Moderated Global Warming Discussion

[Furcifer]

Then you admit that such is mere correlation under the current paradigm and not, as you argued, a fixed and unalterable connection?

I don't believe your English skills are what you claim. Here's what I said.

Indeed it may be decoupled and emissions reduced while the economy continues to develop...someday. Currently however that isn't the case.

"Decoupled" would be the exact opposite of "unalterable", in fact the whole quote is the exact opposite of what you're claiming I said. I'm not sure how you could make this mistake on accident. These "errors" continue to plague this discussion.

 

[Furcifer]

Your suspicions seem well supported by most available research and scientific observation, though the trending is more toward *significantly* positive, for clouds in general.

This is patently false as well. I suggest you read Dessler for clarification.

There is still too much uncertainty to make robust projections of how clouds would respond to a warming world in the long term. In fact, the observations do not rule out a negative feedback during the decade observed, although the likelihood of this is small. But, Dessler noted the observations do rule out the idea that clouds are producing a negative feedback large enough that it can prevent substantial carbon dioxide-induced warming.

While he believes clouds had a positive effect on warming from 2000-2010 he clearly indicates it isn't "significant" as you're suggesting.

Don't hold your breath though, as has been mentioned many times this is a new field of study and we're just beginning to understand the mechanisms that feed into the Earth climate system. Time will tell. Until then there's plenty of science to familiarize yourself with.

 

[CapelDodger]

Please resist the urge to do so.

I always have. I suggest you do the same.

What do you mean if? The science is just beginning to understand feedback, every month there a new mechanisms being discovered and studied.

New climate feedbacks every month? I'm surprised I haven't heard about them. Could you provide some examples? Negative feedbacks, preferably.

And yes, I've observed that clouds make it cooler.

Not at night they don't, even in Canada.

That's a feedback.

No it isn't.

What you're probably driving at is the idea that AGW will lead to a change in cloud behaviour, and that would be a feedback. Whether that will be negative or positive is yet to be determined, although Lindzen has been claiming for a least twenty years that it will be a negative forcing sufficient to prevent the world warming as much as it has.

Too late, things are already being done to reduce emissions. Sorry

Nothing substantial is being done, which is what I said. If someone changes their lifestyle (cycling more and driving less, for instance) because of concern about AGW then something is being done, but it isn't substantial.

When something is done on an organised scale, then it'll be substantial. So far that would be Kyoto and European carbon-trading, neither of which are really substantial. Australia may be bringing in a carbon price next year, but again that's pretty minor in the wider scheme of things. As for Canada and the US there's really no prospect of action in sight.

 

[CapelDodger]

A few million of a several billion. If you familirize yourself with statistics you will see how ridiculous it is to use such an insignificant percentage as a representative for anything. It's like saying everyone is capable of running a 10 second 100m or a 4 minute mile.

Those aren't equivalent at all. Sweden is a counter-example to your claim that economic strength is measured by CO₂ emissions. It only takes one counter-example to invalidate a claim.

If someone claimed that nobody can run 100m in 10s it would only be necessary to point to the World Record to invalidate the claim. If they then claimed "that's just one person out of billions, so my claim is still valid" not many people would be impressed.

Strawman. I never claimed it "has to be". I said "that's what it is".

Your claim is more "that's what it's been in the last couple of centuries, so must remain so for ever".

I can fantasize about a time when CO2 emissions aren't directly related to economic growth, but it's just that, a fantasy.

Economic growth is not economic strength, although the two are often confused. That said, you've just been provided with a non-fantastical example - Sweden.

 

[CapelDodger]

If those are your suspicions I suggest you wait for the next partially cloudy day and find a thermometer. Record the temperature (this is called empirical evidence) under a cloud and then in full sunshine. Post them here for analysis and we will determine if clouds are a positive or negative feedback. I think you'll be surprised.

The greenhouse effect continues at night, when the sunlight reflected is negligible. Even in Canada.

 

[CapelDodger]

It's just an artifact of the constant goal post shifting. Answers will change as fast as the questions change.

I refer to your post 3166 http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=7413884#post7413884

"I've said numerous times emissions are being reduced."

No question or goal-posts were involved, you simply made this statement in an attempt to discredit a point I made. You have certainly stated may times that emissions are increasing, at a constant percentage rate. You switch between the two depending on what point you're trying to respond to.

As I've pointed out before, what is happening is not equivalent to what you are advocating, and you constantly advocate that nothing should be done now or soon, if ever.

It does actually. Your "point" doesn't account for the simple fact that electricity is a necessity in this modern world. That's a major flaw.

My point was that gas not already burned would still be available. The fact that more coal would probably have been burned instead is irrelevant, and it's certainly not the case that we had to burn that gas for generation or do without electricity. The gas-burning power stations were newly built.

If we stopped burning it for generation now, then we certainly would have a shortage of electricity. That's why we have to import it from places like Russia and Norway, and soon LNG from the Persian Gulf.

With that in mind your argument makes no sense.

I defined medium-term in the modern capitalist sense. In a more rational sense it would be 20-40 years for most capital investment.

Nope. It's offset by growth. It's a well proven economic fact.

Here you equate growth with increased CO₂ emissions to substantiate your claim that CO₂ emissions are the measure of economic strength. This is a logical fallacy known as "begging the question".

That doesn't make sense, there's no recession if the economy wasn't strong to begin with.

There's no recession if an economy is strong. The global economy was weak but apparently strong because it was floating on an ocean of credit and asset-inflation (primarily in property). You can find much the same phaenomenon in the 80's, and of course the 1920's.

Incorrect. If it was cheap it would have been used. That's basic economics.

Only if the market it given free rein, which was the case in the UK under Thatcher's Tories. Governments can restrict markets for longer-term economic benefits. It's one of their functions in the modern world,sadly neglected since the Thatcher/Reagan days.

Incorrect. There's considerable economic growth as a result of he internal combustion engine. It made things more accessible, easier to transport and easier to process.

You assume that no other means would have been found to do what was useful and necessary, and ignore the fact that much of what is useful and necessary in the world as it is is because of the internal combustion itself.

There are no "economies" without the internal combustion engine.

Economies didn't first arrive in the late 19thCE, they've been around since prehistoric times. Economies will exist in which the role of the internal combustion engine is substantially reduced, and not off in the far-distant future.

Your position is entirely predicated on the idea that things as they are are how they must be, and they must remain so for ever. It's not your position alone by a long way, and has featured often in history (look under Losers in the index for the most egregious examples).

My position is radically different.

 

[CapelDodger]

Their GDP took a hit in 2008 actually and it decreased in 2010. All that aside More than a third of Sweden’s energy supply depends on imports.
Source: "http://ec.europa.eu/energy/energy_policy/doc/factsheets/mix/mix_se_en.pdf

... It's a basic economic fact, if you import that much energy your emissions are going to be lower.

From the same source (the next but one sentence, in fact) :

"Energy imports are mainly oil from Denmark, Norway and Russia, with some small quantities of hard coal imports."

Between those imports and actual energy there is burning and associated emissions. Oops.

You're not looking at the big picture and trying to understand how economies work and how emissions are generated.

You should try looking at whole paragraphs before you start lecturing people about the big picture, I think.

 

[lomiller]

This is patently false as well. I suggest you read Dessler for clarification.

There is still too much uncertainty to make robust projections of how clouds would respond to a warming world in the long term. In fact, the observations do not rule out a negative feedback during the decade observed, although the likelihood of this is small. But, Dessler noted the observations do rule out the idea that clouds are producing a negative feedback large enough that it can prevent substantial carbon dioxide-induced warming.

This statement supports his position science on clouds is trending towards then being a positive feedback and rejects you position this "uncertainty" somehow means large negative feedback is a legitimate possibility.

 

[DC]

A few million of a several billion. If you familirize yourself with statistics you will see how ridiculous it is to use such an insignificant percentage as a representative for anything. It's like saying everyone is capable of running a 10 second 100m or a 4 minute mile.



Strawman. I never claimed it "has to be". I said "that's what it is". I can fantasize about a time when CO2 emissions aren't directly related to economic growth, but it's just that, a fantasy.

 

[Furcifer]

This statement supports his position science on clouds is trending towards then being a positive feedback and rejects you position this "uncertainty" somehow means large negative feedback is a legitimate possibility.

Yes, and it's just a tiny first step in an immature field of study. It's by no means the final answer on the subject.

 

[lomiller]

And yes, I've observed that clouds make it cooler. That's a feedback.

You seem to have confused cause and effect. Clouds occur because air cools down. This process actually releases energy due to the phase transition of water vapor to water, and therefor helps warm the surrounding air.

What do you mean if? The science is just beginning to understand feedback, every month there a new mechanisms being discovered and studied.

Feedback has been well understood for a long time. Clouds stand out as the only "fast" feedback that isn't well understood. Slow feedback like the release of methane from tundra or the melting methane hydrates frozen at the bottom of oceans is less well understood, but this isn't exactly good news.

 

[Furcifer]

You have certainly stated may times that emissions are increasing, at a constant percentage rate. You switch between the two depending on what point you're trying to respond to.

Yes, and I said that constant was indicative of a reduction, which was hotly debated. So which is it? I'm just trying to nail down the goal posts.

As I've pointed out before, what is happening is not equivalent to what you are advocating, and you constantly advocate that nothing should be done now or soon, if ever.

This is an outright lie. I have never made such claims and maintained for some 15 pages something is being done and continues to be done as indicated by the constant rate of increase. I don't understand why this falsehood is being perpetuated in face of obvious statements like the one above. It's completely and utterly absurd.

My point was that gas not already burned would still be available.

And there would be no industry. It was the cheapest and cleanest source at the time and it was used. So what?

I defined medium-term in the modern capitalist sense. In a more rational sense it would be 20-40 years for most capital investment.

There go the goal posts again. Please maintain a position for more than 1 post.

Here you equate growth with increased CO₂ emissions to substantiate your claim that CO₂ emissions are the measure of economic strength. This is a logical fallacy known as "begging the question".

Not when it's a fact and not fantasy. Fantasy would be saying they aren't related because you envision a time when that's possible.

There's no recession if an economy is strong. The global economy was weak but apparently strong because it was floating on an ocean of credit and asset-inflation (primarily in property). You can find much the same phaenomenon in the 80's, and of course the 1920's.

Incorrect. There's no recession if the economy remains strong. It was weakened by the rising price of fuel and the US savings and loan fiasco.

You assume that no other means would have been found to do what was useful and necessary, and ignore the fact that much of what is useful and necessary in the world as it is is because of the internal combustion itself.

It hasn't in the 100 years since, and that's with the technological benefits it brought with it. It's a safe assumption nothing would have if nothing has since.

Economies didn't first arrive in the late 19thCE, they've been around since prehistoric times. Economies will exist in which the role of the internal combustion engine is substantially reduced, and not off in the far-distant future.

In a primitive sense sure. The wheel, the horse, the ship, the car and the plane all facilitated the growth of larger and finally world economies.

Your position is entirely predicated on the idea that things as they are are how they must be, and they must remain so for ever.

No, they are how they should be and are changing. I suggest you look at the proposals in the pipeline for continued reduction in the dependence of fossil fuels. You're only kidding yourself if you think there's nothing going on right now.

It's not your position alone by a long way, and has featured often in history (look under Losers in the index for the most egregious examples).

My position is radically different.

Indeed, historically Loser is defined as foolishly trying to restrict and inflate the price of energy at the cost of destabilizing the economy, see also Game of fools

 

[Furcifer]

You seem to have confused cause and effect. Clouds occur because air cools down. This process actually releases energy due to the phase transition of water vapor to water, and therefor helps warm the surrounding air.

Nope, I said nothing about the cause of clouds

Feedback has been well understood for a long time.

This would be a misrepresentation of fact. Feedback as it is defined is well understood, "feedbacks" as they apply to the planet are poorly understood.

 

[Furcifer]

Those aren't equivalent at all. Sweden is a counter-example to your claim that economic strength is measured by CO₂ emissions. It only takes one counter-example to invalidate a claim.

That's nonsense. An exception to the rule doesn't invalidate the rule. We've already discussed why it's possible, namely the fact they import a considerable amount of their energy.
What happens if everyone imports 1/3 of their energy?

If someone claimed that nobody can run 100m in 10s it would only be necessary to point to the World Record to invalidate the claim. If they then claimed "that's just one person out of billions, so my claim is still valid" not many people would be impressed.

You're claiming everyone can be like Sweden. That's the fallacy.

Economic growth is not economic strength, although the two are often confused.

That's just absurd, nobody confuses growth with strength. I think what you mean is the increase in one get's confused with the increase in the other because they are directly related.

That said, you've just been provided with a non-fantastical example - Sweden.

I never said Sweden wasn't fantastic. I said assuming every country can run the 4 minute mile because Sweden does is a fantasy. We've already discussed why that is; high population density, small country, less energy intensive industries, highly accessible populations in the EU for commerce and trade, and extremely high energy import.

 

[Furcifer]

New climate feedbacks every month? I'm surprised I haven't heard about them. Could you provide some examples? Negative feedbacks, preferably.

Certainly, from now on when I read any papers discussing feedback mechanisms I'll post them here.

No it isn't.

lol, there go the goal posts again. Now clouds aren't a feedback.

What you're probably driving at is the idea that AGW will lead to a change in cloud behaviour, and that would be a feedback.

Oh wait, so it's cloud behaviour and not clouds that are the feedback. Riiiiiight.

Whether that will be negative or positive is yet to be determined, although Lindzen has been claiming for a least twenty years that it will be a negative forcing sufficient to prevent the world warming as much as it has.

Well something has.

Nothing substantial is being done, which is what I said. If someone changes their lifestyle (cycling more and driving less, for instance) because of concern about AGW then something is being done, but it isn't substantial.

Oh so you define what is or isn't substantial, not each and every individual? How presumptuous.

When something is done on an organised scale, then it'll be substantial.
So far that would be Kyoto and European carbon-trading, neither of which are really substantial.

So it's substantial when it's on an "organized scale" but not when it's on an "organized scale".

Australia may be bringing in a carbon price next year, but again that's pretty minor in the wider scheme of things. As for Canada and the US there's really no prospect of action in sight.

Awesome. AU is a fairly energy intensive economy but on a smaller scale. Let them have a go at it and see what happens. I'd be surprised if it passes, but maybe the alarm down under is reaching a fevered pitch. Then again, maybe cooler heads will prevail.

 

[Furcifer]

Between those imports and actual energy there is burning and associated emissions. Oops.
You should try looking at whole paragraphs before you start lecturing people about the big picture, I think.

As we discussed, mining and refining are energy intensive industries. Obviously, when you import such large quantities, 1/3 of your energy supplies, all of the associated emissions get tacked onto exporting countries.

CO2 is not properly accounted for.

 

[lomiller]

Nope, I said nothing about the cause of clouds

My point exactly. You said clouds cause it the cool when if fact they are caused by it getting cooler and their formation warms the atmosphere so you have the science exactly backwards.

"feedbacks" as they apply to the planet are poorly understood.

Saying it doesn't make it so. As I said the short term feedbacks are all quite well understood. Clouds are the largest remaining short term uncertainty this means other short term feedbacks are much better understood.

Historical and paleocliamte constrain the range of short and long term feedback and they match what the physics says they should be. When multiple lines of evidence converge like this you know you are near the correct answer.

 

[CapelDodger]

Yes, and I said that constant was indicative of a reduction, which was hotly debated.

A constant percentage rate of increase is not a reduction. Neither is it indicative of a reduction. It is an increase.

There was no hot debate about this, there was simply page after page of people trying to get such obvious truths through to you and of you steadfastly refusing to see the point.

So which is it? I'm just trying to nail down the goal posts.

An increase is an increase. A reduction is not an increase. An increase is not a reduction. A reduction is a reduction.

That's my position. Yours is apparently different

This is an outright lie. I have never made such claims and maintained for some 15 pages something is being done and continues to be done as indicated by the constant rate of increase.

You still fail to comprehend that what is being done is not equivalent to what you have advocated.

I don't understand why this falsehood is being perpetuated in face of obvious statements like the one above. It's completely and utterly absurd.

I refer you to your post 3199
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=7418225#post7418225

"Don't forget this is a relatively new area of science. There's so much more to learn it would be foolish and irresponsible to to make any judgement calls now."

And therefore nothing should be done now or soon, if ever.

That's just the easiest example to find.

And there would be no industry.

There would be an industry. The first use of natural gas from the North Sea in the UK was in replacing town gas in the existing gas system. The industry existed before gas-burning generators were built - in fact they were only built because the infrastructure was already there.

Once again you sound off on something you're totally ignorant about.

It was the cheapest and cleanest source at the time and it was used. So what?

It led to an inefficient use of a now-depleted resource simply in search of short-term (in a modern capitalism sense) profit boost for the by-then-privatised energy industry. If a strategic view had been taken, meaning one that looks beyond this year's bonuses and dividends, the total benefit of that resource would have been greater.

So that, which is what I've been saying. If anyone but you is finding my presentation confusing I'd appreciate them telling me, but it seems clear to me.

And (to misquote Mae West) cleanliness had nothing to do with it.

There go the goal posts again. Please maintain a position for more than 1 post.

In modern capitalism, medium-term is one to two years. In a rational sense medium-term is 20-40 years.

Not when it's a fact and not fantasy.

Your argument for it being a fact is predicated on it being a fact. That is indeed begging the question.

Fantasy would be saying they aren't related because you envision a time when that's possible.

They are vaguely related now, but it's not a simple relationship.

Incorrect. There's no recession if the economy remains strong. It was weakened by the rising price of fuel and the US savings and loan fiasco.

Fuel prices were not rising in the 80's. The 80's fuel crisis was oil dipping below $8 a barrel at which point US oil extraction became uneconomic (it was heart-breaking to see all those nodding donkeys getting put down). I did work for BP and Shell during the 80's and there were many long faces and empty desks. Entire floors were moth-balled. People only got a spring back in their step when Chernobyl went "pop".

The S&L scam was a minor issue, part-and-parcel of property-price inflation, and on top of that was the junk-bond frenzy. The global economy was strong in 1980 but the New Dawn of Thatcher/Reaganism broke it over the next decade. There's no economy strong enough that sustained idiocy can't ruin it. Look at it now, kow-towing to (of all places) China.

It hasn't in the 100 years since, and that's with the technological benefits it brought with it. It's a safe assumption nothing would have if nothing has since.

With the internal combustion engine and cheap oil there was no need to develop alternatives. Without them there would have been. Electric (and steam) cars were invented in the same period as petrol-driven cars but they weren't developed because they couldn't compete. Take that competition out of the equation and they would have been.

In a primitive sense sure. The wheel, the horse, the ship, the car and the plane all facilitated the growth of larger and finally world economies.

Your point being? This economy will seem primitive in the future.

No, they are how they should be and are changing. I suggest you look at the proposals in the pipeline for continued reduction in the dependence of fossil fuels. You're only kidding yourself if you think there's nothing going on right now.

Which of these proposals would you advocate for? And when do you think they should be implemented - now, or when the time is right?

You should also note that proposals, whether or not they're in a pipeline yet, are not actions. I'm well aware that there are things going on now, many of them the result of the "billions wasted" on "carbon projects" you brought up a while back.

Indeed, historically Loser is defined as foolishly trying to restrict and inflate the price of energy at the cost of destabilizing the economy, see also Game of fools

So you wouldn't advocate any proposal that increased the cost of energy, since you're convinced that would destabilise the global (I assume, not just Canada's) economy. Peak Oil must keep you awake at night.

Historically, the price of energy has destabilised economies and brought down societies because of depletion, and those societies have hurtled over the cliff despite warnings. Many messengers have been shot in the process.

 

[CapelDodger]

This would be a misrepresentation of fact. Feedback as it is defined is well understood, "feedbacks" as they apply to the planet are poorly understood.

Have you drummed up any examples of the new feedbacks being discovered monthly? I'd be particularly interested in any new negative feedbacks which have emerged in, say, the last thirty years.

"Poorly understood" is an obviously subjective description. Water vapour feedback is well-understood (and positive). Albedo feedback is well-understood (positive again), but the rate at which ice-cover responds still has wide error-bars. The permafrost feedback (another positive) is not well-understood and has generally been neglected until recently. Clathrates? Positive, but otherwise a mystery.

Clouds are a potential feedback, but there's no evidence from the last few decades for it being significant. Clouds themselves are well-understood, and the physical characteristics of water aren't about to change, so the issue comes down to whether there is more cloud in a warmer world, how the cloud is distributed geographically, and how it's distributed vertically. Given that there are positive and negative feedbacks dependent on these variables, and the lack of evidence for any actual effect over the last thirty years, the likelihood is that the overall feedback is negligible.

Which brings us back to those newly-discovered feedbacks I'm unaware of. How mysterious are they?

 

[CapelDodger]

Certainly, from now on when I read any papers discussing feedback mechanisms I'll post them here.

It's the newly-discovered feedbacks I'm particularly interested in, the ones you've heard about and I haven't.

lol, there go the goal posts again. Now clouds aren't a feedback.

No, they're not. They're a feature of the weather.

Oh wait, so it's cloud behaviour and not clouds that are the feedback. Riiiiiight.

Precisely. Only if climate change affects the prevalence and distribution of clouds in a way which in turn influences climate are clouds a feedback.

Well something has.

Something has prevented the world warming as much as it has? Is that really something you want to hang your hat on?

Oh so you define what is or isn't substantial, not each and every individual? How presumptuous.

It just seems to me that one person leaving his car in the garage more than usual is not going to make a substantial difference to climate change. I don't see that as being presumptuous, just realistic. You think differently, but there it is.

So it's substantial when it's on an "organized scale" but not when it's on an "organized scale".

It won't be substantial unless it's on an organised scale, but the examples I gave are still not substantial. Being on an organised scale is necessary but not sufficient.

Awesome. AU is a fairly energy intensive economy but on a smaller scale. Let them have a go at it and see what happens.

I'll let them know you've given them the go-ahead.

I'd be surprised if it passes, but maybe the alarm down under is reaching a fevered pitch. Then again, maybe cooler heads will prevail.

The heads that will do nothing now or soon, if ever. The non-alarmed, cool heads like yours.