Merged Global Warming Discussion II: Heated Conversation

[Grizzly Bear]

How much of that is actually just our production that went to China, it seems more like doing our dirty work than real catchup

The problem is that so long as China doesn't adjust it's own regulations, even if US entities could be considered intimately responsible for the emissions on that side of the pond, then our own regulations wouldn't be enough to address an anthropogenic component to climate change. I could see the EU and the US eventually coming together on this, but with rising economic powers and developing countries, pollution still going to be a rampant problem.

And to answer a question you had at me made weeks ago about my thoughts on the hyper politicizing of the climate change debate. Here's the answer to my rationale. There's far too much focus of fossil fuel consumption exclusively. The environmental issues arise also from deforestation in South America, expansion of urban development, terrible infrastructure in developing countries to boot along with a host of other issues that would make for a long grocery list. And the willingness of major carbon foot printers to act on policies that reduce outputs due either to impact on the economy or otherwise.

As I mentioned the last time I involved myself in this thread, I tend to be a skeptic for a number reasons, though I don't readily reject implementing renewable energy policies to address other facets of our environmental footprints. As I already have some agreement with renewable practices that are incidental with climate change, it tends to be a reason why I recluse myself from the debate most times... I tend to believe far more that CO2 data is only one part of the equation, and I feel it's gotten so much focus in the climate debate that pundits miss the bigger picture.

 

[Trakar]

...I tend to believe far more that CO2 data is only one part of the equation, and I feel it's gotten so much focus in the climate debate that pundits miss the bigger picture.

Until atmospheric CO2 levels are stabilized, that is the 900lb gorilla in AGW. Currently we are emitting roughly 30GT of fossil fuel derived CO2/year (and this is still increasing). While all of the rest is important and helpful, when you are drowning the most important factor to deal with first is getting air, once a steady respiration is assured then we can deal with correcting all the issues that led to us being in the situation in the first place. Since AGW is a little more drawn out process, we can begin working on some of these other steps along the way, and some like alternative energy sources, reinvigorating natural buffers and sinks where we can, etc., will actually assist us in stabilizing atmospheric CO2 levels.

 

[aleCcowaN]

... I tend to believe far more that CO2 data is only one part of the equation, and I feel it's gotten so much focus in the climate debate that pundits miss the bigger picture.

Sorry, but you only made a stack of uneven reasons and characterized the big picture as a pile of them -with all their nouns, adjectives and adverbs, carefully placed and used within the boundaries of good taste- that somewhat allows people to keep their heads in "important things".

Of course, reality is different than speech or rhetoric, and everything is to be quantified. Carbon dioxide continues to be the major player in its role as a greenhouse gas, and that carbon dioxide coming from fossil fuel continues to constitute the lion's share, and China and the United States are its major contributors -about 40% of it-.

Innumerate efforts to complicate the picture by adding tons of non-climate drivers and local environmental problems with the excuse of comprehensiveness and harmonious analysis are just an attempt to hide an elephant in a herd and innumeracy behind their parade.

And when you wrap all of that up with global warming denialism, it makes of it just a sad joke.

 

[a_unique_person]

The problem is that so long as China doesn't adjust it's own regulations, even if US entities could be considered intimately responsible for the emissions on that side of the pond, then our own regulations wouldn't be enough to address an anthropogenic component to climate change. I could see the EU and the US eventually coming together on this, but with rising economic powers and developing countries, pollution still going to be a rampant problem.

The Chinese are already experiencing the results of uncontrolled pollution. Just like every other country, they realise it has to be dealt with. The USA could be a technology leader in alternative energy to fossil fuels, as it has been in many other areas of technology. It could also make a lot of money doing so, as it has done with it's leadership in other areas of technology. Unfortunately, in this case, it has chosen the lazy way out, which is self defeating in the long run.

 

[DC]

The problem is that so long as China doesn't adjust it's own regulations, even if US entities could be considered intimately responsible for the emissions on that side of the pond, then our own regulations wouldn't be enough to address an anthropogenic component to climate change. I could see the EU and the US eventually coming together on this, but with rising economic powers and developing countries, pollution still going to be a rampant problem.

And to answer a question you had at me made weeks ago about my thoughts on the hyper politicizing of the climate change debate. Here's the answer to my rationale. There's far too much focus of fossil fuel consumption exclusively. The environmental issues arise also from deforestation in South America, expansion of urban development, terrible infrastructure in developing countries to boot along with a host of other issues that would make for a long grocery list. And the willingness of major carbon foot printers to act on policies that reduce outputs due either to impact on the economy or otherwise.

As I mentioned the last time I involved myself in this thread, I tend to be a skeptic for a number reasons, though I don't readily reject implementing renewable energy policies to address other facets of our environmental footprints. As I already have some agreement with renewable practices that are incidental with climate change, it tends to be a reason why I recluse myself from the debate most times... I tend to believe far more that CO2 data is only one part of the equation, and I feel it's gotten so much focus in the climate debate r pundits miss the bigger picture.

China will change and is already doing it. But the 1st world is not in a position to point fingers. We created the problem, we got rich and fat with burning fossil fuels and land use change. And we fear to change rapidly because it might cost us some of our wealth.....
China fears to change rapidly because they might never have such a cheap source to catch up.
And look at the per capita emissions, they are still far far behind us.

And while fossil fuel burning has the spotlight, other sources do not really get forgotten, huge efforts go into reducing deforestation and increase reforestation.

Co2 is the bigger picture. Yet it is clear that climatology does not forget the other problems.

 

[CapelDodger]

The problem is that so long as China doesn't adjust it's own regulations, even if US entities could be considered intimately responsible for the emissions on that side of the pond, then our own regulations wouldn't be enough to address an anthropogenic component to climate change. I could see the EU and the US eventually coming together on this, but with rising economic powers and developing countries, pollution still going to be a rampant problem.

China is already embarked on efforts to fix the problems caused by following the Western path to development in about one-tenth the time, and they're doing it of necessity. The current situation there is untenable.

Pollution is only going to be a problem in developing countries if they ignore China's example and go the coal-and-car route. I give them more credit than that, especially since there are viable alternatives in solar, wind and public transport.

And to answer a question you had at me made weeks ago about my thoughts on the hyper politicizing of the climate change debate. Here's the answer to my rationale. There's far too much focus of fossil fuel consumption exclusively. The environmental issues arise also from deforestation in South America, expansion of urban development, terrible infrastructure in developing countries to boot along with a host of other issues that would make for a long grocery list.

It's a grocery list that was about before AGW became an issue, pushed by organisations such as Greenpeace and FoE, and nothing substantial was done about them. What you're verging on is the Lomborgian hypocrisy of re-prioritising the problems we're not going to address.

Hyper-politicisation of AGW is undeniable; one only has to look at Republican primaries in the US to see that denying AGW has become a totem of the right, and this can be seen across the democratic world. Right-wing parties make a feature of AGW denial while leftist parties largely fight shy of the subject as being politically toxic.

Politicisation of foreign aid (which is necessary to fill any of the grocery list) is also undeniable, with the same forces that deny AGW arrayed against it while the left regards it as pretty toxic.

And the willingness of major carbon foot printers to act on policies that reduce outputs due either to impact on the economy or otherwise.

China's going to act because it's choking itself. Nothing concentrates the mind like finding you've poisoned your land, water and population - even the US passed bi-partisan Clean Air and Water Acts in the 60's and 70's. The UK did it in the 50's.

As I mentioned the last time I involved myself in this thread, I tend to be a skeptic for a number reasons, though I don't readily reject implementing renewable energy policies to address other facets of our environmental footprints. As I already have some agreement with renewable practices that are incidental with climate change, it tends to be a reason why I recluse myself from the debate most times... I tend to believe far more that CO2 data is only one part of the equation, and I feel it's gotten so much focus in the climate debate that pundits miss the bigger picture.

There's no reason to think CO2 emissions are crowding out other issues. They didn't get much coverage before AGW raised its ugly head in the 80's.

 

[CapelDodger]

The Chinese are already experiencing the results of uncontrolled pollution. Just like every other country, they realise it has to be dealt with. The USA could be a technology leader in alternative energy to fossil fuels, as it has been in many other areas of technology. It could also make a lot of money doing so, as it has done with it's leadership in other areas of technology. Unfortunately, in this case, it has chosen the lazy way out, which is self defeating in the long run.

We can't predict much about the world in 2100, but we can be sure it won't be fossil-fuelled. It makes no sense to sink any more capital into that industry just to push the transition point a few decades into the future. The sensible strategy is to invest in a young industry, not an antiquated one.

The US (and perhaps Australia, Canada and Russia) are going to find themselves playing catch-up in the coming world, and from a weak position. The UK provides a very good example : by the 1920's and 1930's British steam-technology was second-to-none. Absolutely superb. On the internal-combustion front, they had Rolls-Royce and Bentley while the US had the Model T Ford, having pretty much jumped the steam phase. The rest, as they say, is History ...

 

[macdoc]

There is already talk of discounting "stranded assets" like coal reserves for fossil based companies.

•• China is moving far faster than the US at addressing emissions and are considering a hard cap in 2016.
They have no choice.

Browner, but greener

China stands out for its greenness in a new environmental ranking
Feb 1st 2014 | SHANGHAI

http://www.economist.com/news/china...ess-new-environmental-ranking-browner-greener

 

[Trakar]

The Good...

New Study Adds Up the Benefits of Climate-Smart Development in Lives, Jobs, and GDP - http://www.worldbank.org/en/news/fe...fits-climate-smart-development-lives-jobs-gdp

The report, Climate-Smart Development: Adding Up the Benefits of Actions that Help Build Prosperity, End Poverty and Combat Climate Change, focuses on five large countries – Brazil, China, India, Mexico, and the United States – plus the European Union. It examines the benefits of all six implementing three sets of policies on clean transportation, energy efficiency in industry, and energy efficiency in buildings.
In the transportation policy scenario, for example, if the five countries and the EU shifted more travel to public transit, moved more fright traffic off of roads to rails and sea, and improved fuel efficiency, they could save about 20,000 lives a year, avert hundreds of millions of dollars in crop losses, save nearly $300 billion in energy, and reduce climate changing emissions by more than four gigatons.
(…)
The sector policies include regulations, taxes, and incentives to stimulate a shift to clean transportation, improved industrial energy efficiency, and more energy efficient buildings and appliances.
By 2030, the benefits of these three sets of sector policies would include 94,000 premature deaths avoided annually and GDP growth of $1.8 trillion-$2.6 trillion per year. The policies would avoid 8.5 gigatons of CO2-equivalent and almost 16 billion kilowatt-hours of energy saved, roughly equivalent to taking 2 billion cars off the road. Together, these implementing these policies could represent about 30 percent of the total reduction needed in 2030 to limit global warming to 2 degrees Celsius.

Of course, this is a World Bank study of potential benefits. If, however, these measures could achieve even half these results over the next 15 years, this could result in a big assist in helping to deal with the overall AGW problem.

It will take many substantive steps like this over the coming decades to take a serious bite out of the AGW problem but steps like this indicate that there is some reason to be hopeful about our being able to catch up to the problem despite the near criminal foot-dragging and denial of the last several decades.

Direct link to copy of actual report - http://www-wds.worldbank.org/extern...d/PDF/889080WP0v10RE0Smart0Development0Ma.pdf

 

[Trakar]

...the Bad...

South Greenland ice-sheet collapse during Marine Isotope Stage 11 - http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v510/n7506/full/nature13456.html
Since the Arctic Sea-ice thread deals primarily with not just modern, but current, Arctic sea-ice, I felt it best to post this in the general AGW discussion thread. Seems Greenland is ~1.0 °C off the warmest interglacial temps of the last million years. If we were to freeze all impacts to where Greenland is 1.0°C warmer than it is today (at the current rate of increase, Greenland should hit that within the next 2 decades) full equilibration at that temp., which last occurred around 400,000 years ago, saw sea levels that were 6-13 meters (19-44 feet) higher. Of course full equilibration, generally takes 1-2 millennia according to most conservative estimates. However, we only know what we know…
[Quote}Abstract
Varying levels of boreal summer insolation and associated Earth system feedbacks led to differing climate and ice-sheet states during late-Quaternary interglaciations. In particular, Marine Isotope Stage (MIS) 11 was an exceptionally long interglaciation and potentially had a global mean sea level 6 to 13 metres above the present level around 410,000 to 400,000 years ago implying substantial mass loss from the Greenland ice sheet (GIS). There are, however, no model simulations and only limited proxy data to constrain the magnitude of the GIS response to climate change during this ‘super interglacial’, thus confounding efforts to assess climate/ice-sheet threshold behaviour and associated sea-level rise. Here we show that the south GIS was drastically smaller during MIS 11 than it is now, with only a small residual ice dome over southernmost Greenland. We use the strontium–neodymium–lead isotopic composition of proglacial sediment discharged from south Greenland to constrain the provenance of terrigenous silt deposited on the Eirik Drift, a sedimentary deposit off the south Greenland margin. We identify a major reduction in sediment input derived from south Greenland’s Precambrian bedrock terranes, probably reflecting the cessation of subglacial erosion and sediment transport8 as a result of near-complete deglaciation of south Greenland. Comparison with ice-sheet configurations from numerical models suggests that the GIS lost about 4.5 to 6 metres of sea-level-equivalent volume during MIS 11. This is evidence for late-Quaternary GIS collapse after it crossed a climate/ice-sheet stability threshold that may have been no more than several degrees above pre-industrial temperatures. [/quote]
….and currently, there is no compelling evidence that we are, or will any time soon, significantly slow down…

 

[Trakar]

...and the Ugly

Amplified mid-latitude planetary waves favour particular regional weather extremes - http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate2271.html
There is a new theory to explain how a warming arctic generates many of the regional extreme weather trends we are seeing. The recent paper in Nature: Climate Change by James A. Screen & Ian Simmonds puts forth support for a two-part mechanism. The first component revolves around a sluggish jet stream caused by a lessening of the temperature differences between the Equator and the Poles. The second component is the result of a noted propensity for the sluggish jet stream to slip into static patterns that lock heat, cold, wet, dry, systems into regions for extended periods. Creating extended regional heat waves, persistent cold snaps, flooding, droughts,…

Abstract
There has been an ostensibly large number of extreme weather events in the Northern Hemisphere mid-latitudes during the past decade1. An open question that is critically important for scientists and policy makers is whether any such increase in weather extremes is natural or anthropogenic in origin. One mechanism proposed to explain the increased frequency of extreme weather events is the amplification of mid-latitude atmospheric planetary waves. Disproportionately large warming in the northern polar regions compared with mid-latitudes—and associated weakening of the north–south temperature gradient—may favour larger amplitude planetary waves, although observational evidence for this remains inconclusive. A better understanding of the role of planetary waves in causing mid-latitude weather extremes is essential for assessing the potential environmental and socio-economic impacts of future planetary wave changes. Here we show that months of extreme weather over mid-latitudes are commonly accompanied by significantly amplified quasi-stationary mid-tropospheric planetary waves. Conversely, months of near-average weather over mid-latitudes are often accompanied by significantly attenuated waves. Depending on geographical region, certain types of extreme weather (for example, hot, cold, wet, dry) are more strongly related to wave amplitude changes than others. The findings suggest that amplification of quasi-stationary waves preferentially increases the probabilities of heat waves in western North America and central Asia, cold outbreaks in eastern North America, droughts in central North America, Europe and central Asia, and wet spells in western Asia.

…all those obsessive/compulsive weather patterns that make rapid climate change so nasty and destructive.

 

[CapelDodger]

There is already talk of discounting "stranded assets" like coal reserves for fossil based companies.http://www.economist.com/news/china...ess-new-environmental-ranking-browner-greener

When the next financial crisis is triggered by a panic over stranded assets, remember you heard it here first.

I'm kidding, of course; you won't have to remember because I'll be reminding everybody, repeatedly, in ever larger and more psychedelic fonts.

 

[macdoc]

yeah yeah rub it in....I do hope your chortle is soon.

 

[macdoc]

we really are amazing....that this pile of humans ....parked in the Grand Canyon.....have managed to screw up a very nice planet....

A Pile of Mammals Smaller Than a Single Canyon Is Dominating the Entire Planet

Written by BRIAN MERCHANT
April 30, 2014 // 06:25 PM CET


If you took every human being on Earth and put them in the Grand Canyon, they wouldn't even begin to fill it up. The seven billion-strong lot of us would make a pretty formidable pile, sure, but we'd get nowhere close to an overflow. At least, not according to this 'species portrait' put together by VSauce and recently shared far and wide across the blogland.

The visualization proved so popular because it turns our working conception of the size and scope of humanity on its head—we are a vast and multiplying species; we blanket the entire planet with our cities and settlements. Jesus Diaz notes that "Even if you took all of humanity across all the ages—an estimated 106 billion—the piles—about 15 of these—wouldn't cover the Grand Canyon. Not even a significant fraction."

http://motherboard.vice.com/en_ca/r...utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=MotherboardCanada

 

[Trakar]

[qimg]http://i106.photobucket.com/albums/m269/macdoc/junk%20album/omjhx4iif1k5ylph9cwr_zps9376c2a8.png[/qimg]

we really are amazing....that this pile of humans ....parked in the Grand Canyon.....have managed to screw up a very nice planet....

http://motherboard.vice.com/en_ca/r...utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=MotherboardCanada

With a polygon of 4 square feet per person, 107 billion people would average around 428 billion square feet = ~9.8 million acres = ~15,000 square miles. So, if you could take every person that had ever lived and stand them shoulder to shoulder, they would cover an area roughly equivalent to the Mojave desert (larger than 60 of the 192 nations recognized by the UN).

 

[macdoc]

A lot more than Zanzibar

 

[Trakar]

A lot more than Zanzibar

Liechtenstein (61.78 sq. miles) was always my favorite micro-country.

 

[macdoc]

I assume you got the Zanzibar snark ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stand_on_Zanzibar

•••

Back to some climate news...it's baaaaaaaack....El Nino that is...

Second Monster Kelvin Wave Forming? West Wind Back Bursts North of New Guinea Rival Intensities Last Seen in January.
This January, a powerful period of west wind bursts tapped a very hot, deep pool of Pacific Ocean water and shoved it eastward along the equator. The hot water was driven downward by Eckman pumping forces even as it began to propagate across the Pacific. The resulting Kelvin Wave was, by March, among the most intense sub-sea warming events ever seen for the Equatorial Pacific during this time of year.

By late May and through June, this heat had transferred to surface waters and the Equatorial Pacific, overall, had greatly warmed.

This initial warming prepped the ocean surface for continued atmospheric feedbacks and the emergence of an El Nino by sometime during the summer and fall of 2014. A monster event that, should it form on top of human-caused warming, could push both global temperature and weather extremes to record levels never before seen. But for El Nino to continue to emerge, more strong west wind back bursts are required to keep shoving the hot pool of Pacific Ocean water eastward, spreading it out across the Pacific and dumping its warmth into the atmosphere.

Now, during early July, just that appears to be happening.

http://robertscribbler.wordpress.co...uinea-rival-intensities-last-seen-in-january/

 

[aleCcowaN]

I wonder what is the test you apply to know reputable sources from amateur sensationalism:

Second Monster Kelvin Wave Forming?

What? Doesn't the author know the answer?

That certainly is a nice bunch of innumerate speculations that fail to explain this:

I've already told here like two months ago that I expected a weak Niño to start -have started now- and become weaker to gain strength again by new year's day -two month before or after-. It certainly looks that way here with 260,000 people evacuated in Paraguay, Brazil and Argentina, with hundreds of thousands in cities and towns resisting behind their embankments, barriers and dams, and armed with powerful pumps. Some evacuations would probably start soon also in Uruguay.

Expect the next weekly Niño3.4 index to raise to 0.6 next week to drop to maybe 0.4 during the following one.

-------------

And about this hell of an off-topic

we really are amazing....that this pile of humans ....parked in the Grand Canyon.....have managed to screw up a very nice planet....



[/URL]http://motherboard.vice.com/en_ca/r...utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=MotherboardCanada

it amazes me the uninformed innumerate conclusion it tries to elicit.

That supposed insignificant mass of humans is bigger than the mass of all the birds and marsupials in the world. Humans together with all the beasts enslaved for their own consumption, exploitation or pleasure -cattle, pets, fowl, farmed fished, working elephants, etc- gather a mass that exceeds that of all the wild mammals, birds and marsupials. And it probably exceeds the mass of all the rest of tetrapods though it hardly exceeds the mass of all the rest of teleostomes. You would have to join all the animal kingdom to see humans and their entourage not overbearing the whole picture.

Is there any doubt that there are 12,000 humans for each wild chimpanzee, 100,000 humans for each orangutan, 200,000 humans per each bonobo and 1.5 million humans for each gorilla? There are 4,000 dogs for each wild wolf. The mass of kitties is many times larger that all the big felines' together. Only the cougars in San Antonio, TX is bound to exceed the mass of real cougars in all America from Alaska to Tierra del Fuego.

It's not the insignificance of mankind when compared to the Grand Canyon. It's its overwhelming and crushing presence that has come to have nature up against the ropes. I though it was always obvious, I knew it -like everyone here- way before I learn there was a global warming. Many denialists seem to have it well with their puerile suggestion of planting trees to solve the climate crisis. At least they perceive the overwhelming weight of mankind in the global picture and genuinely think that CO2 emissions are not an exception to other human naughty practices. Deadly wrong as they are, at least they have mankind in a "weighed" perspective.

 

[a_unique_person]

Interesting thing is that Australia seems to be feeling an El Nino, even though it is only mild. Is the EN on top of AGW more powerful? Inquiring minds would like to know.