Global warming discussion III

[macdoc]

But maybe someone will come up with a better energy solution and share it with all the developing nations around the globe for free... so you know, maybe at some point in the future it can be addressed.

Something you are missing here..this is a self financing shift...for most developing nations solar is already cheaper than any power source.
They are already spending on buying fossil based energy.

The World Bank finally got around to stop subsidizing/funding coal plants and is getting into renewable funding in a big way.

Sustainable Energy for All: Sector Results Profile - World Bank
http://www.worldbank.org/en/results/2013/04/10/sustainable-energy-for-all-results-profile


Apr 9, 2014 - Off-grid solar power is lighting up gers like this one and the lives of ... World Bank Group financing for power generation, transmission and ...
Project Signing: $10 Million Grant for Solar Irrigation in ...

http://www.worldbank.org/en/news/pr...lion-grant-for-solar-irrigation-in-bangladesh

Sep 30, 2013 - DHAKA, September 30, 2013 — The Government of Bangladesh signed a $10 million grant agreement today with the World Bank to introduce ...


India: History : Solar Electric Light Fund
self.org/archive-india/
SELF installed the first Solar Home System (SHS) directly financed by the World Bank's first-ever loan for solar PV, and signed up farmer societies to be ...

http://self.org/archive-india/

 

[bit_pattern]

Emily


Pray tell enlighten us on your statement.

The sun is in "cool mode"....

[qimg]https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-0H0t1UFmZlM/U5byYZpJsUI/AAAAAAAAGaY/pFTHipNNQKs/s500/Solar_vs_temp_500.jpg[/qimg]

and is a magnitude below GHG in temperature influence anyway.

We are dimming the planet a bit with SO2 - but that's anthro as well and working in the opposite direction.

Cutting down rain forests are impacting, including other land use changes but again that's all anthro.

Got some explanation for your conjecture.??

Indeed. Attribution studies show that humans account for greater than 100% of the observed warming, due to the cooling influences you outline:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=57

Figure 1: Net human and natural percent contributions to the observed global surface warming over the past 50-65 years according to Tett et al. 2000 (T00, dark blue), Meehl et al. 2004 (M04, red), Stone et al. 2007 (S07, green), Lean and Rind 2008 (LR08, purple), Huber and Knutti 2011 (HK11, light blue), and Gillett et al. 2012 (G12, orange).

The percentage contribution to global warming over the past 50-65 years is shown in two categories, human causes (left) and natural causes (right), from various peer-reviewed studies (colors). The studies used a wide range of independent methods, and provide multiple lines of evidence that humans are by far the dominant cause of recent global warming. Most studies showed that recent natural contributions have been in the cooling direction, thereby masking part of the human contribution and in some cases causing it to exceed 100% of the total warming. The two largest human influences are greenhouse gas (GHG) and sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions, mostly from burning coal, oil, and natural gas (sulfur emissions tend to have a net cooling effect). The largest natural influences on the global temperature are the 11-year solar cycle, volcanic activity, and the El Nino Southern Oscillation (ENSO).

 

[lomiller]

Global warming alarmists are using fear for political ends

http://www.wsj.com/articles/bjorn-lomborg-the-alarming-thing-about-climate-alarmism-1422832462

Models predicted a 0.8 degree increase and it has only been 0.09 over the last 15 years. Is this increase even within the margin of error? Probably not



Hurricanes are also down with global warming

He's drunk.

Modle predictions are for ~0.15 - 0.2 Deg per decade (pre 2050) for reasonable CO2 emissions scenarios. Observed warming over the last 40 years is squarely in that range.

15 years isn't long enough to give a statistically significant trend so he's basically just making up his number for trend over that period.

The one thing we do know is why the anti-science crowd likes to pick numbers in that 15 year range is that 1998 was a 2 sigma outlier above the existing trend. By starting your clock for this point you warm the starting point of your trend line enough to wipe out a full decade or more of warming.

 

[Emily's Cat]

What are the other sources?

Natural cycles of the planet, caused by whatever causes it. The earth has heated and cooled several times in the past, with no contribution from humans. I see no reason to believe that the same cycle cannot happen once humans arrived on the scene. What information I've bothered to dig into suggests that the earth should be heating now anyway... But humans have greatly accelerated that process by dumping a lot of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere etc.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Emily


Pray tell enlighten us on your statement
....

Got some explanation for your conjecture.??

Nasa's take on the planet's climate history over millions of years, rather than cherry picking just the last couple of hundred.

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/hansen_15/

 

[Emily's Cat]

macdoc is being a tad disingenuous in his question : there are, in fact, no identified causes of the current warming other than human activity.

Wow. Okay. So all the cycles of the past several million years have NOT been caused by humans... and we've been in an upswing since the last ice age (in keeping with historical climate patterns) but somehow that can be dismissed, and all of it laid at the feet of humans... because?

Look - I fully accept that humans are contributing substantially to the current increase in temperature. And I also accept that the increase represents a threat to our species. But I think it's an awful lot of hubris to assume that it's all due to us alone.

Any policies which reduce the peak CO₂ level will have an impact on the final outcome, and any that reduce the rate at which it climbs will slow the warming.

Sure... they might slow it by a thousandth of a percent. The question is one of materiality.

China and India make up the bulk of developing countries and they have the technology and capacity to develop alternatives themselves. Solar, wind, nuclear, wave and tide power - none of this is rocket science.

Perhaps they'll share it with the rest of the world, but I doubt they'll do it for free. China might donate solar panels to Africa but they'll want some diplomatic and strategic return on the deal. That's the way of the world, I'm afraid.

As soon as China, India, Singapore, Taiwan, Japan, and the rest of the non-western world start putting climate protections in place, I will be much more optimistic about the likelihood of humans being able to materially affect global warming in a positive way.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

Cow flatulence

Its why liberals want to tax hamburgers

It is a problem under the current industrial ag systems.

 

[lomiller]

Natural cycles of the planet

The "natural cycles" you refer to are farily well understood. They are currently cooling the planet and have been for ~8000 years.

The impact on the earths climate these have is much slower than the current rate of warming. 8000 years of cooling has been revered in less than 100 years and the rate of warming today is 10X as fast as any time in then last 65 million years.

 

[CapelDodger]

Wow. Okay. So all the cycles of the past
several million years have NOT been caused by humans...

I referred to current warming, which is caused by the enhanced greenhouse effect, which in turn is the result of increasing atmospheric CO₂ (up by 40% so far on pre-industrial levels).

... and we've been in an upswing since the last ice age (in keeping with historical climate patterns) ...

That's incorrect, although until the last 50 years or so historical climate patterns were indeed being followed. What happens is that a glaciation gives way to an interglacial, temperatures reach a peak (about 8,000 years ago in the current case) and a long slow cooling leads into the next glaciation. This interglacial was following that pattern until something different happened - otherwise known as industrialisation.

... but somehow that can be dismissed ...

Since it's in error then yes, it can.

... and all of it laid at the feet of humans... because?

The curent warming is due to human activity. Glacial/interglacial transitions are caused by Milankovich cycles (which does not mean, of course, that they can be laid at the feet of Milankovich).

Look - I fully accept that humans are contributing substantially to the current increase in temperature. And I also accept that the increase represents a threat to our species. But I think it's an awful lot of hubris to assume that it's all due to us alone.

You may think that but it doesn't change the fact. There are no other identified causes of current warming, but there are several identified causes of cooling, among them Milankovich cycles.

Sure... they might slow it by a thousandth of a percent. The question is one of materiality.

If CO₂ peaks at, say, 500ppm instead of 800 then it will make a great deal of difference.

As soon as China, India, Singapore, Taiwan, Japan, and the rest of the non-western world start putting climate protections in place, I will be much more optimistic about the likelihood of humans being able to materially affect global warming in a positive way.

China and Japan already have, India is leaning that way. Singapore and Taiwan are hardly substantial in comparison to those three. (Russia's beyond hope, of course, but then it has been since the Mongols came calling.)

Action will be taken to limit AGW over the next few decades as the full effect of the developing situation becomes ever clearer and the gerontocrats of AGW denial drop one by one off their perches. We'll have a better idea of what action is likely after Paris 2015.

 

[Emily's Cat]

The "natural cycles" you refer to are farily well understood. They are currently cooling the planet and have been for ~8000 years.

The impact on the earths climate these have is much slower than the current rate of warming. 8000 years of cooling has been revered in less than 100 years and the rate of warming today is 10X as fast as any time in then last 65 million years.

Isn't 8000 years kind of a drop in the bucket though? We're talking about cycles that take hundreds of thousands of years, aren't we? I admit I could be wrong, as I haven't done excessive amounts of research on this. Frankly, I don't think it's necessary to do huge amounts of research.

The entire argument with me right now is wholly unnecessary. I already support policies to reduce the human impact on global warming, and a I already accept that we have significantly contributed to it. Is it really all that important to try to convince me that it's solely and exclusive human-created, if it's not going to change my stance - because my stance is already in support.

Where I stand is an evaluation of the likely global impact of the policies of a couple of countries, and weather I think it will be sufficient to make a material change. Personally, I think the impact of current policies in the western world will be small, quite likely immaterial. But I still think they're worth doing. If nothing else, we may influence the policies and cultures of other nations.

And I might personally believe that humans aren't the sole cause of global warming. But I do think it's worthwhile and important for us to reduce our impact even if I don't think it's the only cause.

So in conclusion - I already support policies to reduce the human impact on global warming.

Is it really worthwhile for you guys (not you specifically) to spend your time trying to move me from 98% to 100% true believer?

 

[CapelDodger]

The one thing we do know is why the anti-science crowd likes to pick numbers in that 15 year range is that 1998 was a 2 sigma outlier above the existing trend. By starting your clock for this point you warm the starting point of your trend line enough to wipe out a full decade or more of warming.

15 years is actually from Jan 2000 to Jan 2015 during which warming has been above the long-term trend. You and I know that 15 years doesn't tell us much but on the other hand we didn't choose to make a big issue of such a short period back in 2013. Those who did can hardly start arguing that it's not a big issue any more, can they?

 

[CapelDodger]

Isn't 8000 years kind of a drop in the bucket though?

It's the whole of human civilisation so it rather depends on what bucket you're referring to.

We're talking about cycles that take hundreds of thousands of years, aren't we?

If you mean Milankovich cycles then yes. That has nothing to do with the last thirty years (and counting) of warming; they take effect very slowly.

I admit I could be wrong, as I haven't done excessive amounts of research on this.

I don't think anyone needed to be told that.

Frankly, I don't think it's necessary to do huge amounts of research.

There isn't, but at least some is advisable.

The entire argument with me right now is wholly unnecessary. I already support policies to reduce the human impact on global warming, and a I already accept that we have significantly contributed to it. Is it really all that important to try to convince me that it's solely and exclusive human-created, if it's not going to change my stance - because my stance is already in support.

Other people might take your statements to be accurate if we don't point out that they're not. Your misconceptions are already quite common.

Is it really worthwhile for you guys (not you specifically) to spend your time trying to move me from 98% to 100% true believer?

It's things like that "true believer" which will get people on your case. You probably don't realise that it's a dog-whistle phrase used by AGW deniers, who like to declare acceptance of mainstream science as being akin to religious belief. It's best avoided if you don't want to mistaken for one of them (and who would want to be lumped in with the likes of Monckton, Morano and McIntyre? It's social death, frankly).

 

[macdoc]

Is it really worthwhile for you guys (not you specifically) to spend your time trying to move me from 98% to 100% true believer?

It's not about "belief" but evidence.
Okay we have a problem we have brought on ourselves with a warming climate.
You accept that tho have a few holes in the knowledge base....no big deal and easily patched.

The harder issue is what to do about the problem and far more is being accomplished than you seem to be aware of.

Whole nations have a planned timeline to go to carbon neutral, some cities even and many industries are taking steps that do matter.
That is where the real difficulty arises.....policy.

 

[Emily's Cat]

It's the whole of human civilisation so it rather depends on what bucket you're referring to.

If you mean Milankovich cycles then yes. That has nothing to do with the last thirty years (and counting) of warming; they take effect very slowly.

Not arguing here, just curious.

From a statistical point of view, how do you determine whether a tiny fragment of a trend is actually representative of an overall trend, or whether it's just variance at play? Isn't this sort of like trying to predict the 10-year trend of a stock by looking at 1 day? Ignoring of course, the fact that stocks are often random walks, and this is not .

Basically, how do you tell that this tiny fragment of time is "off trend" when the error around trend is in terms of hundreds of years? It doesn't seem that it would be a robust and credible projection...

Other people might take your statements to be accurate if we don't point out that they're not. Your misconceptions are already quite common.

That's a fair point. I hadn't thought of it from that perspective.

 

[Emily's Cat]

It's not about "belief" but evidence.
Okay we have a problem we have brought on ourselves with a warming climate.
You accept that tho have a few holes in the knowledge base....no big deal and easily patched.

The harder issue is what to do about the problem and far more is being accomplished than you seem to be aware of.

Whole nations have a planned timeline to go to carbon neutral, some cities even and many industries are taking steps that do matter.
That is where the real difficulty arises.....policy.

I'm not intending to disparage what policies are in place. But... don't other parts of the world contribute a huge amount to global warming, in ways that are not at all addressed by the policies of a handful of developed nations?

If, for instance, The countries of Serendipity, Happenstance, and Whizbang have say 1/3 of the worlds population, and are responsible for over 50% of the total output of greenhouse gases... Then how much affect will the policies of Elbownia and Kneepitistan have on the total global output if all they're doing is becoming neutral?

 

[lomiller]

Isn't 8000 years kind of a drop in the bucket though?

It's pretty much the most important period in the history of our species..

We're talking about cycles that take hundreds of thousands of years, aren't we?

The subject in this thread is Anthropogenic warming, which is occurring MUCH faster than even the extremes of naturals changes. In fact it's occurring at rates not seen outside of the major mass extinctions.

So in conclusion - I already support policies to reduce the human impact on global warming.

Then why are you bringing up "natural cycles of the planet"?

Where I stand is an evaluation of the likely global impact of the policies of a couple of countries, and weather I think it will be sufficient to make a material change.

Why do you think "a couple of countries" should be exceptions from action on climate change?

 

[ehcks]

The subject in this thread is Anthropogenic warming, which is occurring MUCH faster than even the extremes of naturals changes. In fact it's occurring at rates not seen outside of the major mass extinctions.

http://climatedesk.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/marcott-B-1000.jpg

A normal warming event takes thousands of years. This one has taken so little that that portion of the graph on the same scale isn't wide enough to read. Two inches of graph versus a single-digit of pixels.

It may have been warmer millions of years ago, but humans didn't exist then. Very very few of the large animals today existed then. Life will carry on, but the life we know of is getting hit hard.

 

[macdoc]

If, for instance, The countries of Serendipity, Happenstance, and Whizbang have say 1/3 of the worlds population, and are responsible for over 50% of the total output of greenhouse gases... Then how much affect will the policies of Elbownia and Kneepitistan have on the total global output if all they're doing is becoming neutral?

Where did you get that number???

Why make up red herrings??


The developed and developing nations are responsible for the bulk of the emissions and this chart is only NOW.
Since the industrial age began ...the first world is hugely responsible for going from 280 ppm to 400 ppm.
It's not just annual that counts, it's cumulative.
That is the problem with carbon...it hangs around for millenia.

Per capita looks even worse for the US....they are the prime source per person by far.
Australia and Canada have miniscule populations by comparison.

[I

Europe despite being the same population as the US does far far better.

The first world has no moral stance to demand developing nations not built their wealth on fossil fuel...as that's what the first world did.

The first world DOES have an obligation to mitigate that fossil based wealth building by doing the bulk of reduction and helping other nations not make the same errors.

These are difficult policy issues. But that last chart...you can see easily....two first world regions with a similar population but Europe doing far more ....because of their policy commitment to do so.

I've been trying to find it - but would be interesting to see a Co2 emission chart over time.
Say the last 100 years.....cumulative by country.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Where did you get that number???

Why make up red herrings??

Well I kinda figured that when it was such a completely and obvious fabrication that maybe you'd focus on the concept being questioned, instead of assuming the numbers have any actual meaning.

I'm pretty astonished that you even felt compelled to question the veracity of it...

The developed and developing nations are responsible for the bulk of the emissions and this chart is only NOW.
Since the industrial age began ...the first world is hugely responsible for going from 280 ppm to 400 ppm.
It's not just annual that counts, it's cumulative.
That is the problem with carbon...it hangs around for millenia.

Disclaimer - I can't see photobucket images; work filters them out completely.

ETA: I'm not arguing with you, I'm actually asking.

So how is being neutral going to help anything NOW? Sure, part of the globe is no longer contributing to an increase... but the rest of the world is still increasing the problem, aren't they? It's still going to be going up.

I'm all for us doing all we can, absolutely. It just seems like the message is sometimes "be carbon neutral and we can save the world!"

Per capita looks even worse for the US....they are the prime source per person by far.
Australia and Canada have miniscule populations by comparison.

Europe despite being the same population as the US does far far better.

What percent of the total CO2 output of the planet is coming from those sources?

The first world has no moral stance to demand developing nations not built their wealth on fossil fuel...as that's what the first world did.

The first world DOES have an obligation to mitigate that fossil based wealth building by doing the bulk of reduction and helping other nations not make the same errors.

I don't understand what you're trying to say here. I'm sure it's very obvious, and I'm just not picking it up.

 

[CoolSceptic]

The one thing we do know is why the anti-science crowd likes to pick numbers in that 15 year range is that 1998 was a 2 sigma outlier above the existing trend. By starting your clock for this point you warm the starting point of your trend line enough to wipe out a full decade or more of warming.

15 years is actually from Jan 2000 to Jan 2015 during which warming has been above the long-term trend. You and I know that 15 years doesn't tell us much but on the other hand we didn't choose to make a big issue of such a short period back in 2013. Those who did can hardly start arguing that it's not a big issue any more, can they?

I'm fascinated by the belief that adding 1998 has a big impact on the trend. Even an IPCC lead author made this claim on twitter the other day. You'd think a scientist would know a single point makes little difference to a trend.

I just ran the numbers for HadCRUT4.
OLS trend from 1998-2014 annual near surface temps is 0.0066 deg C per year.
OLS trend from 2000-2014 annual near surface temps is 0.0062 deg C per year.

Both well within margin of error and far smaller than the 0.02 deg C per year central prediction of the IPCC (and supposed long-term trend).

The "cherry pick" makes next to no difference to the result whatsoever, and remains well below the late 20th century trend. It doesn't surprise me when laypeople on internet forums aren't intimately familiar with fitting trends, but an experienced scientist should really know better.