Merged Global Warming Discussion II: Heated Conversation

[ABC10]

Jack Parr was right "People tear their own Tinfoil and need no help from us".

 

[Trakar]

The social cost of CO2 in a low-growth world

AN interesting paper that many seem to have overlooked last year.
So, how does the cost of changing how we do things in order to reduce our future contribution to AGW and begin our adaptation and adjustment to the changes we have already guaranteed, compare to the coast of continuing on the path we are currently on without any serious attempts to change our behavior/emissions.

"The social cost of CO2 in a low-growth world"
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v3/n8/full/nclimate1935.html

Action on mitigating climate change seems to be grinding to a halt within the global political arena. Major emitters seem unwilling to accept binding emissions reductions targets as their economies have stagnated. The talks at the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change conference in Copenhagen in 2009 were meant to represent a watershed moment for global cooperation on climate change1 but produced little more than a symbolic accord2. Fast forward another three years and the outcomes of the Doha negotiations3, 4, 5 deferred the key decisions on climate change mitigation to 2015, as the Durban Platform did before6. Is this neglect justified? Here we use the PAGE09 integrated assessment model7 to estimate the mean social cost of CO2 for a wide range of economic growth scenarios...

The above is a snippet from the pay-walled Nature abstract. But because I feel that this is a very interesting paper I'd like to give the participants of this thread a little deeper peek (behind the pay-wall) at some of the content that is in this paper.

...The social cost of CO2 (SCCO2) aggregates, and discounts back to the present day, the extra damage in all sectors, regions and time periods covered by the model. Thus, the SCCO2 represents the level at which we should set a tax on CO2 to internalize the impacts of climate change. If gross domestic product (GDP), population and emissions continue to grow as in the A1B business as usual scenario of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change8 (IPCC), previous research with the PAGE09 model has shown that the mean SCCO2 is US$103 per tonne of CO2 (ref. 9).
...In economically tough times, the public’s attention also shifts away from the issue of climate change. Polling suggests that in the European Union (EU), only 3% of citizens put climate change as one of the EU’s top two priorities14 and although most Americans believe global warming should be addressed by the government, only a small minority see it as a priority15–17. Thus, there is no popular pressure to curtail the policymakers’ neglect of climate change policy in a stagnant economy. This economic stagnation is expected to continue into the foreseeable future: according to the World Bank18, the global economy is expected to recover more slowly than it had anticipated only a year before, and the International Monetary Fund predicts that real GDP is expected to grow only at ‘an anaemic pace’ in advanced economies over the coming years.

note the range of carbon pricing they are talking about are roughly 3x the numbers I've talked about previously with regard to Carbon tax proposals.

Two main points in this study.

(1) the economic recession is no excuse for delaying action to address climate change. On the contrary, we should be doing more to reduce greenhouse gas emissions because slow economic growth means we'll have less wealth to cope with the climate-induced damages in the future.

(2)We are currently seriously underestimating the costs of our greenhouse gas emissions. If we don't change what we are doing, we (or rather our children and their children) will pay a very heavy price for the luxury income of a very small, infinitesimal fraction of the current generation.

 

[a_unique_person]

Jack Parr was right "People tear their own Tinfoil and need no help from us".

Thank you for that content free post.

 

[ABC10]

Thank you for that content free post.

Some get it, some get a little of it and some don't get it, at all.

 

[Trakar]

Highest atmospheric CO2e in 3 million years - reached!

NOAA's Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center -- just put up numbers for 2013 radiative forcings from all the greenhouse gases.
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/aggi/aggi.html

Radiative forcing of complete human sourced GHGs is now equivalent to 479 ppmv of CO2. Radiative forcing has increased by 1.3 times since 1990.

Wanna peek at what that world looked like?
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/energy/2013/05/130510-earth-co2-milestone-400-ppm/

http://pages.geo.wvu.edu/~kammer/g231/readings/ClimateoftheFuture.pdf

 

[a_unique_person]

Some get it, some get a little of it and some don't get it, at all.

I'm sorry, get what?

 

[Trakar]

National Center for Science Education - Friend of the Planet Award

The Friend of Darwin Award recognizes the Kitzmiller v. Dover legal team and a stalwart evolution writer. The new Friend of the Planet award recognizes an outspoken climate scientist and a revered writer

http://ncse.com/climate-denial-crea...dover-team-climate-science-leaders-honored-by

He's the Mann!

 

[Trakar]

Justices Back Rule Limiting Coal Pollution

WASHINGTON — In a major victory for the Obama administration, the Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld the authority of the Environmental Protection Agency to regulate the smog from coal plants that drifts across state lines from 28 Midwestern and Appalachian states to the East Coast.

The 6-to-2 ruling bolsters the centerpiece of President Obama’s environmental agenda: a series of new regulations aimed at cutting pollution from coal-fired power plants. Republicans and the coal industry have criticized the regulations, which use the Clean Air Act as their legal authority, as a “war on coal.” The industry has waged an aggressive legal battle to undo the rules.

Legal experts said the decision, written by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, signals that the Obama administration’s efforts to use the Clean Air Act to fight global warming could withstand legal challenges...

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/30/us/politics/supreme-court-backs-epa-coal-pollution-rules.html?_r=0

 

[CapelDodger]

I'm not sure that Climategate etc. is bait, as the people that post it likely still believe it is valid as they are never shown otherwise.

They're shown otherwise, they just won't look. They know they don't need to look at anything on SkepticalScience http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php (see no 17) because they know SkS is part of the same conspoiracy. They don't need to look at the seven investigations because they know they're all whitewashes. They don't even need to find anything in the stolen emails because they know there must be something in there. Why would anyone steal them otherwise?

Sadly we can't just let the accusation hang there, but we certainly don't all need to dive in on it.

 

[CapelDodger]

It was Motl? If so, the investigating authorities should know. Then there'll soon be another idiot in jail.

It's almost impossible to make a case or even work out which jurisdiction or laws would apply. I'm told the investigators gave it a good try but it was pretty hopeless.

Of course if we had access to Motl's emails for the last five years or so we might do better, but the NSA are holding on to them .

 

[Warmer1]

They're shown otherwise, they just won't look.
[snip]
Why would anyone steal them otherwise?

I wonder if it would be interesting to do a little experiment just for fun?

Create one well written educational post explaining the false accusations that occurred as well as the eventual total exoneration of the scientists, and include links to all the independent inquiries. Explain that the Climategate accusations were proven to be dishonest a long time ago on this forum.

Also explain that the post was specifically written to address the constant arrival of ill-informed new posters in order to eliminate the numerous and repetitive future responses that would be required to counter the constant arrival of misinformation.

We could all just save a link to the post and just one person could post the link as needed. Done deal.

Sadly we can't just let the accusation hang there, but we certainly don't all need to dive in on it.

I wonder if just one or two people responding is compelling enough? The same information has to constantly be posted over and over again.

Is it worth trying? If not I'll drop the idea.

 

[ABC10]

We all have the pretty much the same touted information, the same predictions of doom and gloom when almost none of us will see the end of the story. It's our interpretations that differ. It's anyone's guess. I don't think we can get around the difference of opinion on interpreting the data currently available or find each others opinion compelling. It's a wait and see situation. I certainly don't have any belief that the ice sheets melting or the "maybes", "mights" "coulds" "can bes" coming to fruition particulary as flooding, fires, violent happening have occurred forever and a day on this planet and no doubt will continue to do so.
I certainly don't think throwing money to other countries is going to cure the predicted problems. Nor do I see 1st world countries going back to 18th Century bicycle low tech either. My opinion only, of course.
Personally, I think Son of Katchoria will throw us into disarray when it explodes and the world does a "Scream" repeat.
My opinion only, of course.

 

[OCaptain]

That's offensive. As informed as any poster, just disagree with warmer conclusions. Throwing charts, graphs around and pictures of polar bears does not make it so. Check out the lack of warming for almost 17 years while trying to "hide the decline".

No. Not at all. Your words demonstrate - quite clearly - that you are not as informed as any poster on climate science.

 

[a_unique_person]

We all have the pretty much the same touted information, the same predictions of doom and gloom when almost none of us will see the end of the story. It's our interpretations that differ. It's anyone's guess. I don't think we can get around the difference of opinion on interpreting the data currently available or find each others opinion compelling. It's a wait and see situation. I certainly don't have any belief that the ice sheets melting or the "maybes", "mights" "coulds" "can bes" coming to fruition particulary as flooding, fires, violent happening have occurred forever and a day on this planet and no doubt will continue to do so.
I certainly don't think throwing money to other countries is going to cure the predicted problems. Nor do I see 1st world countries going back to 18th Century bicycle low tech either. My opinion only, of course.
Personally, I think Son of Katchoria will throw us into disarray when it explodes and the world does a "Scream" repeat.
My opinion only, of course.

You can't get around the difference of opinion, so what. This is a matter of science and evidence. Have you read the case for AGW? It is in the IPCC report. Until you read that, or the papers it references, I don't know what you can contribute, other than to say what ever it was that suits your prejudices. I am not a scientist, but I have sat down and looked at the evidence presnted. I won't pretend to say I understand it all, but at least I made the effort to understand it as to the best of my ability.

What I can say, from what I have read that you have written here, is that you have no understanding at all of the case for AGW, just what you have read others say on various blogs is the case against.

 

[lomiller]

I don't think we can get around the difference of opinion on interpreting the data currently available or find each others opinion compelling.

I don't think you understand the difference between opinion and fact. You consistently think you can wave away facts simply by opinion. You can't

I certainly don't have any belief that...

No one here cares what you do or don't believe, if all you want to do is post about your beliefs post in the religion or CT forum. This is the science forum, your posts need to contain science.

You have been asked a number of very simply, mostly yes/no questions regarding your willingness to accept what the science says and thus far you have refused to answer any of them. Are you going to answer these questions or are you going to do nothing but recite your beliefs?

 

[lomiller]

What I can say, from what I have read that you have written here, is that you have no understanding at all of the case for AGW, just what you have read others say on various blogs is the case against.

It doesn't appear he even understands the shallow, failed, arguments those blogs are making. His level of understanding seems to be that there are blogs that say things he's been told to believe and therefor he does.

 

[Warmer1]

We all have the pretty much the same touted information, the same predictions of doom and gloom when almost none of us will see the end of the story. It's our interpretations that differ. It's anyone's guess. I don't think we can get around the difference of opinion on interpreting the data currently available or find each others opinion compelling. It's a wait and see situation. I certainly don't have any belief that the ice sheets melting or the "maybes", "mights" "coulds" "can bes" coming to fruition particulary as flooding, fires, violent happening have occurred forever and a day on this planet and no doubt will continue to do so.
I certainly don't think throwing money to other countries is going to cure the predicted problems. Nor do I see 1st world countries going back to 18th Century bicycle low tech either. My opinion only, of course.
Personally, I think Son of Katchoria will throw us into disarray when it explodes and the world does a "Scream" repeat.
My opinion only, of course.

By you own admission you can't understand the charts that are presented which represent the hard work and science involved in the study of climate change which was necessary to create the charts.

Does the following chart indicate to you that there is a consensus among the scientific community regarding climate change or is it just another representation of the science which you can't understand?



Please don't let your lack of understanding of the science continue to confuse you. There are lots of great sources of information available for the asking and you will get a lot of good information on this forum in you are open minded and you are interested in learning.

People on this forum would love to help you if you are willing to learn!
As you continue to argue with people here please understand that it is you, by your own admission, that can't understand the science. Do you think you will change anyone's opinion on a science forum when it is you that doesn't understand the subject at all? Why do you waste your time????

You don't need to continue to post that you don't understand science. We get it!

This is a science forum so what science have you presented thus far? What makes your opinions any more valid than the babbling drunk guy on the park bench? Sure you have an uninformed opinion, so what?

 

[Warmer1]

ABC10

If you don't like the realm of science due to the extensive testing of evidence and validity that are required to make assertions, you might feel very much at home at Project Camelot.

http://www.youtube.com/user/jagbodhi

Most people on that site have no regard or understanding of science and you may feel right at home.

 

[ABC10]

I don't think you understand the difference between opinion and fact. You consistently think you can wave away facts simply by opinion. You can't



No one here cares what you do or don't believe, if all you want to do is post about your beliefs post in the religion or CT forum. This is the science forum, your posts need to contain science.

You have been asked a number of very simply, mostly yes/no questions regarding your willingness to accept what the science says and thus far you have refused to answer any of them. Are you going to answer these questions or are you going to do nothing but recite your beliefs?

I am not sure that how much anyone cares about another's post. None the less, as anonymous bloggers pecking away on our keyboard. we beat on. I actually enjoy reading the opinions and adding my own. A conversation with out insults is better fun, of course, then snide remarks but looks like some can't control themselves. I will read and have some fun here. I am not a scientist. Are all the other folk here scientist. If so, well great and interesting. I would think the science forum bloggers would love to pontificate their views and show us lowly non science folk just how smart they are. None the less, there has been no cooling in 17 years, Ice abounds at both poles, that Greenland Ice Sheet is still alive and well and far as I can see, none of those gloom and doom predictions have not come true and most of us won't be here for the End Of the Story. All those might, could, can, stuff is only opinion too and no facts. We have people with PHDs, experts, 50 years experience reading the charts and disagreeing over how the data is to be interpreted. What do we offer?
Son of Katchoria - will be doing us in long before that Greenland Ice Sheet melts.

 

[Trakar]

By you own admission you can't understand the charts that are presented which represent the hard work and science involved in the study of climate change which was necessary to create the charts.

Does the following chart indicate to you that there is a consensus among the scientific community regarding climate change or is it just another representation of the science which you can't understand?

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_37362535c7f1853663.jpg[/qimg]

Please don't let your lack of understanding of the science continue to confuse you. There are lots of great sources of information available for the asking and you will get a lot of good information on this forum in you are open minded and you are interested in learning.

People on this forum would love to help you if you are willing to learn!
As you continue to argue with people here please understand that it is you, by your own admission, that can't understand the science. Do you think you will change anyone's opinion on a science forum when it is you that doesn't understand the subject at all? Why do you waste your time????

You don't need to continue to post that you don't understand science. We get it!

This is a science forum so what science have you presented thus far? What makes your opinions any more valid than the babbling drunk guy on the park bench? Sure you have an uninformed opinion, so what?

Please don't feed the Trolls