Moderated Global Warming Discussion

[Malerin]

The climate is always changing. Northern Europeans survived the year without a summer. We made it through the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age without going extinct.

The present rate of change far exceeds the rate of expected cyclical changes.

The present rate of change is less than a degree per century. Even in the very short-term, it's been a tenth of a degree over the last 10 years. This does not required draconian measures. We seem to have come through the last 100 years of warming OK. Have faith in technology and human ingenuity.

Why do you think a degree or two of warming in the next hundred years will be the death of us all?

Most knowledgeable people don't, and Wowbagger made no such hyperbolic claim.

Yet we're throwing money at the problem as if the very survival of the species were at stake.

We'll adapt, same as we always do.

Of course we will, but the more gradual and less extreme the climate change, the easier the adaptation.

If we can come up with ways to smooth out the rate of change, why wouldn't we try to do so?

Because they're prohibitively expensive, at the moment.

 

[MattTheTubaGuy]

Hi, just a vaguely related question to global warming.

I found this data here: http://academic.udayton.edu/kissock/http/Weather/default.htm

which has daily temperature data from various cities around the world.
this data starts at the beginning of 1995, so there is 15 years of data.

can anyone comment on how reliable it would be?


I have been using excel to display the data graphically, which is quite interesting. one of the things I have done is do a four year average by using the average function on the particular day, back four years starting at 1999, so I get 11 years of 4 year averaged data.

any thoughts on this?

 

[Stray Cat]

No, you are a mainstream science/AGW denier. Parsing the language does not alter reality.

You know nothing about me. I am a keen follower/supporter of science (though not a scientist) and I fully accept AGW as a reality.

Carbon taxes are one of the tools which should be employed in the addressment of AGW

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/jul/20/ipcc-pachauri-climate-change-cost

http://www.vtpi.org/carbontax.pdf

Only if they can be shown to be effective.
I don't believe the increase in taxes is as effective as politicians simply being honest and saying "hey, stop wasting so much and as an example we're going to give you a lead to follow"

I don't know of anyone saying what you say above, got link or reference?

http://www.desertec.org/en/concept/
http://www.combatclimatechange.org/
http://www.ourfutureplanet.org/topic-climate-change
All of which either state or hint at climate change being able to be stopped.
At the very least no one is talking about how to adapt to natural climate change which we can not prevent.

Which of these mechanisms do you feel is affecting climate change more than the human induced CO2 contributions to the atmosphere? Please provide links to the peer-reviewed mainstream science documenting these factors and relative contributions to the current climate change episode.

I'm not even going to get into an argument about who is causing the most climate change, it is irrelevant. Natural climate change is unquestionable as is man made climate change. Stopping or slowing one down isn't going to have any effect on the other and overall, climate change is a reality we will have to learn to live with.

"Anthropogenic" - due to man
"Anthromorphic" - shaped like a man

Yup, politicians are shaped like men to me

any measure which tends to curb or change bad habits, is of benefit in the effort to make people more conscious of how many different aspects of their lives contribute to the problems we face.

I agree. I just don't think that the raising of taxes is the solution unless that tax money is being transparently earmarked and used for the direct application for which it was taken. Which I don't think it is at present.

So basically you got me all wrong. Well done.

 

[Stray Cat]

The marketing is. They seem to want to tie everything into Global Warming. The bags make for litter and screw up landfills, that's why they need to go.

Agreed indeed, so let the politicians be honest about the reason instead of putting it under the umbrella of climate change, make them illegal along with all the other pointless packaging supermarkets use on their produce. All these things will make our lives cheaper (packaging costs money to produce so that we can throw it away).

Or force the supermarkets to use eco friendly carrier bags and charge for them so that we can see our money is having an effect.

 

[Stray Cat]

You pay for other sewage services - why would you ever think you could use the atmosphere as a free sewer...?.

Just another denier trying to sound "practical".

Carbon needs to be taxed big time as it has been in Sweden and Norway since 1991 - seems they are doing okay with it.

Sweden is on track and on record to be carbon neutral by 2050 or sooner.

Norway is perhaps the best place to live on the planet.

Conferences are critical as it results in policies like the Montreal Accord.

Of course YOU have to acknowledge there is a problem and stop whining about taxes.

Wow, was this post aimed at me?

Conferences are not critical at all, If politicians had the will to make changes, they could do it without having to fly in planes all over the world.

The rest of your post was not really worth responding to as it didn't resemble anything I have said nor any position I hold (which is why I am confused as to if it was meant for me in the first place) so excuse me if I don't.

 

[lomiller]

The present rate of change is less than a degree per century.

the current rate of change is a little under 0.2 deg per decade and likely to accelerate if emissions are not reduced.

 

[BenBurch]

Wow, was this post aimed at me?

Conferences are not critical at all, If politicians had the will to make changes, they could do it without having to fly in planes all over the world.

The rest of your post was not really worth responding to as it didn't resemble anything I have said nor any position I hold (which is why I am confused as to if it was meant for me in the first place) so excuse me if I don't.

Politicians travel to conferences because they want to say things to each other they do not want either the general public or other politicians to know about. And as we recently saw in the Wikileaks case, if you use any electronic media, it can leak out. But sitting next to each other in a crowded luncheon and speaking in low voices, you can say anything and hot be heard.

 

[lomiller]

Nice strawman. Nobody said it would. It will obviously take improvements to the soil.

I grew up in that area, there is no soil, it's a couple inches of lichen covering some of the oldest rock on the planet. You can't even drive a tractor over most of it let alone farm.

 

[chipmunk stew]

The present rate of change is less than a degree per century. Even in the very short-term, it's been a tenth of a degree over the last 10 years. This does not required draconian measures.

Good thing, because nothing being seriously considered could be considered draconian.

We seem to have come through the last 100 years of warming OK. Have faith in technology and human ingenuity.

I do. Technology and human ingenuity are how we figured out that human activity has accelerated GW. It's how we'll find ways of mitigating it, too. Technology and human ingenuity require money, and many of our most innovative technological industries were developed through govt(tax)-funded R&D, either directly (see: internet, et al) or indirectly (see: waste management, et al)

Yet we're throwing money at the problem as if the very survival of the species were at stake.

Nonsense. Remove spending on tackling GW from the world's budgets, and it won't make a dent. Remove GW-related taxes from the world's citizens, and you will barely register the change to your bottom line.

What percentage of the global economy is being spent on GW mitigation? If we are "throwing money at the problem as if the very survival of the species were at stake" then I expect the number to be rather high.

Because they're prohibitively expensive, at the moment.

Which GW mitigation solution is how expensive, prohibiting who from doing what?

 

[Malerin]

The present rate of change is less than a degree per century.

the current rate of change is a little under 0.2 deg per decade and likely to accelerate if emissions are not reduced.

The Hadcrut3 data is .1 degree. Gistemp has it around .2.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2000/to:2010/plot/gistemp/from:2000/to:2010

For the 20 year mark (1990-2010), Hadcrut3 shows an increase of around
.1-.2 degree. Gistemp also shows an approx. .2 degree warming.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1990/to:2010/plot/gistemp/from:1990/to:2010

How do you know the rate of change is "likely to accelerate if emissions are not reduced"? We've been pouring junk in the air for a century now. From 1970-1990, there was an increase of about .2 degree.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1970/to:1990/plot/gistemp/from:1970/to:1990
From 1970-2010, the increase is about .4 degree.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1970/to:2010/plot/gistemp/from:1970/to:2010

The trend seems pretty steady: about .1 degree per decade. But lets say the trend quadruples and we have to deal with four degrees of warming in the next 100 years.

Research by a team led by Robert Nicholls at the University of Southampton, United Kingdom, suggests that four degree warming would result in one-half to two meters of sea level rise, although the greatest increases are less likely.
http://news.discovery.com/earth/climate-change-four-degrees.html

So take the worst case scenario of a six foot sea level rise in the next 100 years. That's less than an inch a year. Are people so incompetent they can't plan that far out?

 

[MattTheTubaGuy]

darn, can't seem to edit my other post. It was at the end of my lunch, so I didn't have time to finish it properly.

based on 10 cities around the world roughly distributed evenly:
Auckland, Anchorage, Sydney, New York, Los Angeles, Guangzhou, London, Bombay, Mexico City, and Honolulu.

I converted the data to Celsius, because I can't relate to Fahrenheit.
I did a 4 year average, so I had a smoother line over 12 years, and graphed them all together.
I then got the average for the whole period, and subtracted that from the 4 year average, so that it was relative to the 15 year mean from 1995 to 2010.

Anchorage had the greatest variation, about 0.8 C above and below.

I then averaged the adjusted temperatures for all the cities to get just one line.
I created a line of best fit which had a slope of +3.77*10^-5 C per day, or about 0.14 C per decade.

the average of all the cities only varied by about 0.12 degrees above and below the average for the whole period, and had maxima around 2001, 2006 and 2008. because I used a 4 year average, I think the peaks would actually be 2 years earlier, but I'm not sure.



I have no idea what

 

[Furcifer]

You don’t have the faintest idea of what you are talking about. Manitoba has more undeveloped hydroelectric then it could ever use. Even using just the sites identified in the 50’s there are some 5000 - 6000 MWh of undeveloped potential along the Nelson River and the real number is probably double that.

Except I actually talked with representatives from Bruce Power a year and a half ago. They've been discussing a new facility in Saskatchewan or Manitoba because of the proposed tie in with the Ontario grid. Although Manitoba is already 93% hydroelectric and there is undeveloped hydroelectric potential there's nothing specifically precluding the development of nuclear.

 

[Dancing David]

This is incorrect. Corn is grown all the way from Mexico to Canada, it's not going to be affected by heat. Wheat will, but it will be replaced with corn. There will be more land for growing wheat based on the increased growing season in Canada, it just requires soil improvement.

You say you have lived in an argicultural area, then you knoe that rainfall is crucial to the development of both maize and soy beans. The fact that maize and soybeans are grown in a large area does not mean that they are immune to heat stress and a lack of rainfall, the issue is that right now the average rainfall is about at the limit of the current heat stress for maize in central Illinois. If the average rainfall decreases, as many models say it will then this means that the maize crop will be devastated.

This applies to many of the temperate growing areas where maize and sot beans are currently grown.

I keep addressing multiple issues and you keep picking out a single one.

It is the average temperature and average rain fall that matter. If you have a July with temps of ~95 F and lower rainfall, that will definely stress the maize, especially if it is followed by a similar August.

I think you're forgetting that crops will change, and different varieties will be planted. Winter wheat in many places is planted not for the crop, but to keep the soil from drifting. I think it holds moisture or helps fertilize as well.

I think you are just waving your hand and saying "They will take care of it.", seriously if the temperatures stay the same here in Illinois as they are now and the rainfall shifts by an inch downwards each months or comes in one large splash each month, the yeilds will be trashed.

I don't think you listen to commodity reports, there is a market for hard red winter wheat. And maize will not grow where they usually plant it as a crop for harvest, even with a three week extension of the growing season.

This is just alarmist programming telling you this and not logic. Crops are grown in vastly different climates, more different than Global Warming presents. It's just requires change. Slow change, over 50 years or so.

This is a false accusation, I stated that some models show a decrease in the average summer rain fall, that would be a real problem, there is not enough ground water here to irrigate already.

So you do know that the higher the temperature the more rainfall you need for maize?

Geez man, they grow stuff in Arizona now because they have irrigation. They will most certainly be able to do so, even without GMO's in the midwest in the future. It's not the climate that's the problem, it's resistance to change.

Excuse me, there is not that much readily available ground water here, you are just making stuff up, the cost to pump it from a local source is adequate to compensate, well guess what there are many places in Illinois that do not have that sort of ground water, so if you ship it from the great lakes, that increases the cost.

Which gets back to what I said earlier, the marginal cost to capture and sequester carbon is much lower than the cost to compensate for climate change.

Wait, that's the price of land, did you mean the cost of greenhouses? Greenhouses are about $1M for every 5 acres, but that's state of the art and real Dutch glass. Yields are different due to the number of picks. If you want a fair cost I'd have to crunch some more numbers.

So again, the point is that the cost to sequester is always going to be cheaper than the cost to compensate, you can modify existing plants.
[/quote]

Capture technology right now triples to quadruples the cost to build and raises the cost of electricity by about x2.8 if memory serves. It won't be long before that's mandated. (I'd have to find the DOE docs again to verify this before you quote me on it)



This is just something they need to get over. Have to get over.[/QUOTE]



So I have stated that the impacts of climate change are multivariate, you keep focusing on single issues.

I keep saying ‘it is factors like temperature and rainfall and many models predicts a decrease in rainfall’, and then you go.
‘Well it can’t just be temperature.’

 

[lomiller]

The Hadcrut3 data is .1 degree. Gistemp has it around .2.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2000/to:2010/plot/gistemp/from:2000/to:2010

Nice attempt at cherry picking but the last 10 years is not statistically significant. The last 100 ignores the fact that warming is accelerating.

Over the last 40 years there has been just under 0.2 deg warming per decade at > 95% confidence interval.

 

[lomiller]

Except I actually talked with representatives from Bruce Power a year and a half ago. They've been discussing a new facility in Saskatchewan or Manitoba because of the proposed tie in with the Ontario grid. Although Manitoba is already 93% hydroelectric and there is undeveloped hydroelectric potential there's nothing specifically precluding the development of nuclear.

The discussions are around whether Ontario should import Hydro Electric power from Manitoba or build new Nuclear plants in Ontario. Saskatchewan is looking at similar options for replacing their coal plants. In both cases importing power from Manitoba would result in lower rates, but is less politically popular because it’s falsely perceived that building a nuclear plant locally would “create jobs”.

 

[Furcifer]

If the average rainfall decreases, as many models say it will then this means that the maize crop will be devastated.

Unless it's irrigated. We have running water in ever home in this country, but it's impossible to get water to a crop. Right.

It is the average temperature and average rain fall that matter. If you have a July with temps of ~95 F and lower rainfall, that will definely stress the maize, especially if it is followed by a similar August.

Again a worst case scenario predicated on people doing nothing. There probably wouldn't be any farming around here if people planted around all the trees. Instead they had the ingenious idea to pull them out. They cleared the land. And if need be they will irrigate it. I suggest you take a look at some of the farming practices in places like China.

I think you are just waving your hand and saying "They will take care of it.", seriously if the temperatures stay the same here in Illinois as they are now and the rainfall shifts by an inch downwards each months or comes in one large splash each month, the yeilds will be trashed.

Water isn't disappearing, and it won't. If there actually is less rain in one place, it will go somewhere else. Where it will be trapped and stored for irrigation. I don't think you realize how much corn and soy goes to feed, and how much food is wasted here in NA.

I don't think you listen to commodity reports, there is a market for hard red winter wheat. And maize will not grow where they usually plant it as a crop for harvest, even with a three week extension of the growing season.

Hard red will most likely shift production further North as the climate warms. Other varietals will be grown instead. No matter how the alarmists try to spin it the fact remains that the change in climate still isn't as great as the current differences in climate from Texas to Saskatchewan.

So you do know that the higher the temperature the more rainfall you need for maize?

It's more related to the timing of the rainfall than the actual amount given the changes we are discussing.

Excuse me, there is not that much readily available ground water here, you are just making stuff up, the cost to pump it from a local source is adequate to compensate, well guess what there are many places in Illinois that do not have that sort of ground water, so if you ship it from the great lakes, that increases the cost.

There is, it's just the ability of the soil to retain water is insufficient due to the clay below the soil. There are ways to deal with this, but it's usually cheaper to change varietals or rotate crops. Farming is closer to gambling than it is a science.

So again, the point is that the cost to sequester is always going to be cheaper than the cost to compensate, you can modify existing plants.

I'm pretty certain sequestering will become cost efficient in the next 30 years, depending on the advancements in technology. Sequestering the carbon in NA however isn't going to change the growing emissions in other parts of the world.

I keep saying ‘it is factors like temperature and rainfall and many models predicts a decrease in rainfall’, and then you go.
‘Well it can’t just be temperature.’

The rainfall amount from Seattle to Arizona is still greater than the changes some models predict due to climate change. So saying things like it can't be done, when it's already a part of our lives is just foolish.

 

[Furcifer]

The discussions are around whether Ontario should import Hydro Electric power from Manitoba or build new Nuclear plants in Ontario. Saskatchewan is looking at similar options for replacing their coal plants. In both cases importing power from Manitoba would result in lower rates, but is less politically popular because it’s falsely perceived that building a nuclear plant locally would “create jobs”.

Manitoba is already hydroelectric, so the only place for them to "go" is nuclear. There are talks about nuclear, so I fail to see what your point is. If there is a mass migration of people to Canada over the next 100 years, it's likely Manitoba and Saskatchewan will be the destination. And it's likely they will get any additional needs from nuclear. The 2 facilities on the Nelson are in the works despite any sizable increases in population, after that it's nuclear.

 

[Stray Cat]

Politicians travel to conferences because they want to say things to each other they do not want either the general public or other politicians to know about. And as we recently saw in the Wikileaks case, if you use any electronic media, it can leak out. But sitting next to each other in a crowded luncheon and speaking in low voices, you can say anything and hot be heard.

They are discussing climate change not military secrets... what is there to hide?
They should concentrate on being open and honest instead of whispering to each other in private. It is exactly this sort of thing that leaves them open to accusations of dishonesty (and not without good reason).
Your excuse for their behaviour is not valid.

 

[macdoc]

Originally Posted by Dancing David
If the average rainfall decreases, as many models say it will then this means that the maize crop will be devastated.

3body
Unless it's irrigated. We have running water in ever home in this country, but it's impossible to get water to a crop. Right.

Ludicrous argument - try and take that argument to the farmers in the south west who are rapidly depleting there Ogallala aquifer and will soon not have the same snow pack reservoirs to call on. The Colorado is just about done and you want to INCREASE irrigation.
(BTW there is simply not much arable land in the north - the glaciers shoved the good soil south - last time I checked muskeg was not very tillable )

It also does not address the vast expanse of wheat farms where in 30 years or sooner it will be too warm for wheat at all and the same applies to India.
SOME genetic engineering can help but only to a point - and you going to start irrigating the prairies!!!!????.....


What is at the heart of your "argument" is a disregard for the warming caused by the energy industry you are part of.

You bring no neutrality to it....just a defensive stance....."oh it's not too bad.....take an aspirin" and calling those who are rightly concerned alarmists.

That whole nonsense is now so stale and undermined but you haul it out ad nauseum to defend those industries that should be in the forefront of shifting the world's energy supply to carbon neutral instead of denying the reality and reaping immense profits - which unlike Sweden and Norway - our idjits like Harper just turn a blind eye to the damage and consequences.

When more and more extreme hydrological events like Australia's and more and more extreme weather events of all sorts continue to increase in frequency the howl for remuneration from the primary cause - fossil fuel suppliers - will be very loud.

This is here now

Although no one has yet successfully sued a company for climate change damage allegedly caused by greenhouse gas ("GHG") emissions, lawsuits blaming industrial emitters for global warming, extreme weather events and other natural disasters are pending in Alaska, Washington, D.C., California and Louisiana.
Shareholder resolutions to force companies to limit their carbon emissions are becoming commonplace, and corporate executives and risk managers are becoming ever increasingly concerned about business risks related to climate change. Our previous update, reviewed some of these risks.

http://www.fasken.com/en/part-two-climate-change-insurance-alert--are-you-covered/

The frequency of events will simply increase the frequency of lawsuits....

You remind me of a defender of big tobacco......aw a little cigarette smoke never hut no one

 

[Dancing David]

Unless it's irrigated. We have running water in ever home in this country, but it's impossible to get water to a crop. Right.

I see that you ignored my point about irrigation, the cost of water transportation and infrastructure is significant and you obiously no little about urban water supplies and the problems with it, especially the chronic shortatges. You can not irrigate the problem away, is the rain fall decreases in Illinois, it doesn't matter, you could not economically irrigate.

And your primary argument was about cost.
later.

Again a worst case scenario predicated on people doing nothing. There probably wouldn't be any farming around here if people planted around all the trees. Instead they had the ingenious idea to pull them out. They cleared the land. And if need be they will irrigate it. I suggest you take a look at some of the farming practices in places like China.

What happened to the Aral Sea?

Water isn't disappearing, and it won't. If there actually is less rain in one place, it will go somewhere else. Where it will be trapped and stored for irrigation. I don't think you realize how much corn and soy goes to feed, and how much food is wasted here in NA.

I already mentioned that and agreed.

Hard red will most likely shift production further North as the climate warms. Other varietals will be grown instead. No matter how the alarmists try to spin it the fact remains that the change in climate still isn't as great as the current differences in climate from Texas to Saskatchewan.

And that just shows you don't understand, if Illinois gets teh Texas weather and the rainfall stays the same or lessens, dead crops. Period.

You don't understand climate change.

It's more related to the timing of the rainfall than the actual amount given the changes we are discussing.

If the amount lessens it doesn't matter. it could happen every other day and with higher temps then the crops die. If it comes in great brusts rather than every two weeks that is a real problem.

The actual amount matters a lot. Currently the average patterns and temps for rainfall in Illinois are right on the margin, if the rainfall lessens or the termperature rises, dead crops.

There is, it's just the ability of the soil to retain water is insufficient due to the clay below the soil. There are ways to deal with this, but it's usually cheaper to change varietals or rotate crops. Farming is closer to gambling than it is a science.

You really don't get it, less rain matters, we have great soil here, eight feet deep in places, fine loamy stuff, the issue is rainfall.

I'm pretty certain sequestering will become cost efficient in the next 30 years, depending on the advancements in technology. Sequestering the carbon in NA however isn't going to change the growing emissions in other parts of the world.

Move them goals all the time, don't address the issue, sequestration is cheaper than compensation.

The rainfall amount from Seattle to Arizona is still greater than the changes some models predict due to climate change. So saying things like it can't be done, when it's already a part of our lives is just foolish.

Um it does matter, Arizona is not Illinois.