringing up that the biggest tree-killer is the government. The government not only uses tons of paper but also demands that citizens use tons of paper to fulfill its requirements. So if you work for or with the government there’s not much you can do, except to use recycled paper and print on both sides if you can.

That brings to mind the excessive “Privacy Act Notices” that now come in every financial statement at least once a year and are promptly thrown away–mandated by the government! That’s just the tip of the iceberg.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

None.

The Planet Earth is a volcano … A BIG GIANT VOLCANO … and there is absolutely NOTHING you can do to “save the volcano”.

[There are NO anthropogenic climate changes.]

[Besides, the expression has been changed … it is no longer “AGW”; it is now “CAGW” … because not enough people got all upset and emotional at “AGW”, so they changed it to “Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming” … need to keep up.]

[Consider how much more wasteful the NEW bumper stickers are … ]

 

[Monte_RCMS]

“Genocide” is a pretty strong thing to attribute to those who don’t support one’s view of MMGW. And asserting that Americans genrally aren’t bothered by genocide because of actions of a FEW of the ancestors of SOME present Americans a century and more ago, is no less unwarranted.

Germany has an energy problem, and has had one since the Industrial Revolution began. While it has a relative abundance of highly polluting soft brown coal, it has nothing else. It buys better coal from Poland and oil and gas from Russia. Obviously, it is somewhat straitened in energy resources, and is hard put to do very much about it.

The cost per kilowatt hour in Germany is more than twice what it is in the U.S. Not surprisingly, many public buildings are not heated in the winter and private homes of those who are not wealthy are very circumspect in energy use. The fossil fuel generators (and therefore the consumers) are charged for the subsidies paid to the generators of wind and solar. And that’s a good part of the reason why Germany’s cost per kilowatt hour is more than double that of the U.S. Germany will not go to 100% alternate sources anytime soon because the cost would not be softened by cheaper fossil fuel contributors to the grid.

Germany has certain advantages economically. It is right in the center of a very densely populated part of the world. We in the U.S. do not have that. On the other hand, we have immense energy resources and Germany does not. Since U.S. emissions are not increasing, and since total elimination of all U.S. emissions (if it could happen without huge die-offs) would have a miniscule effect on worldwide emissions, it is difficult to see a) why the U.S. should seek to further reduce emissions at all for the sake of a theory that cannot be scientifically proved or b) why adverse consequences that disproportionately affect the poor should be undertaken for the sake of a theory whose governmental proponents so utterly ignore in their own lives as to be entirely unconvincing that they believe it at all, and particularly c) when measures other than making utility costs “skyrocket” would likely ameliorate carbon emissions anyway.

Germany is heavily committed to wind power … which has “issues” owing to the lack of electrical storage during non-windy times … and also issues owing to the problem with regulating the wind power which tends to have poor electrical quality.

AND Germany decided … after witnessing the power of the tsunami in Japan … to shut down German nuclear-powered electrical generating capacity … [no tsunami’s in Germany, lately] … and so Germany is INCREASING its reliance on polluting soft coal for generating electricity. AND Germany is going to BUY electricity from its neighbors who will generate surplus electricity for export … using nuclear.

Can’t make this stuff up.