Global Warming and all that stuff.

[mhaze]

The US GDP alone is $13 trillion, and the EU's is about the same; China's is about $8 trillion. The total of the GDPs of the world's nations is around $63 trillion. That's pretty close to $10,000 per person; that $50 billion is around $10 per person. Just to give you the idea.

Sound like "catastrophic economic consequences" to you?

So, you got ten bucks? Hell, you might even talk me out of a thousand or so, if it looks like it's getting spent right. "Catastrophic economic consequences" my left nostril.

But say for Britian, have not numerous factories closed and moved offshore, to places where there is massive pollution and nobody cares? Plus the CO2 emissions have continued to rise in spite of Kyoto. So I am thinking that if high emitters moved out of this "leaky economic teapot" the net effect of Kyoto could be the reverse of its intentions, nonwithstanding the cost to consumers.

Per person, no the $10 is not substantial. But what about the overall question, is this general track a good one or a bad one?

 

[Brian the Snail]

More to the point, I would be extremely dubious about those figures, since the only support is the webpage JunkScience (more info here and here). Is there a more reliable source?

 

[fsol]

But say for Britian, have not numerous factories closed and moved offshore, to places where there is massive pollution and nobody cares? Plus the CO2 emissions have continued to rise in spite of Kyoto.

No offence meant, but could you find your way to finding some sources for your claims please?

 

[Schneibster]

But say for Britian, have not numerous factories closed and moved offshore, to places where there is massive pollution and nobody cares? Plus the CO2 emissions have continued to rise in spite of Kyoto. So I am thinking that if high emitters moved out of this "leaky economic teapot" the net effect of Kyoto could be the reverse of its intentions, nonwithstanding the cost to consumers.

That depends. Substantially the same argument was made in the case of chlorofluorocarbons and the Montreal Protocol. It seems not to have happened that way. One is forced to conclude based on the data that a) it's unlikely to create anything remotely like a "catastrophe," and b) it's likely to reduce carbon emissions.

Per person, no the $10 is not substantial. But what about the overall question, is this general track a good one or a bad one?

I would have to say that, with two of the three largest economies in the world not participating, any evaluation of its track record is premature to say the least. It's kind of like saying that because you took antibiotics for one day, and nothing changed, the antibiotics aren't working and you should stop taking them.

 

[varwoche]

Guess so. No further point in arguing then. Let everyone know...mankind is the reason for global warming.

Why in Odin's name are you babbling these straw absolutes?

http://schwinger.harvard.edu/~motl/usc-climate.htmlJust one peer-reviewed article.

Thanks, I'll check this out. And thanks to Wolverine for citing the rebuttal.

 

[Azure]

I'll happily answer in my next post -- but just out of curiosity, one thing first: why did you add such a substantial block of text to your post after I'd already replied? Initially, "Yes I saw that." was your complete answer. Now you've qualified that... um, a lot.

Those reading along casually might not notice your edit and the timestamps, and mistakenly conclude I cherry-picked your post for one line. If you like, I'll address your addendum as well -- it's just a bit irritating in that post revisions of that magnitude unnecessarily complicate the discussion and result in confusion for other readers.

Probably a bad habit.

I posted the initial comment...and went back and edited it to add some more.

Mostly to clarify what I was talking about.

 

[Azure]

Figure one of that paper is dubious to begin with. I wonder why the data stops in the '70s? It couldn't possibly be because the correlation between solar activity and temperature falls to pieces after that could it? Well yes, I believe it could. If that paper passed the peer review process, well, that's disappointing.

Dubious or not, it goes to show that not all 'peer' reviewed papers are without their mistakes, flaws and bias.

You ignoring the obvious if you think it only happens to one side.

 

[Azure]

The US GDP alone is $13 trillion, and the EU's is about the same; China's is about $8 trillion. The total of the GDPs of the world's nations is around $63 trillion. That's pretty close to $10,000 per person; that $50 billion is around $10 per person. Just to give you the idea.

Sound like "catastrophic economic consequences" to you?

So, you got ten bucks? Hell, you might even talk me out of a thousand or so, if it looks like it's getting spent right. "Catastrophic economic consequences" my left nostril.

And what will ten bucks do?

The US has lowered their emissions more then Canada, and Canada was part of the original Kyoto protocol.

Rather than spending 10 bucks on lowering emissions, I would much rather spend my ten bucks, or a thousand, on developing alternative measures.

Why? Because while I may remain skeptical about the role mankind plays in global warming...I do not think developing new technology will hurt anyone.

So 10 bucks to cut down emissions? Which could do NOTHING to combat global warming. Or 10 bucks to develop a technology that in the long run will have a bigger effect on the role mankind contributes to global warming?

 

[Schneibster]

And what will ten bucks do?

Mathematically challenged much?

The US has lowered their emissions more then Canada, and Canada was part of the original Kyoto protocol.

Source?

 

[Azure]

Source?

To make matters worse, Canadian emissions are up approximately 13.5% since 1990, in violation of our international commitments to stabilize and reduce emissions, embodied in the 1992 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and the 1997 Kyoto Protocol.

OSLO, May 31 (Reuters) - Greenhouse gas emissions by leading industrialised nations have accelerated since 2000 and several countries are performing worse than the United States which opposes a U.N. pact for curbing global warming, U.N. data shows.

Since 1990, however, the United States has had a 16.3 percent rise, second worst behind Canada. All G8 nations back Kyoto except the United States, the biggest world emitter.

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L31418335.htm

 

[fsol]

Dubious or not, it goes to show that not all 'peer' reviewed papers are without their mistakes, flaws and bias.

You ignoring the obvious if you think it only happens to one side.

A quick glance through that paper shows up several of the same type of dubious things though. For example Fig. 11 "Simplified diagram of global atmospheric temperature change over the last 1,000 years" modified from its source, which just happens to be a "review type paper" or op-ed from here "Am Assoc Petrol Geol Bull 88(9):1211–1220."

If you are going to do a review type paper, which is what I think this is trying to be, taking your sources from other review type papers doesn't really seem like best practise to me. Modifiing them and not stating your reasons, or even how you modified them, would again, seem to me to not be best practise.


What this suggests to me is that in order to make a case against AGW it requires ommissions of data and frantic spinning of the evidence.

 

[Azure]

What this suggests to me is that in order to make a case against AGW it requires ommissions of data and frantic spinning of the evidence.

Well that is sorta my point.

Peer reviewed article? Flawless? Hardly.

And you have a serious problem if you think that someone who makes a case against AGW is 'spinning' the data.

There are a lot of qualified scientists out there that are skeptical about AGW. Are they spinning the data too? Is one of the lead authors of the IPCC report spinning the data when he talks about the 'lack' of consensus?

The spinning is done by both sides.

 

[fsol]

Well that is sorta my point.

Peer reviewed article? Flawless? Hardly.

So all peer review is worthless because these guys got a paper through to a not very prestigious journal? Really, if the point of the paper was as an exercise in how not to write a paper it could have some merit. But alas...

And you have a serious problem if you think that someone who makes a case against AGW is 'spinning' the data.

There are a lot of qualified scientists out there that are skeptical about AGW. Are they spinning the data too? Is one of the lead authors of the IPCC report spinning the data when he talks about the 'lack' of consensus?

The spinning is done by both sides.

Did you see The Great Global Warming Swindle? Pretty much the same approach as that paper you linked. Lets spuriously modify graphs, leave some data out altogether, invent some other data completely and misrepresent anything else we can think of. Where are the peer reviewed papers? The one you posted doesn't count, because well, it is demonstrably rubbish. And it demonstrably omits and spins data in order to advance its thesis.

If you think the IPCC is spinning the data you could, I am sure, show me some examples from the latest report. You can download it for free from their site. If you think it is ommitting data then I am sure of course that you could point to that as well.

 

[Azure]

So all peer review is worthless because these guys got a paper through to a not very prestigious journal? Really, if the point of the paper was as an exercise in how not to write a paper it could have some merit. But alas...

Did I say they are ALL worthless?

Quit putting words into my mouth.

I said that even peer-reviewed papers can have their flaws.

Did you see The Great Global Warming Swindle? Pretty much the same approach as that paper you linked. Lets spuriously modify graphs, leave some data out altogether, invent some other data completely and misrepresent anything else we can think of. Where are the peer reviewed papers? The one you posted doesn't count, because well, it is demonstrably rubbish. And it demonstrably omits and spins data in order to advance its thesis.

No I haven't seen it.

Quit trying to change the subject. I wasn't talking about some think-tank or two-bit film-maker trying to dictate popular opinion by making a movie. I'm talking about credible scientists, and what THEY have to say about AGW.

You're spinning this your way to avoid what I said.

If you think the IPCC is spinning the data you could, I am sure, show me some examples from the latest report. You can download it for free from their site. If you think it is ommitting data then I am sure of course that you could point to that as well.

Did I say the IPCC is spinning their data? Again, you're putting words into my mouth.

I said that the one of the lead authors of the IPCC said that there is a problem with the consensus everyone seems to revert too. And I asked...'is he spinning the data' when he said that?

Are all those scientists bought and paid for by the oil industry because they're skeptical about AGW?

But no, we'll just avoid them and spend 50 billion trying to fix something that SCIENCE has NOT shown we created in the first place.

 

[Schneibster]

Umm, source that shows that the US has lowered emissions as you explicitly claimed? C'mon, this is a science forum. If you don't have the source, don't make the claim, because otherwise you'll look like an idiot.

 

[fsol]

But no, we'll just avoid them and spend 50 billion trying to fix something that SCIENCE has NOT shown we created in the first place.

So you *can* show me where the IPCC have got it wrong then. Right?

Because they say this...

The understanding of anthropogenic warming and cooling influences on climate has improved since the TAR, leading to very high confidence that the global average net effect of human activities since 1750 has been one of warming, with a radiative forcing of +1.6 [+0.6 to +2.4] W m–2

...where "very high confidence represents at least a 9 out of 10 chance of being correct."

http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Pub_SPM.pdf

 

[fsol]

Did I say the IPCC is spinning their data? Again, you're putting words into my mouth.

You said "the spinning is done by both sides."

 

[Azure]

Umm, source that shows that the US has lowered emissions as you explicitly claimed? C'mon, this is a science forum. If you don't have the source, don't make the claim, because otherwise you'll look like an idiot.

U.S. carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels decreased by 1.3 percent in 2006, from 5,955 million metric tons of carbon dioxide (MMTCO2) in 2005 to 5,877 MMTCO2 in 2006, according to preliminary estimates released today by the Energy Information Administration (EIA).

http://www.eia.doe.gov/neic/press/press284.html

 

[Azure]

You said "the spinning is done by both sides."

It certainly is.

A fool could tell you that.

Does that then automatically say that the IPCC is spinning their data too? No.

I did NOT say the IPCC is spinning their data.

The only thing I said about the IPCC is what one of their lead authors had to say. And that was about the consensus that everyone is referring too, regarding AGW.

But, if you're interested in critisism about the IPCC...read here. Even though I have a feeling that you're going to ignore it anyways.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intergovernmental_Panel_on_Climate_Change

And here..

http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=1069

Politics, not science, drives the United Nations' work on climate change, warns Dr. Richard Lindzen, one of the world's leading atmospheric physicists

And just for the record, I'm not going to go to the IPCC report and start debunking their stuff, or trying to. That is the exact problem I was talking about. People who are not qualified, trying to dictate popular opinion.

Everything I have quoted in regards to skepticism about global warming has come from credible sources.

But you have ignored everything I have said...instead you try to change the subject.

 

[Azure]

...where "very high confidence represents at least a 9 out of 10 chance of being correct."

http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Pub_SPM.pdf

There is an even greater problem with the analysis. The IPCC provides a breakdown of seven extreme weather events, and an assessment of human influence on those events. Only two of the individual events have a human impact of at least 66 per cent, the other five are 50-50 propositions. Somehow this all adds up to 90 per cent. Furthermore, in three of the weather events there is no underlying human attribution study -the IPCC made up that data.

And more criticism...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPCC_Fourth_Assessment_Report

Bottom of the page.

I go to look up the 4th assessment of the IPCC report...read through the whole page...and come to the criticism. According to some people, I should ignore that...for whatever reason..because they're spinning the data perhaps?

Yet, most of those people who have criticized the IPCC were once part of that organization. And I should dismiss them as nothing?

I don't think so.

_________________________________________

Notice that the biggest effect comes from the first 20 ppm (parts per million) of CO2 and that this first 20 ppm has a greater effect than the next 400 ppm combined. Please note, that this is not a "forecast" or a model-based prediction. This is established scientific fact. We KNOW this.

http://rantingstan.blogspot.com/search/label/IPCC

I would have quoted the original source, but strangely, it is blocked here at work.

________________________________________________

I'm sure you're aware of the Archibald study..

The increased length of Solar Cycle 23 supports the view that Solar Cycle 24 will be weak, with the consequence of increased certainty that that there will be a global average temperature decline in the range of 1° to 2° C for the forecast period. The projected increase of 40 ppm in atmospheric carbon dioxide to 2030 is calculated to contribute a global atmospheric temperature increase of 0.04°C. The anthropogenic contribution to climate change over the forecast period will be insignificant relative to natural cyclic variation.

http://www.cato.org/speeches/sp-jt011698.html

4,000+ scientists (70 of whom are Nobel Prize winners) have signed the so-called Heidelberg Appeal, which warns the industrialized world that no compelling evidence exists to justify controls of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions.

A recent survey of state climatologists reveals that a majority of respondents have serious doubts about whether anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases present a serious threat to climate stability.

Of all the academic specialists, climatologists (only about 60 of whom hold Ph.d.’s in the entire U.S.) and atmospheric physicists are those most qualified to examine evidence of climate change. It is those professions that are most heavily populated by the so-called "skeptics."

Consensus indeed.

I'm aware that the CATO institute receives corporate funding, which is why I only pointed out what THEY quoted.