Global Warming and all that stuff.

[Schneibster]

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

That's more like it.

Now, there are several caveats here.
First, this is a one-year trend. The previous nine years had increases.
Second, this is a reduction in emissions, not a reduction in CO2 in the atmosphere. The US still emitted 5.877 billion metric tons of CO2 in 2006, and that is still the most of any country in the world. It also (combined with Canada) makes North America the most of any continent.
Third, the winter and summer in 2006 were both unusually mild- and the first is a likely result of global warming.
Fourth, these figures were compiled by an administration notorious for inaccurate facts and suppression of facts.
Fifth, these figures are preliminary.

So overall, what we're saying here is that preliminary data from a source that has been shown to give inaccurate data in the past and has every motivation to give inaccurate data in this case, indicates that we made less of a problem last year than every other year in the last decade, but still more of a problem than any other country in the world, and that the fact we made less of a problem is probably down to the symptoms of the problem. Neato.

Let's investigate the size of the problem, shall we? Hmm, 300 million people- six billion tons of CO2- that's twenty tons of CO2 per person per year. Probably more than your house weighs. Getting that down to ten tons looks like a major problem to me. That would cripple the economy. And the problem's still not solved; we're still emitting three billion tons a year, and we have nothing to eat.

The sheer magnitude of the problem is daunting. That we've wasted ten years playing kiddie "I'm not so what are you" games is unconscionable. But the idea that there are people (like you, Azure) who want to ignore it awhile longer in the hope it will just go away on its own is incredible- absolutely beyond belief.

The physics of the situation is undeniable: we know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and we know that increasing it increases the greenhouse effect; we've known that for over a hundred years. We know that the Earth's average temperature is increasing, and that no other factor is increasing with it but CO2. We know that we're pouring CO2 into the atmosphere at a rate that makes us a major force in the environment.

The question, as I've stated repeatedly, is not, "will it get warmer;" the answer to that is obvious to anyone who can add. The questions are, "how fast and how much?" And the answers increasingly appear to be, "faster than we thought," and "more than we will find convenient by a long shot."

Is it doom for the human race? Unlikely; we're highly adaptable and we know a lot of things we can use to survive. But it may well be the end of industrial economies, and I don't know about you but I kind of like having a refrigerator and a car and a computer, to name three that come to mind quickly. Not to mention it's nice to eat. Maybe we ought to do something about it instead of arguing about the obvious.

Gee, ya THINK??!?

 

[mhaze]

That's more like it.

...good stuff abbreviated...
it may well be the end of industrial economies, and I don't know about you but I kind of like having a refrigerator and a car and a computer, to name three that come to mind quickly. Not to mention it's nice to eat. Maybe we ought to do something about it instead of arguing about the obvious.

Gee, ya THINK??!?

But emissions relative to GNP, the US is way down on the list- 39 . That's the making of all those things you like. Other nations, like those that signed kyoto, don't they need to catch up...with the US? Aren't we somehow doing something right?

NOT SAYING we can't improve, once and if this juggernaut of a country gets moving.

 

[CapelDodger]

Oh no.

Jesus...if you can't see the hysteria mentioned in those articles I quoted, something is really wrong.

"End of world is nigh - its official"...what do you think that means, other then...oh no we're all going to die?

That sounds like the product of a sub-editor's desk. Sub-editors look for snappy, attention-grabbing titles (however inappropriate they might be) and are notorious for putting titles on pieces they haven't actually read, and even more often on pieces they haven't understood. Which is most of them - all in some extreme cases.

This isn't hysteria, it's the normal product of a sub's day. These are the people who make up the nicknames for serial killers. They are (in the main) worthless creatures. No offence to any subs out there - you're obviously exceptional just by being here.

(Hey Schneibster - notice what stirs the Mr Angry in me ?)

 

[Azure]

The sheer magnitude of the problem is daunting. That we've wasted ten years playing kiddie "I'm not so what are you" games is unconscionable. But the idea that there are people (like you, Azure) who want to ignore it awhile longer in the hope it will just go away on its own is incredible- absolutely beyond belief.

There we go again.

Now you're accusing me of 'ignoring' the problem at hand. Strange how that works with people who are skeptical about AGW, the causes, and the result.

No, rather then ignoring it...we should start building nuclear plants tomorrow. Not 10 years down the road, but tomorrow.

And we should spend 50 billion on alternatives, and NOT on curbing emissions.

But no, I'm ignoring the problem. Right.

Is it doom for the human race? Unlikely; we're highly adaptable and we know a lot of things we can use to survive. But it may well be the end of industrial economies, and I don't know about you but I kind of like having a refrigerator and a car and a computer, to name three that come to mind quickly. Not to mention it's nice to eat. Maybe we ought to do something about it instead of arguing about the obvious.

Gee, ya THINK??!?

No, I don't think. I know that nuclear power has NO emissions...and I KNOW that it takes away a lot of dependence on fossil fuels.

But of course, if we don't spend 50 billion on ridiculous things such as the Kyoto Accord....or else we won't be able to eat. Now WTF kind of dumb comment is that?

 

[Azure]

That sounds like the product of a sub-editor's desk. Sub-editors look for snappy, attention-grabbing titles (however inappropriate they might be) and are notorious for putting titles on pieces they haven't actually read, and even more often on pieces they haven't understood. Which is most of them - all in some extreme cases.

And how many gullible fools took that attention grabbing title, and believed every word the article says?

This isn't hysteria, it's the normal product of a sub's day. These are the people who make up the nicknames for serial killers. They are (in the main) worthless creatures. No offence to any subs out there - you're obviously exceptional just by being here.

(Hey Schneibster - notice what stirs the Mr Angry in me ?)

No it is hysteria. Saying the end of the world is nigh, IS hysteria.

Why you keep spinning it any other way is beyond me.

 

[fsol]

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..

Not much time at the moment but this...

Introduction
There are numerous published correlations of past solar activity with the historic climate record. These studies include correlations of the record of the ice ages with the Be10 record and detailed work on the 20th century temperature record undertaken by Friss-Christensen and Lassen (1991). These studies show that the Earth’s climate moves in lockstep with solar activity.

http://climatepolice.com/Climate_Outlook_2030.pdf

...is out of date. And for a paper that has references to 2006 work, I don't see why that should be. Why would someone writing a report use out of date references?

This is what you get when you use up to date references...

http://www.realclimate.org/damon&laut_2004.pdf

The "lockstep" movement becomes attributable to a "trivial mathematical error."

And this is the same error of omission that the last paper you linked to committed in it's first figure as well as being the same error that was featured in The Great Global Warming Swindle. So you can see why I brought it up before, because there is a pattern emerging.

 

[Azure]

But emissions relative to GNP, the US is way down on the list- 39 . That's the making of all those things you like. Other nations, like those that signed kyoto, don't they need to catch up...with the US? Aren't we somehow doing something right?

NOT SAYING we can't improve, once and if this juggernaut of a country gets moving.

And it strange how a country can reduce their emissions WITHOUT signing to something as ridiculous as the Kyoto Protocol.

I don't how many more times I have to say it...but developing alternative technology does a LOT more good in the long run then curbing emissions will EVER do.

 

[CapelDodger]

But emissions relative to GNP, the US is way down on the list- 39 . That's the making of all those things you like. Other nations, like those that signed kyoto, don't they need to catch up...with the US? Aren't we somehow doing something right?

It's the emissions per person that govern the total. Consumption per person in the US is extremely high, in relative terms, which is why the US produces so much CO2 despite its relative efficiency. If people catch up with US rates of consumption ... well, copper will be more expensive, for one thing. Fortunately it's not a credible scenario.

GNP is a somewhat problematic measure. It doesn't only include the making of things, but also financial services (among other things). Emissions relative to manufacturing/extraction would be more informative.

NOT SAYING we can't improve, once and if this juggernaut of a country gets moving.

It was very light on its feet in 1942. Mostly done by phone - no InterWebNet in those days, not even computers. Very, very impressive. Whether the US still has the cohesion required is debatable. And of course a Pearl Harbour equivalent is extremely unlikely.

 

[a_unique_person]

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.

_________________________________________

http://bp0.blogger.com/_BGmS3PwGWG8/RmPq3GIDtbI/AAAAAAAAACY/mHoxIdyTsXE/s400/co2-vs-temp-x.jpg



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..



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



Consensus indeed.

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

The reducing effect of an increase in CO2 is well known, and reported by scientists. You seem to be implying it's some sort of secret, or knowledge they don't want us to know???? All the work of the IPCC works on that knowledge, that is, scientists know that the effect reduces, and the models are built on that basis. The measured effects are happening on that basis.

 

[CapelDodger]

And this is the same error of omission that the last paper you linked to committed in it's first figure as well as being the same error that was featured in The Great Global Warming Swindle. So you can see why I brought it up before, because there is a pattern emerging.

Ain't there just. But your excellent work on this point is not yet done .

The recent past has not been kind to denialists, so they leave it out. What they don't do is shut up and shuffle off. They're still being funded, after all. It's hardly expensive (in relative terms, given the patrons).

Swindle and the Swindlers defined the decline of denialism, to my mind, when they remade a mockumentary (with same cast, production and message) from a decade earlier that itself was in decadal denial. Where's the new blood? Singer shows clear signs of senility, Lindzen's losing interest, and Gray's deep in aluminium-hat territory. (Gray thinks Diamond talks directly to him, how nutty is that. Or perhaps it's the other way around. Perhaps both .... I may have spent a little too much time in the sun today - it's been glorious. And a fat crop of strawberries and raspberries already, with much more to follow. Gotta love this climate. And I didn't even have to emigrate to live in it, it came to me.)

 

[Azure]

I don't get it.

I never said ANYTHING about that movie...yet, somehow it has made itself into this thread.

Seriously Capel...outside of your ridiculous 'consensus' about AGW...what are trying to prove?

Its also well-known that when I talk about skeptics in regards to AGW...they are dismissed, or ignored. In fact, I have yet to see ONE person address these credible scientists who disagree with what the IPCC said about AGW.

Spin it any way you want...while the IPCC may want to think that they have reached a consensus about global warming....that is simply not true. I don't need to read much farther than a lead author of the IPCC to realize that.

But go ahead, dismiss it. I'm glad my country has finally realized that abiding by ridiculous things such as the Kyoto Protocol is foolish. Just like it is foolish to say that if we don't spend 50 billion on curbing emissions, our food is suddenly going to disappear.

Yet, that spin is accepted around here. Must be part of the consensus.

 

[Azure]

The reducing effect of an increase in CO2 is well known, and reported by scientists. You seem to be implying it's some sort of secret, or knowledge they don't want us to know???? All the work of the IPCC works on that knowledge, that is, scientists know that the effect reduces, and the models are built on that basis. The measured effects are happening on that basis.

Secret?

I merely pointed it out.

Why would I think it is a secret?

 

[mhaze]

It's the emissions per person that govern the total. Consumption per person in the US is extremely high, in relative terms, which is why the US produces so much CO2 despite its relative efficiency. If people catch up with US rates of consumption ... well, copper will be more expensive, for one thing. Fortunately it's not a credible scenario.

GNP is a somewhat problematic measure. It doesn't only include the making of things, but also financial services (among other things). Emissions relative to manufacturing/extraction would be more informative.

I have to note the relation of GNP, and why? It is because other people want to only talk about consumption per person. And that makes the US look bad.

Yet all the emerging nations want "our lifestyle". And they are all headed toward higher GNP/person, and therefore they are headed toward really, really bad numbers.

To put it into a stark reality Russia and China are four times worse than the US on emissions per dollar of production - and they want the right to increase production and for their people to have more goods. While you can criticize the use of GNP as a measure, I feel it is more accurate and in fact, necesary to view the problem in terms of consumption per capita and the way it interlocks with GNP.

Curiously, though, a great many of the things that might be said to constitute wealth are getting cheaper and commonplace. Things like IPODS, computers, the internet and all that is available behind these facilities. That has interesting side effects; a future luxury house may not have a library room, because all the books are on a screen; and may not have a "media room", because all the movies are available at any screen. ETC. We see strangely and at the same time, new types of extravagant waste and new types of savings.

 

[Azure]

Interesting Mhaze.

Personally, I think the high fuel prices will be the single issue that drives countries to develop alternative measures.

And by developing alternative measures, such as nuclear energy, you greatly reduce the amount of emissions released into the atmosphere by mankind.

I'm not pro-pollution, and I am NOT a denier, despite the labeling being tossed around in this thread...I believe AGW is read.....just how significant is it?

Also...I am simply not going to read one side of the arguement and make up my mind, unlike others. And no, the other side is NOT the side that 'denies' global warming. I don't see how one can be skeptical, and simply dismiss what we disagree with.

Most of us are NOT climate scientists, so we look towards credible people for knowledge and understanding. Well, are you going to look at the side YOU want to agree with, or at people from both sides of the coin?

Because to simply dismiss any skeptics is, IMO, foolish. Especially if those skeptics are not the two-bit think-tank from Washington, or some documentary you don't like....but REAL scientists, and people who have been in the climate research field for a LONG time.

 

[CapelDodger]

And it strange how a country can reduce their emissions WITHOUT signing to something as ridiculous as the Kyoto Protocol.

If a country reduces its own manufacturing in favour of imports, factories close. Manufacturing is energy-intensive relative to, say, financial services (lending people money to buy the imports) or the media (persuading people to buy the imports). Or retailing - selling the imports to people. Or property development - building malls where people can sell imports to those people persuaded to buy them, on credit. That'll reduce your emissions, in national terms.

I don't how many more times I have to say it...but developing alternative technology does a LOT more good in the long run then curbing emissions will EVER do.

The way I see it, the long-term can look after itself. All I hope is that it remembers me fondly. Climate change is already happening, and the short-term is the timescale that matters. "Short-term" term meaning the world one's (hypothetical) grandchildren will experience.

You may think you've experienced turbulent times but you haven't. With luck, you will. Without, you'll have died young.

 

[mhaze]

And it strange how a country can reduce their emissions WITHOUT signing to something as ridiculous as the Kyoto Protocol.

I don't how many more times I have to say it...but developing alternative technology does a LOT more good in the long run then curbing emissions will EVER do.

Yeah, what would that $50 billion buy? A nuclear plant costs $3-5B.

Let's compare the savings in emissions from spending on that - with the lunatic hairbrained craziness of Kyoto, carbon credit offset trading as implemented, third world givaways, and rampant corruption.

The European Union produces about 15% of the world's CO2 emissions. Let's say our $50B could build 15 plants, each of which causes the closure of old coal and gas facilities saving 12M ton each for a total of 180M ton CO2 reduction. Total for EU for 2005 was 3,682M ton.

Percentage reduction: 5%.

As I recall, Kyoto was trying for a 6% reduction.

Now, where are is the carbon credit trading for building nuclear plants?

 

[mhaze]

Yeah, what would that $50 billion buy? A nuclear plant costs $3-5B.

Let's compare the savings in emissions from spending on that - with the lunatic hairbrained craziness of Kyoto, carbon credit offset trading as implemented, third world givaways, and rampant corruption.

The European Union produces about 15% of the world's CO2 emissions. Let's say our $50B could build 15 plants, each of which causes the closure of old coal and gas facilities saving 12M ton each for a total of 180M ton CO2 reduction. Total for EU for 2005 was 3,682M ton.

Percentage reduction: 5%.

As I recall, Kyoto was trying for a 6% reduction.

Now, where are is the carbon credit trading for building nuclear plants?

Actually, I believe my analysis above is faulty. The reason is that many plants are old and need to be replaced anyway, and capital projects of this size are typically financed with long term bonds. So let's presume that the $50 billion was used only as seed capital, essentially as a down payment of 20% for any country or municipality therein willing to do a bond issue for the remaining 80%. That's a really attractive deal...

Now you have $250 billion, 75 nuclear plants financed, and a percentage reduction for the EU of 25% in total CO2 emissions. Starting to get the picture?

Now, again. Where exactly are the carbon credits trading for nuclear power? I would like to enter them into the equation, too.

Now how hard exactly is all this?

 

[CapelDodger]

Is it doom for the human race? Unlikely; we're highly adaptable and we know a lot of things we can use to survive. But it may well be the end of industrial economies, and I don't know about you but I kind of like having a refrigerator and a car and a computer, to name three that come to mind quickly. Not to mention it's nice to eat. Maybe we ought to do something about it instead of arguing about the obvious.

I don't see the end of technological economies, in fact I see those as the ones that will survive what's coming. The hard truth is that the industrialised economy will make, for itself, what it needs to cope. Everybody else can go hang - but where's the change in that?

If AGW runs out-of-hand, who can rein it in? (IMO, it surely will.) Sustainability will mean independence from unpredictable natural influences. And Nature can go hang. If it's hot, there's A/C and plenty of coal to power it cheaply. If it's dry, there's desalination and cheap coal to provide it.

There won't be six-and-a-bit billion folk enjoying this world, though. Not nearly so many. But there'll be no "Dark Age". Not that there ever was ... (Slaps self on face to snap himself out if it )

 

[Azure]

The way I see it, the long-term can look after itself. All I hope is that it remembers me fondly. Climate change is already happening, and the short-term is the timescale that matters. "Short-term" term meaning the world one's (hypothetical) grandchildren will experience.

No, the long term will NOT look after itself.

Alberta, by itself has enough oil to continue for exporting it for the next 100 years.

Perhaps even more.

As long as the demand remains, WE WILL sell our oil. Our cities like it, our economy is the strongest in the world...and the city of Calgary has growth unlike NONE other. In other words, you're not going to curb emissions here in this province. Probably 60%, perhaps more of the population has a job in the oil and gas industry. You're looking to render, according to certain estimates, half of them job-less by agreeing to such astronomical rates, such as the Kyoto Accord wants.

Sorry, but the only way you're going to FIX ANYTHING, is the develop other alternatives, such as nuclear energy, which would WITHOUT CHOICE limit emissions.

You may think you've experienced turbulent times but you haven't. With luck, you will. Without, you'll have died young.

And WTF is that supposed to mean? That I'm going to die at a young age because of global warming?

Wow.

Maybe my sarcasm shouldn't have been sarcasm at all. Now we're already talking about people 'dying' because of global warming.

Talk about hysteria.

 

[CapelDodger]

I have to note the relation of GNP, and why? It is because other people want to only talk about consumption per person. And that makes the US look bad.

The US does have a high consumption rate. Why is that bad?

Yet all the emerging nations want "our lifestyle".

A lot of your fellow-citizens would like your lifestyle.

And they are all headed toward higher GNP/person, and therefore they are headed toward really, really bad numbers.

Some parts of the world are treading the path laid down for them by Western society. Why is that bad?

To put it into a stark reality Russia and China are four times worse than the US on emissions per dollar of production - and they want the right to increase production and for their people to have more goods.

They want the right? Dispensed by whom? From those that went before them?

While you can criticize the use of GNP as a measure, I feel it is more accurate and in fact, necesary to view the problem in terms of consumption per capita and the way it interlocks with GNP.

That's a tad too waffly for me to interpret at this hour.

Curiously, though, a great many of the things that might be said to constitute wealth are getting cheaper and commonplace. Things like IPODS, computers, the internet and all that is available behind these facilities.

A couple of things that constitute wealth are clean water easily available and a dependable food-supply.

That has interesting side effects; a future luxury house may not have a library room, because all the books are on a screen ...

Are you implying that I'm a climate-criminal because I live (almost liiterally) surrounded by books? That will be regarded as a bad thing?

(Unfair, but what the heck, have I ever climed sainthood?)