• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Kyoto Debunked

BobK said:
Yeti,

My previous message was posted more than and hour prior to your quoting me.

Your redaction of a portion of that post appears to be a weak effort on your part to negate the fact that you accused me of being uncritical when you knew otherwise.

Your seeming inability to admit to a faux pas has been very insightful.

Sorry about the side trip folks, maybe we can now get back to a rational discussion of the article. Or maybe not.
Click to expand...

You chose the title "Kyoto Debunked" for this thread.

How did you arrive at that conclusion?
 
EvilYeti said:


You chose the title "Kyoto Debunked" for this thread.

How did you arrive at that conclusion?
Click to expand...

It happens to be the name of the linked news article.
 
Interesting thread.

Everyone seems to have a view on what climatologists think about AGW. Why don't we consult some??

American Association of State Climatologists

Climate prediction is complex with many uncertainties – The AASC recognizes climate prediction is an extremely difficult undertaking. For time scales of a decade or more, understanding the empirical accuracy of such predictions – called “verification” – is simply impossible, since we have to wait a decade or longer to assess the accuracy of the forecasts.
Click to expand...

OK, they seem to be saying that we should be a little bit cautious about climate predictions. Essentially, the climate is far too complex for us to be sure we are modelling developments with any accuracy at all.

This is really interesting. Let's read on......

The AASC recognizes that human activities have an influence on the climate system. Such activities, however, are not limited to greenhouse gas forcing and include changing land use and sulfate emissions, which further complicates the issue of climate prediction.
Click to expand...


Human activities have an effect, that sounds sensible. Errr, but I think they are saying there that there re other things that we might be doing that give an illusion of GW. I assume they mean things like urbanisation, deforestation etc, that can lead to localised climate change.

What else do they say..???

Furthermore, climate predictions have not demonstrated skill in projecting future variability and changes in such important climate conditions as growing season, drought, flood-producing rainfall, heat waves, tropical cyclones and winter storms. These are the type of events that have a more significant impact on society than annual average global temperature trends.
Click to expand...

Let's see. It's that warning about lack of accuracy again. But what is that. I think they are saying that all the regular predictions of natural disasters due to AGW are spurious.

There is lot's of interesting reading here. What else...?

Policy responses to climate variability and change should be flexible and sensible – The difficulty of prediction and the impossibility of verification of predictions decades into the future are important factors that allow for competing views of the long-term climate future.
Click to expand...

What????? I don't believe it???? Did they say that the difficulty of prediction (they seem to go on on about that don't they??) AND the impossibility (strong word that!) of verification decades into the future allow for competing views of the long-term climate future.

Let's read that again.

allow for competing views of the long-term climate future.
Click to expand...

Well, it seems that this group of climatologists aren't that convinced about the AGW debate. They are definitely keeping an open mind and continuing to investigate.
 
Drooper said:
Interesting thread.

Everyone seems to have a view on what climatologists think about AGW. Why don't we consult some??

American Association of State Climatologists



OK, they seem to be saying that we should be a little bit cautious about climate predictions. Essentially, the climate is far too complex for us to be sure we are modelling developments with any accuracy at all.

This is really interesting. Let's read on......




Human activities have an effect, that sounds sensible. Errr, but I think they are saying there that there re other things that we might be doing that give an illusion of GW. I assume they mean things like urbanisation, deforestation etc, that can lead to localised climate change.

What else do they say..???



Let's see. It's that warning about lack of accuracy again. But what is that. I think they are saying that all the regular predictions of natural disasters due to AGW are spurious.

There is lot's of interesting reading here. What else...?



What????? I don't believe it???? Did they say that the difficulty of prediction (they seem to go on on about that don't they??) AND the impossibility (strong word that!) of verification decades into the future allow for competing views of the long-term climate future.

Let's read that again.



Well, it seems that this group of climatologists aren't that convinced about the AGW debate. They are definitely keeping an open mind and continuing to investigate.
Click to expand...

Hook line and sinker....

I'm telling you, the antiGW or anti-policy change in relation to GW people are hired scientists that are essentially like "Creation Scientists".

They are people paid by energy companies to produce believable opposition to GW scince just liek "Creation Scientsits" get people with PhDs in biology adn biochemistry, etc to write "scientific" papers for them that "prove" the earth is only 6,000 years old or that its impossible to "prove" or find evidence for evolution.

Its all the same crap.

The anti-GW lobby, is, for the most part, "creation science".

That's the goal of these organizations and their propaganda, to just "instill that little bit of doubt", but doubt is all that is needed in order to prevent legislation when coupled with the "fear" that environemnt legislation with "destroy" the economy.
 
EvilYeti said:


Do you agree with that conclusion, based on the evidence presented?
Click to expand...

Here is what I personally believe, but it's not based strictly on the article. I would appreciate very much if you would respond in kind with your personal view of Kyoto.

Since the basis for projections of AGW is founded on computer models, and the enormous costs associated with Kyoto, I would want a few questions answered before I could have confidence that we would be on the right track in implementing the treaty.

Models from circa 1990 were used to make projections. What is their observed error over the intervening time frame?

More recent models have been designed in an effort to better emulate the climate. What is their observed error to date?

Why many different models if the science is well settled concerning the mathematics of the climate?
It seems to me that is what models do. Quickly calculate repetitive formulas. If the formulas are correct only one standard model would be necessary.

Seems to me that a model with a repetitive error of only 1% per year from observations would be off by about +-270% over 100 years.(1.01^100). Why should I have confidence in long-range projections by climate models?

Since IPCC itself says Kyoto has enormous costs associated with it, is concerned only with CO2 emissions while neglecting the possibility of other factors, is based substantially on climate models, and admits it will only have a very limited effect on temperature, why should I buy into this program without much further research.

Humanity has been adapting to its environment for thousands of years, the money to be spent on Kyoto might well be put to better use advancing the technical ability of humanity to adapt if and when necessary.

The couching of terrible consequences in terms filled with such qualifying words such as (may, might, could, possibly etc.) simply doesn't wash with me.

This is of course my own personal opinion and it would take hard science and not computer models to change it. When someone gets the Nobel Prize for creating a computer climate model that is so good projecting over a century that no one thinks it's worth the effort to try to create a better one, they'll have my full attention. (doubt I'll be alive though)

Sincerely,
Bob
 
Originally posted by Joshua Korosi

I think that, with the controls currently in place and the somewhat cleaner fuels used today, our yearly CO2 production can't be so beyond 100 years ago that the two aren't comparable. I could be mistaken, but this doesn't seem right.
Click to expand...
Maybe this will help you decide

From the above-linked AASC article:

Climate prediction is difficult because it involves complex, nonlinear interactions among all components of the earth’s environmental system.

Now try it this way:

Economic forecasting is difficult because it involves complex, nonlinear interactions among all components of the earth’s economic system.

Before we proceed any further on the assumption that stricter regulations will have disastrous impacts on the world's economy, can we see evidence not based on the same type of methodology used by climatologists in reaching their conclusions?
 
Dymanic said:
Maybe this will help you decide

From the above-linked AASC article:

Climate prediction is difficult because it involves complex, nonlinear interactions among all components of the earth’s environmental system.

Now try it this way:

Economic forecasting is difficult because it involves complex, nonlinear interactions among all components of the earth’s economic system.

Before we proceed any further on the assumption that stricter regulations will have disastrous impacts on the world's economy, can we see evidence not based on the same type of methodology used by climatologists in reaching their conclusions?
Click to expand...

Since it is the IPCC that wants Kyoto to be ratified one would be naive to assume they would present their own economic forecast in anything but the most favorable light possible. Therefore no further economic analysis would be worthwhile to any layman if that person can come to the conclusion to reject the treaty by using IPCC's own figures.

The only people that could have any interest in further economic analysis would be those that have not been able to reject the treaty using IPCC figures.

I for one, reject the treaty based on IPCC's own figures relative to the confidence I have in the accuracy of their computer model forecast. If further compelling scientific data becomes available I would be willing to reconsider my position.
 
Originally posted by BobK

I for one, reject the treaty based on IPCC's own figures relative to the confidence I have in the accuracy of their computer model forecast. If further compelling scientific data becomes available I would be willing to reconsider my position.
Click to expand...
I guess what I'm wondering is whether your lack of confidence in computer models extends to computer models in general, is it just these particular ones you don't trust?

As far as the basic science concerning the greenhouse effect, it really isn't that complicated. Do you feel that it has yet to be adequately demonstrated that certain gases, CO2 among them, can produce this effect? Are you dissatisfied with explanations as to why CO2 is considered the most important of these? Are you not convinced that atmospheric CO2 levels have dramatically increased recently?

Forget about the treaty, forget about computer models for a moment. Tell me that you really don't think there is anything to this business about global warming behind CO2.
The couching of terrible consequences in terms filled with such qualifying words such as (may, might, could, possibly etc.) simply doesn't wash with me.
Click to expand...
Do you have car insurance? Homeowner's insurance? Life insurance?
...the money to be spent on Kyoto might well be put to better use advancing the technical ability of humanity to adapt if and when necessary.
Click to expand...
You have a point there. This horse may already have left the barn anyway. Something like Kyoto might have had some value as a symbolic gesture to posterity, but a few measly quadrillion dollars is probably a pittance in the face of the more serious potential consequences of significant global warming. Economically speaking.
But wait. Is that really how we're going to use the money we'll save? If we can't even sell Kyoto -- which acknowledges that there is a problem, but one perhaps not beyond solution -- how are we going to sell a proposition which (by focusing on technologically advanced ways to run for the hills) goes so far as to say that not only is there a problem, but a hopeless one?
 
Having laid out my view on why I reject Kyoto, I would respectfully request that those that wish to query me more closely on the reasons for my position, present their personal reasons for taking the same or opposing view.

That would, in my estimation, put the dialogue on more equal footing and the rationality of the different points of view could then be explored more equally.

I would like this thread to stay fairly closely to the right or wrong of implementing Kyoto in the near future and why.

Questions like CO2 is bad, humans are the main cause of global warming, the sea level is rising etc. would likely expand the scope of the thread to the point that no useful information will be absorbed by anyone. Many past threads have degenerated in this manner.

We aren't going to solve the the problems of the world here, but it would be nice to have a civilized and cogent exchange of ideas on the subject.

I certainly have respect for the attempts being made to model the climate, but due to the complexity of the physics of the climate and the myriad of variables and interactions both known and unknown, I believe accuracy in extremely long term modeling is far in the future.

Can long term climate modeling work? Maybe, eventually. It's not like a game of chess or poker where all the rules and variables are known and can therefore be modeled with good degree of success.

I think I asked some pertinent questions in my previous post that require answers before signing on to a costly program.
 
BobK said:

Here is what I personally believe, but it's not based strictly on the article. I would appreciate very much if you would respond in kind with your personal view of Kyoto.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty ambivalent with the Kyoto protocol myself. The damage is done for the most part (we can't undo the last 100 years) and the tiny percentage reduction it offers would only buy us a little time if it turns out AGW will have apocalyptic consequences. Still, something is better than nothing.

The claims of a 18 quadrillion dollar cost for Kyoto are totally bogus. Impossible. Thats 200 times more than the 2002 world gross domestic product! (got that tidbit from the link you provided). Don't forget that GW itself has a cost as well, more severe weather, more fires, more heatwaves, seasonal changes, etc. All of which will have an economic cost. Consider the costs of the hurricane, fire and heatwave damage and deaths of the past year. Now consider that this is just going to keep getting worse as time goes on. So ignoring AGW has its own pricetag, albeit a less obvious one.

Another important thing to remember is that we don't have an infinite supply of fossil fuels. We are going to have to find alternatives at some point, we simply have no other choice. Kyoto would have a side benefit of forcing us to look at easing our dependence on oil. If cutting our oil consumption is going to ruin the world economy, then I guess the human race is doomed regardless.

In a nutshell, you could say I weakly support Kyoto. Its really not huge issue to me. I'm more concerned with all the junk science that gets tossed around in these debates. I don't care if you oppose Kyoto or are not concerned about AGW, what I don't understand is the need to distort scientific truth to make your point.
 
Originally posted by BobK

Questions like CO2 is bad, humans are the main cause of global warming, the sea level is rising etc. would likely expand the scope of the thread to the point that no useful information will be absorbed by anyone. Many past threads have degenerated in this manner.
Click to expand...
If the thread's scope can't expand enough to encompass the main justifications for Kyoto, then there dosen't seem to be much left to discuss. The MBH response seems very satisfactory.

I certainly have respect for the attempts being made to model the climate, but due to the complexity of the physics of the climate and the myriad of variables and interactions both known and unknown, I believe accuracy in extremely long term modeling is far in the future.
Click to expand...
So...what?, we just throw up our hands?
 
When someone gets the Nobel Prize for creating a computer climate model that is so good projecting over a century that no one thinks it's worth the effort to try to create a better one, they'll have my full attention. (doubt I'll be alive though)
Click to expand...

Which is exactly what those who oppose Koyoto want. That's their goal, to propagandize people into your belief. Thier job is to instill enouhg doubt that no action takes place.

Good, job, you bit hook line a sinker...
 
EvilYeti said:


I'm pretty ambivalent with the Kyoto protocol myself. The damage is done for the most part (we can't undo the last 100 years) and the tiny percentage reduction it offers would only buy us a little time if it turns out AGW will have apocalyptic consequences. Still, something is better than nothing.

It is the cost of this "something" relative to it's benefit that concerns me.

The claims of a 18 quadrillion dollar cost for Kyoto are totally bogus. Impossible. Thats 200 times more than the 2002 world gross domestic product! (got that tidbit from the link you provided). Don't forget that GW itself has a cost as well, more severe weather, more fires, more heatwaves, seasonal changes, etc. All of which will have an economic cost. Consider the costs of the hurricane, fire and heatwave damage and deaths of the past year. Now consider that this is just going to keep getting worse as time goes on. So ignoring AGW has its own pricetag, albeit a less obvious one.

The $18 quadrillion is evidently IPCC's estimate of upper bound cost and actually the article says 600 times 2002 world GDP. The article also says other IPCC scenarios may only cost hundreds of trillions of dollars.

I'll use $600 trillion as the lower bound to better illustrate my position. This means IPCC says it can't estimate costs to closer than a factor of 32. That is to me is an unacceptably large discrepancy between the upper and lower bounds.
It makes me think the lower figure is being used to make the program appear more palatable and that the cost will more likely approach the higher figure.

Let's divide the lower figure by current world population. That comes to $100,000 per person over 100 years or $1000 per person per year. Actually these costs would not be shared equally as 1st world people would certainly have to pay a larger portion.

I view the costs of the program similar to each person writing at minimum, a $1000 check to some organisation each year for the rest of their life, in order to attempt to reduce global temperature increase for their great-great-great grandchildren by less than 1 degree. At that point I say, those future relations will have better technology, better climate knowledge and will certainly know better what is necessary, if anything, to be done. Even if they don't, they won't likely even notice the difference in temperature.

Another important thing to remember is that we don't have an infinite supply of fossil fuels. We are going to have to find alternatives at some point, we simply have no other choice. Kyoto would have a side benefit of forcing us to look at easing our dependence on oil. If cutting our oil consumption is going to ruin the world economy, then I guess the human race is doomed regardless.

Humanity has successfully adjusted up to now. When we can no longer adjust to conditions, we'll go extinct. I'm sure when alternative technologies have matured sufficiently we will make more use of them. It seems to me that putting all this money toward artificially inflating current fuel costs is probably not the best way to advance alternative technology. It certainly doesn't seem cost-effective to me.

In a nutshell, you could say I weakly support Kyoto. Its really not huge issue to me. I'm more concerned with all the junk science that gets tossed around in these debates. I don't care if you oppose Kyoto or are not concerned about AGW, what I don't understand is the need to distort scientific truth to make your point.
Click to expand...

I enjoyed reading your thoughts up to the last paragraph, which confuses me. Maybe you could point out where I distorted scientific truth.
It can't be the $18 quadrillion figure, as that is cited as coming from some Russian involved with Kyoto pointing to IPCC figures.
It can't be the small effect Kyoto will have, which is mentioned at the end of the article.
 
Having no firm opinion on the MBH vs MM controvery, I am curious to see if MM will respond.

Edit misplaced word.
 
I post this link every time there is a GW thread and everyone seems to ignore it.

From the article:
Emissions of greenhouse gases from the European Union increased in 2001 for the second year running. The European Environment Agency (EEA) estimates they were 1% greater than in 2000. The EU as a whole is committed to reducing emissions by 8% on their 1990 levels by between 2008 and 2012. On present trends, it appears to stand almost no chance of keeping its promise.
Click to expand...

Since this is a Kyoto thread, perhaps someone could explain to me the purpose of economically damaging treaty that does nothing.
 
"18 quadrillion dollar cost for Kyoto "
Geez talk about gloom and doomers :)

Here is something to think about. I've heard this kind of economic catastrophe talk most every time a significant requirement surfaces to improve the environment and safety of a product or industry. Emissions in cars, power plant safety, smoke stack scrubber, etc. The new regulations cost money of course and no doubt all of it (and maybe more) was passed on to the consumers. The worst case, gloom and doom scenarios, of course, never played out. But what else happened? New industries were created. Businesses to make the converters and scrubbers. Repair shops to replace the converters. I don't live far from Rocky Flats where a multi-million (billion) dollar project has been going on for years cleaning up the waste from that facility. True enough, our prices for things reflect all of this but let's not forget about the new jobs that were created. Engineers to design equipment, factory workers, white collar workers, and yes, CEO's and executives, stocks traded and so on. Pollution control and cleaning the environment is big business. I would love to see a study regarding the economic benefits of adding pollution and environmental regulations. How many new business were created or existing ones have grown supplying this equipment. How many jobs were created? What was the net economic affect of these regulations?

I don't know the answers, but I think the questions are good :)
 
David,

I agree that new businesses and industries would come into being. I don't know if IPCC took this into consideration in their figures, but I tend to think they would or could have if they felt they could quantify and defend any such figures.

Grammatron,

I tend to agree with your view. I was just being a little bit more verbose. ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom