Moderated Global Warming Discussion

[CapelDodger]

The fact that the people who publish regularly on the subject are alarmed pretty much proves there isn’t much in the way of alarmism. IMO if you want to look for alarmism on this subject look at all the unfounded hysteria claiming everything will collapse if we move away from fossil fuels.

Let's not forget the One World Gumment threat that Munchkin would be alarmed about if he didn't know he would single-handedly save the day for us. He tries to alarm everbody else, though, which I assume is being alarmist.

 

[CapelDodger]

Perhaps you mean something more like “current CO2 induced global warming” but that means you must be mathematically challenged, as globally current warming from CO2 is a little under 0.2 deg per decade, making 0.4 deg a little over 20 years worth of warming. Or perhaps you don’t understand the difference be global and local, but then of course there are places where local warming is much faster then 0.2 deg per decade.

The Arctic being one of them, of course. That canary's looking a bit sick.

The "0.8C in a century" presumably relies on Pat Michael's trick of ignoring aerosol effects (Lindzen uses it as well). The current 30-year trend in surface temperatures is about 0.17C per decade, against model predictions of 0.2 +/- 0.02. With the La Nina fading, solar activity on the increase and positive feedback in the Arctic we can expect the trend to increase a little in this decade. If the Amazon pitches into terminal decline, we can depend on it.

What might decrease the trend is Peak Oil and a return to more sulphur-heavy fuels.

The great thing about this subject, for the likes of me, is that it's developing in real time (unlike, for instance, space colonisation or One World Government).

 

[Furcifer]

The fact that the people who publish regularly on the subject are alarmed pretty much proves there isn’t much in the way of alarmism.

Just group think. Like I said, I don't read pseudoscience blogs so I don't know what they are purveying beyond the fearmongering I see from the usual suspects here.

IMO if you want to look for alarmism on this subject look at all the unfounded hysteria claiming everything will collapse if we move away from fossil fuels.

Well that's simple economics, if you want a thriving economy you need a cheap source of energy. The cheaper the better.

At least the carbon tax credit scam is dying. I believe it's officially dead in the US and still suspended in Europe. You can thank alarmists helping to organize the biggest scam in the history of the World.

 

[lomiller]

Just group think. Like I said, I don't read pseudoscience blogs

wait, you just called peer reviewed science "groupthink" and then go on to say you don't read pseudoscience blogs? Somehow I don't believe you.

Well that's simple economics, if you want a thriving economy you need a cheap source of energy. The cheaper the better.

You may want it cheaper, but economics 101 says that subsidizing it by ignoring externalities doesn't make something any cheaper.

Economics itself however says absolutely nothing about needing a cheep source of energy. Quite the opposite in fact our economic system excels at making efficient use of resources or finding alternative approaches if some cost gets to high.

 

[Trakar]

... I believe it's officially dead in the US and still suspended in Europe. You can thank alarmists helping to organize the biggest scam in the history of the World.

Actually the vast majority of climate scientists who have considered and spoken out on economic means to address climate change have almost universally rejected carbon-trading and pushed for carbon taxes, which would bring the costs of such fuels more into line with the actual economic costs of using such fuels in open-cycle combustion. There are a few who embraced Carbon trading due to the effectiveness of the CFC trading market set up by the Reagan administration, but that was a much more limited problem and without the type of incentives to cheat. Most scientists and activists who examined the issue in any depth understood the differences and dangers inherent to trade and cap with regards to CO2.

 

[CapelDodger]

Just group think.

Such a useful catch-phrase.

Not a good catch-phrase, but I prefer "If you can keep your head while all around are losing theirs, it could be that you've failed to grasp the situation".

The gradual spread within the science community of concern about AGW was certainly not group-think. Scientific culture has been, since the early 18thCE, against catastrophism and for the idea that humans should get over themselves. The idea that humanity can change the climate runs counter to that culture.

However, as the subject filtered out and scientists ran the numbers many (very reluctantly) concluded that there was indeed a potential problem. They approached friends and colleagues with it, hoping they could find a hole in the argument, but they couldn't. (Arrhenius didn't present it as a problem; in fact he thought it would be good for his homeland, Sweden, but he didn't see the Oil Era coming in all its glory. He was thinking in terms of centuries up-the-line.)

This concern gradually filtered up to politicians (Margaret Thatcher was one of the first to appreciate it) which led to the foundation of the IPCC - a classic bureaucratic move. Set up a committee in the hope (often realised) that the problem would go away while it deliberates. Unfortunately it didn't work out that way. The laws of physics are immutable, and climate is ruled by them.

Like I said, I don't read pseudoscience blogs so I don't know what they are purveying beyond the fearmongering I see from the usual suspects here.

The main concern is with agriculture, of course. Food is the first requirement, before shelter, security and entertainment. Human civilisation is a result of agriculture, and still depends on it. Agriculture in turn depends on climate, and the great bulk of humanity has long existed in certain favoured (mostly monsoon-dominated) climates. Hence significant climate change necessarily affects the bulk of the world's population.

Well that's simple economics, if you want a thriving economy you need a cheap source of energy. The cheaper the better.

The first requirement of any economy is food, the cheaper the better. The next requirement is a degree of stability.

At least the carbon tax credit scam is dying.

There's a group which thinks that pricing carbon is a scam and that it's going Madoff. You are apparently a member of said group.

I believe it's officially dead in the US ...

A belief that time will test.

... and still suspended in Europe.

Not on principle but for security reasons. It lacked a central authority, due to atavistic nationalist sentiments which are taking a long time to die. A central authority is due to take over in the next few years anyway, as long as Germany can resist the impulse to invade Poland for just a little while longer.

You can thank alarmists helping to organize the biggest scam in the history of the World.

There is indeed a group which thinks that way. I'm happier not being in it myself, considering the company I'd be keeping (Monckton? Inhofe? mhaze? No thank you ). I'm not a "joiner" by nature anyway.

There was a group (which may still be clinging to existence) which regarded pricing sulphate emissions as a scam. I didn't join that either, nor the one that thought the ozone hole was either a natural fluctuation or an invention and certainly nothing to do with CFC's. A remarkable number of people joined all three (which suggests a meta-group-think), Smokin' Fred Singer being the most obvious example.

It's a useful rule-of-thumb that when Singer is hired-on to say something isn't a problem it really is. Otherwise, why hire him? Think on, as they say in Yorkshire.

 

[macdoc]

The first requirement for a "thriving community" is don't foul the nest.

Doing so is a good way for a trip to the species level Darwin award.

Especially important when the nest happens to be the only planet available at the moment.

Of course some are late to toilet training....and deny the scatological issue entirely

 

[Furcifer]

wait, you just called peer reviewed science "groupthink" and then go on to say you don't read pseudoscience blogs? Somehow I don't believe you.

er, no, not the science per se, but the blogs like realclimate and a few others I see here on a routine basis. When you read the climate science it's usually rather moderate.

You may want it cheaper, but economics 101 says that subsidizing it by ignoring externalities doesn't make something any cheaper.

What's subsidized?

Economics itself however says absolutely nothing about needing a cheep source of energy.

That's incorrect. There is a direct irrefutable correlation between cheap energy and economic stimulation.

Quite the opposite in fact our economic system excels at making efficient use of resources or finding alternative approaches if some cost gets to high.

There's real limitations on efficiency. You simply can't get electric motors to run more efficient (fractional increases in upgrades from motors 50 years old). There's only so much smoothing you can do to the peak demand.

There's room for efficiency in transportation. World wide however it's not realistic to expect a country to build high speed rail when they have yet to build roads. In order to benefit from the coming advances in EV's they're going to have to build coal plants.

Long story short, the front of the boat will cross the finish line first, but no matter how hard you paddle the back is going to follow the front by the exact same distance. The maximum efficiency occurs when everyone works together in unison.

 

[Furcifer]

The gradual spread within the science community of concern about AGW was certainly not group-think.

It would be interesting to take a closer look at it from the 70's until now. The alarmists have been alarmed for a while.

However, as the subject filtered out and scientists ran the numbers many (very reluctantly) concluded that there was indeed a potential problem.

If you only look at CO2 I'm sure it does.

This concern gradually filtered up to politicians (Margaret Thatcher was one of the first to appreciate it) which led to the foundation of the IPCC - a classic bureaucratic move. Set up a committee in the hope (often realised) that the problem would go away while it deliberates. Unfortunately it didn't work out that way. The laws of physics are immutable, and climate is ruled by them.

And I'm sure most politicians are limited to understanding CO2 and its role in the climate. Ask them about albedo, emissivity, reflectivity, irradiance, CO2 uptake, forcing, feedback,clouds, latent heat and how many really know what's going on?

The first requirement of any economy is food, the cheaper the better. The next requirement is a degree of stability.

Nope, it's energy. There's more than enough land to produce the required sustenance in this world economy. The limiting factor is the cost of energy to transport it from where it's produced to where it is needed.

Now if you took the money from carbon trading and put it towards a high speed rail that circumnavigates the globe, that I'd be behind 100%.

There's a group which thinks that pricing carbon is a scam and that it's going Madoff. You are apparently a member of said group.

I might take a look into this group, for now it's just my own observation.

There is indeed a group which thinks that way. I'm happier not being in it myself, considering the company I'd be keeping (Monckton? Inhofe? mhaze? No thank you ). I'm not a "joiner" by nature anyway.

Again it's my own observation, but I was the one saying "How can he afford a $350K mortgage on a house that's worth $100K tops when he makes $60K a year and has $10K in credit card debt?".

There was a group (which may still be clinging to existence) which regarded pricing sulphate emissions as a scam. I didn't join that either, nor the one that thought the ozone hole was either a natural fluctuation or an invention and certainly nothing to do with CFC's. A remarkable number of people joined all three (which suggests a meta-group-think), Smokin' Fred Singer being the most obvious example.

I'll take your word for it, it's a little before my...awareness.

 

[Trakar]

er, no, not the science per se, but the blogs like realclimate and a few others I see here on a routine basis. When you read the climate science it's usually rather moderate.

In general science and scientists are extremely conservative in their estimations and predictions, this is the nature of science. Please support your assertions of "alarmism" and "pseudoscience" with regards to RealClimate.
Cite/Reference and how that comports to the accepted definitions of these terms.

For reference:

Alarmism - needless warnings
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

Pseudoscience - Pseudoscience is a methodology, belief, or practice that is claimed to be scientific, or that is made to appear to be scientific, but which does not adhere to an appropriate scientific methodology.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoscience

What's subsidized?

Are you advocating that we make oil and coal companies pay for the damages and problems the open cycle combustion of their product creates? If they don't, then the government is defacto subsidizing these expenses so that these companies can sell their product at a lower-than-actual-cost prices.

That's incorrect. There is a direct irrefutable correlation between cheap energy and economic stimulation.

Reference/Cite? Lower energy costs, ceteris paribus, can have a stimulative effect, unfortunately, I can't think of a situation where such occurs where all else remains equal, and in terms of full cost accounting oil and coal only approach "cheap" when the rest of society subsidizes the costs and expenses of dealing with the by-products of its production and usage.

There's real limitations on efficiency. You simply can't get electric motors to run more efficient (fractional increases in upgrades from motors 50 years old). There's only so much smoothing you can do to the peak demand.

Most electric motors already (generally) operate at between 80-90% efficiency. ICE engines, for the most part, operate at 18-20% efficiency, with a few rare examples approaching double that.

There's room for efficiency in transportation. World wide however it's not realistic to expect a country to build high speed rail when they have yet to build roads. In order to benefit from the coming advances in EV's they're going to have to build coal plants.

True cost coal, is not cheaper than other systems of producing energy. Accounting failures that ignore the associated expenses of some fuels are not the solution to energy problems any more than deregulation and sub-prime loans are the solution to creating a sustainable real estate investment industry.

 

[Trakar]

It would be interesting to take a closer look at it from the 70's until now. The alarmists have been alarmed for a while.

Indeed it might be, if performed in a rigorous and objective fashion and looks at the full range of issues.

If you only look at CO2 I'm sure it does.

And this has happened where?

And I'm sure most politicians are limited to understanding CO2 and its role in the climate. Ask them about albedo, emissivity, reflectivity, irradiance, CO2 uptake, forcing, feedback,clouds, latent heat and how many really know what's going on?

I seriously doubt if most politicians could spell CO2 without seeing it in print. This isn't a problem for the science, it is a problem for those seeking political action based on the science.

Nope, it's energy. There's more than enough land to produce the required sustenance in this world economy. The limiting factor is the cost of energy to transport it from where it's produced to where it is needed.

actually, it might be more in the application of energy. When you can get away with subsidizing much the expenses of your energy by spreading it around to everyone, rather than paying the actual cost of what your fuel should cost, it makes it cheaper to ship strawberries from Chile to Chicago in the winter than it does to simply build some greenhouses outside of Rockford

I'll take your word for it, it's a little before my...awareness.

Seriously?!
That explains much!

 

[lomiller]

er, no, not the science per se, but the blogs like realclimate and a few others I see here on a routine basis. When you read the climate science it's usually rather moderate.

As I've pointed out some of the contributors are realclimate have literally dozens of papers published in tier 1 journals like Science and Nature. To try and argue that their opinions differ from climate science is absurd.

Since you are rejecting the people who publish in the top scientific journals, cite some journals you don't think are "psuedoscience", it should be amusing...

What's subsidized?

What's confusing about it? Ignoring externalities acts like a subsidy in that it distorts the market, therefor there is no free market unless you constrain them. This is economics 101, something you only recently appealed to but now you don't even recognize it when it's pointed out to you?

That's incorrect. There is a direct irrefutable correlation between cheap energy and economic stimulation

Don't try to move the goalposts you claimed energy was fundamental to economics. Stimulation (AKA market distortion) is something else entirely.

 

[Pixel42]

Interesting article on the Berkeley Earth project: http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2011/feb/27/can-these-scientists-end-climate-change-war

The aim is so simple that the complexity and magnitude of the undertaking is easy to miss. Starting from scratch, with new computer tools and more data than has ever been used, they will arrive at an independent assessment of global warming. The team will also make every piece of data it uses – 1.6bn data points – freely available on a website. It will post its workings alongside, including full information on how more than 100 years of data from thousands of instruments around the world are stitched together to give a historic record of the planet's temperature.

Muller is fed up with the politicised row that all too often engulfs climate science. By laying all its data and workings out in the open, where they can be checked and challenged by anyone, the Berkeley team hopes to achieve something remarkable: a broader consensus on global warming. In no other field would Muller's dream seem so ambitious, or perhaps, so naive.

"We are bringing the spirit of science back to a subject that has become too argumentative and too contentious," Muller says, over a cup of tea. "We are an independent, non-political, non-partisan group. We will gather the data, do the analysis, present the results and make all of it available. There will be no spin, whatever we find."

Apparently they will be publishing their findings in "a few weeks". It will be interesting to see how they compare with those of NASA, NOAA and the CRU.

 

[Furcifer]

As I've pointed out some of the contributors are realclimate have literally dozens of papers published in tier 1 journals like Science and Nature. To try and argue that their opinions differ from climate science is absurd.

I never said their opinions differ. I said it gets filtered through the propaganda machine and comes out something entirely different than what the science actually says. It's misrepresentation by cherry picking and omission.

Since you are rejecting the people who publish in the top scientific journals, cite some journals you don't think are "psuedoscience", it should be amusing...

I see you're well versed at misrepresentation yourself. Where did I reject the scientists? I rejected the sites like Real Climate because they just fear monger and purvey propaganda. Luckily their are sites like Watt Up With That That present an objective non politicized view of the science and the scientists.

What's confusing about it? Ignoring externalities acts like a subsidy in that it distorts the market, therefor there is no free market unless you constrain them. This is economics 101, something you only recently appealed to but now you don't even recognize it when it's pointed out to you?

That's ridiculous, externalities are ignored throughout the economy. It would be an entirely different world if the production of CO2 in manufacturing was reflected in the price. You're talking about overhauling the entire world economy! (either that or it's doomed to fail)

Don't try to move the goalposts you claimed energy was fundamental to economics. Stimulation (AKA market distortion) is something else entirely.

This is a nonsequitor.

 

[Trakar]

Interesting article on the Berkeley Earth project: http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2011/feb/27/can-these-scientists-end-climate-change-war



Apparently they will be publishing their findings in "a few weeks". It will be interesting to see how they compare with those of NASA, NOAA and the CRU.

Preliminary data release has already been made, though the complete initial release is still a few weeks off.

http://www.berkeleyearth.org/dataset

Interesting approach, not sure that it accomplishes anything especially noteworthy, nor that it will achieve any big leaps in acceptance by those who reject the mainstream climate science, but who knows.

 

[Trakar]

Hmmm, That was actually the dataset not the initial data release, seems my links are re-arranged on this. Let me see if I have the initial release archived, the links seem to have been switched around since my last visit.

 

[Trakar]

Hmmm, That was actually the dataset not the initial data release, seems my links are re-arranged on this. Let me see if I have the initial release archived, the links seem to have been switched around since my last visit.

In further review of the site and project, it seems set for failure. It is co-chaired by a leading denier funded by the Koch brothers and uses Judith Curry as the only "legitimate climate scientist" involved in the project. I will be interested in seeing their assessment, but I no longer have any hopes that it will even approach a rigorous and unbiased scientific analysis of the issue.

 

[Furcifer]

I will be interested in seeing their assessment, but I no longer have any hopes that it will even approach a rigorous and unbiased scientific analysis of the issue.

Let me guess, you don't know what biases, you just know there will be some bias. Worthy of the MDC.

How can there possibly be any bias? It's science. You aren't suggesting it's possible to manipulate data to a preferred outcome are you?

I suspect a lot of warming believers will be in full denial mode when it's discovered the warming over the last few years is barely discernible from the background noise and that CO2 emissions continue to force the temperature up about half a degree every 100 years.

 

[CapelDodger]

In further review of the site and project, it seems set for failure. It is co-chaired by a leading denier funded by the Koch brothers and uses Judith Curry as the only "legitimate climate scientist" involved in the project. I will be interested in seeing their assessment, but I no longer have any hopes that it will even approach a rigorous and unbiased scientific analysis of the issue.

It will have to strain towards credibility given these points (a co-chair is Richard Muller, and the project manager is Elizabeth Muller, his daughter) but the work itself will be carried out by statisticians, computing experts, and climate scientists. BEST is quite a large umbrella from what I can see.

We can expect results from the project to be misrepresented, of course. I can state that with confidence because one product (Gilbert Compo's, IIRC) already has been, by the WSJ. You'll no doubt remember the thread about it.

Exxon gave, I think, $100m to Stanford and BP $500 million to Berkeley (don't quote me on the exact figures, though) for climate research, so the Koch involvement doesn't surprise me. These are mere (deductible) drops in the bucket and can be presented as proving an even-handed approach. For a mere few million they can have the research attacked very loudly later.

So best we wait and see .

 

[CapelDodger]

It would be interesting to take a closer look at it from the 70's until now.

I took a close look at it at the time, and have followed it since.

The alarmists have been alarmed for a while.

Who are these alarmists of whom you speak so often?

Scientists (including climate scientists) in the 70's were extremely sceptical of any appreciable human influence on climate, short of a general nuclear exchange. It went against the scientific culture which has prevailed since the early 19thCE. However, numbers don't lie, and the laws of physics are well-known in scientific circles.

Scientists went to colleagues and friends asking them "where have I gone wrong here?", and they in turn went on to ask others. As we have now seen they weren't wrong.

If you only look at CO2 I'm sure it does.

CO₂ was the matter in hand. The matter which has indeed led to continuing AGW.

Climate scientists were, of course, studying all the influences on climate they could come up with. Solar, geographic, orbital, volcanic, asteroidal, and atmospheric. (I may have missed some.) Climate science was itself a sub-set of Earth Sciences, aka geology, and principally inspired by the discovery of periodic ice-ages (which practically demanded an explanation). Glaciologists were (in my experience) rugged types who sought their excitement outside their scienctific field. Oceanography's attractions are obvious, the downside being that there was no funding.

(A silver-lining of the "more research is needed" policy is that oceanography has come on leaps and bounds in the last few decades. Before that the only funding available was defence-related, meaning North Atlantic and under the Arctic ice.)

And I'm sure most politicians are limited to understanding CO2 and its role in the climate. Ask them about albedo, emissivity, reflectivity, irradiance, CO2 uptake, forcing, feedback,clouds, latent heat and how many really know what's going on?

Did Roosevelt understand anything about nuclear physics? Did Churchill understand the mechanics of the bouncing bomb? Did Mehmet the Conqueror have a sound grasp of ballistics? Could President Bush the Second have found Afghanistan on a globe?

Margaret Thatcher would have known what to ask and have understood the answers, but that's beside the point. Politicians depend on experts for advice.

Nope, it's energy. There's more than enough land to produce the required sustenance in this world economy. The limiting factor is the cost of energy to transport it from where it's produced to where it is needed.

Most people live where the food's produced and has been produced for thousands of years. The valleys of the Indus, the Ganges, Brahmaputra, Irrawady, Mekong, Yangtze, Yellow. Nile, Euphrates, Tigris. Danube, Rhine, Rhone, Loire, Thames, Humber. Taff. Amazon.

Most people live there because most people lived there before them. They lived there because population and agriculture go hand-in-hand. Agriculture prospers where conditions are favourable, and that includes climate. Change the climate and suddenly most people are living in the wrong place.

There's always been more than enough land to feed everybody, and there have always been hungry and starving people.

Now if you took the money from carbon trading and put it towards a high speed rail that circumnavigates the globe, that I'd be behind 100%.

Why am I not surprised?

I might take a look into this group, for now it's just my own observation.

By your own observation you are in said group. It's quite informal, you don't have to carry a card or anything.

Again it's my own observation, but I was the one saying "How can he afford a $350K mortgage on a house that's worth $100K tops when he makes $60K a year and has $10K in credit card debt?".

The point of that is lost on me, I'm afraid. Obviously an unregulated financial market has done the global economy far more harm than any efforts to promote renewable energy and energy efficiency has (you wouldn't believe the alarmism that was raised over Kyoto, "Europe will bankrupt itself!", "One World Gummint is on our doorstep!", crazy stuff like that) but I don't see the relevance. It's nothing new and we all saw it coming.

I was working in the City back in the 80's, and we all saw that coming as well (for "mortgage" read "junk-bond", but it's always the derivatives where the real steal is to be found). Then the dot-con bubble, and we all saw that coming.

I'll take your word for it, it's a little before my...awareness.

I've seen a lot in my time, and I do pay attention. If you read Merchants of Doubt you'll get the picture. I was born before the Surgeon-General's report on smoking, and even before Sputnik. It's been an interesting show, with the blessing (for myself) of never being conscripted. The closest I've come to war is hearing two IRA bombs go off in London.

The anti-science campaign against AGW is different only in scale and sophistication from those against tobacco, acid rain, environmental lead, the ozone-hole, mercury in drinking-water and many others. The sophistication results from practice; the scale results from how close to the bone AGW gets in the mature phase of the Oil Age.

China is out-of-phase with the Oil Age, which makes things even more interesting. But I digress ...

Back in the 70's it never occurred to me that I would watch climate change and its ramifications in real-time. Peak Oil yes, but not climate change. By the mid-80's I thought maybe, and said the next ten years would tell. The next ten years did tell. And the years after that.

The great benefit of maturity is that one (hopefully) learns patience.