A Gift from Laurie.
196 countries approve historic climate agreement
“History will remember this day,” U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said after the pact was gaveled through to thunderous applause. “The Paris agreement on climate change is a monumental success for the planet and its people.”
I haven't read that much about it, but the environmentalists seem reasonably happy about it, though far from ecstatic. The opinion that I have picked up, which I agree with, is there is still a very long ways to go in changing to a clean energy economy and the need for activism continues.
Here are a couple more links related to my climate deal topic. I really do think this is a very important agreement, thus making this a very historic day.
Breaking: World Leaders Just Agreed to a Landmark Deal to Fight Global Warming (the Mother Jones climate reporter seems quite happy about it)
as does President Obama Follow Along: A Global Agreement to Act on Climate (Obama speaks at about 45:30)
196 countries approve historic climate agreement
“History will remember this day,” U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said after the pact was gaveled through to thunderous applause. “The Paris agreement on climate change is a monumental success for the planet and its people.”
I haven't read that much about it, but the environmentalists seem reasonably happy about it, though far from ecstatic. The opinion that I have picked up, which I agree with, is there is still a very long ways to go in changing to a clean energy economy and the need for activism continues.
Here are a couple more links related to my climate deal topic. I really do think this is a very important agreement, thus making this a very historic day.
Breaking: World Leaders Just Agreed to a Landmark Deal to Fight Global Warming (the Mother Jones climate reporter seems quite happy about it)
as does President Obama Follow Along: A Global Agreement to Act on Climate (Obama speaks at about 45:30)
67 comments:
and here is a less positive view:
James Hansen, father of climate change awareness, calls Paris talks 'a fraud'
it's a bit of a downer, but ends on a more optimistic note, oddly with looking to China for leadership, as from what I have read China has been a county so far unwilling to set ambitious carbon reduction goals.
There are only a few minor details not considered in this Great Deal. They concern the fundamental problem to which this agreement is the solution, namely, the Theory of Catastrophic Anthropogenic (ie manmade) Global Warming.
-- First, it is not a Theory, but a hypothesis, scientifically speaking. It doesn't become a theory until predictions from the hypothesis are tested and match real observation, 85 years from now. Twenty years in, it ain't looking' too good.
-- Second, it's not Catastrophic. This agreement is supposed to hold temperature rise below 2 degrees C (which NO climate model predicts possible under the most extreme change to manmade CO2) while most scientists believe the Earth could warm at least 2.5 degrees and actually be beneficial.
-- Third, it's not Anthropogenic. Human activity creates only about 4% of the CO2 added to the atmosphere; Mother Nature creates the rest. (And by Al Gore's admission, it increases only AFTER Earth is warmed from some other cause.)
-- Fourth, it isn't Global. Antarctic ice is growing. Surface temperature readings come from a very limited set of surface stations and colder ones are routinely discarded by NOAA, making the data fraudulent. Satellite measurements are un-falsified and truly global.
-- Fifth and finally, it isn't Warming. The satellite data shows no significant warming in the last 19 years, while the climate models on which this agreement lies for its sense of urgency predicted a (mathematically)significantly higher temperature.
The best thing for the people of this planet would be if this agreement and its leaders were summarily rejected, and a stop put to this cruel hoax. The best thing for the people of the planet AND the planet itself would be if this agreement were simply ignored while the leaders crowed about having applied a "historic" non-solution to a non-problem, and so no need to ever meet again on the subject. Would that we could avoid all THAT hot air.
Laurie,
I agree with most of what James said.
Jerry,
Now I don't see "Catastrophic" in climate change, however I live in MN and not the Marshall Islands. However being a rational engineer, I realize that humans releasing the a HUGE amount of potential energy and emissions into a closed system will impact the system.
As for your denial arguments:
Skeptical Science
Biased Denier Scientists
On the Lighter Side
and so far from the GOP:
GOP Candidates' Reactions To The Paris Agreement Are Exactly The Sort Of Response You'd Expect—Because They Didn't Say Anything
Republican Lawmakers Vocal In Opposition To Climate Deal
The President should remember that the historic agreement "is subject to being shredded in 13 months," McConnell said.
GOP chairman blasts Paris climate accord
it seems to me that support or opposition to this deal could influence the choice of some voters in the presidential election, especially millenials who are likely to support the deal.
Probably... The Hill link address had an extra = in it.
GOP Chairman Blasts Accord
This has a lot of interesting info.
NASA Climate Change Site
Wow. I looked at that skeptic site, and the first half dozen or so "truths" were flat-out lies. The only one I can agree with, based on the real science, is that there is a 97% consensus on the subject. 97% of the public does NOT consider climate change a serious problem. I hope Hillary and Democrats run hard on the issue.
OK, as an Engineer, can you explain to me how changing the atmospheric composition of the Earth by a few hundred thousandths can cause a radical change in global temperature?
Try again
Pew Research
Yale Research
Wired Results
The Atlantic
I believe the correct wording would be
97 percent of Americans don’t seem to care about the issue when stacked up against other concerns such as terrorism or the economy, according to a recent Fox News poll." Of course the result is suspect since the poll was done by Fox. But more importantly, of course they are not as worried about a long term problem that will "impact someone else" when there is a small chance of them being personally killed by a terrorist.
I am also guessing that Americans living on low lying ocean front property are probably far more concerned than people in Denver... That would make sense.
Please note that I never said "radical change in global temperature".
"I realize that humans releasing a HUGE amount of potential energy and emissions into a closed system will impact the system."
The concept seems pretty easy to explain since I am working in my garage today. The electric heater I installed last year is likely using some coal fired electricity to heat up the space.
Burning the coal is converting "potential energy", that was safely stored in the earth, to "heat energy" of which some is used to create power, and other is being wasted into the environment. It would be a bit like turning on a small heater in your house on a nice summer day instead of the A/C.
The question I always ask is how will the earth react to return itself to a desirable energy balance. And will we puny humans survive it...
This is an interesting discussion of why people disagree regarding the topic.
NOVA Why Doesn't Everyone Believe?
from my 2 minutes of research:
Yale study 2014
Global warming is happening
Yes
63%
Global warming is caused mostly by human activities
Natural changes
35%
Human activities
48%
Most scientists think global warming is happening
Yes
41%
There is a lot of disagreement
34%
People also think we should be doing something about climate change but you will need to click the link to learn more.
OK, let's take just one: "NOVA Why Doesn't Everyone Believe?"
The fact that the general public doesn't understand the exact scientific reason for why CO2 is a greenhouse gas (or barely what a greenhouse gas IS), doesn't really matter. The fact is that these hoaxers are NOT telling them anything beyond that. They are not telling them that only 4% or so of CO2 in caused by burning fossil fuels, or that only about 4% of greenhouse gasses are CO2 and that water vapor is 95%. They are not telling them that the greenhouse effect is non-linear with CO2 concentration, or that the models include a higher-than-proven sensitivity to CO2 PLUS "positive feedback" that makes them further in error. They don't say that models don't account for clouds or, apparently, some 100 other variables, and that they have been flat-out wrong for nearly 20 years. They certainly don't provide accurate historical temperature records or explain ice-core data.
In short, a public told over and over that burning fossil fuels will cause catastrophic temperatures and destroy the planet, accompanied by terrible severe storms and rapidly rising sea levels, will believe that burning fossil fuels will cause catastrophic temperatures and destroy the planet, accompanied by terrible severe storms and rapidly rising sea levels. That isn't scientific evidence, that's demagoguery.
"97 percent of Americans don’t seem to care about the issue when stacked up against other concerns such as terrorism or the economy"
I will accept that as an accurate statement, if you will accept that the "97% of scientists" canard is as phony as a three-dollar bill and a pointless argument. Remember when 99% of scientists agreed the sun rotated around the Earth, and ONE GUY proved them wrong?
"The question I always ask is how will the earth react to return itself to a desirable energy balance. And will we puny humans survive it..."
Answer(s): The Earth will be just fine. It has been hotter, colder, wetter, drier, more CO2, less CO2. When CO2 goes up, plant growth increases and takes CO2 down again. Humans have survived at least through the Ice Age, Roman warm period, Medieval warm period, Little Ice Age, and at least a dozen recent "warmest years on record" according to the hoaxters. We'll be fine, too, so long as we don't kill ourselves off trying to control what Earth does with the weather. Do we have an effect? Sure. Can it be calculated? Can it even be found?
Why again do you question these temperature records? They seem like pretty clear data.
How does what they are recommending concern you? (ie "we don't kill ourselves off") I don't see a downside other than some extra expense and innovation.
Please remember that the human impact was pretty much zero in all those other cycles. Things have changed a lot this time around and we do not know what the consequence will be.
I question the temperature records because: These are surface temperature records, based on a few widely scattered, poorly sited stations, some of which get "ignored" by NOAA, and then all of the figures are "adjusted," as proven by multiple investigators. I question them because they are not the best data available and are arguably fraudulent.
What they are recommending concerns me because, by their own admission, it doesn't solve the problem; reducing temperature rise by something like 0.2 degrees. In the meantime, the costs (at least the "opportunity costs") of compliance have been estimated at $70 trillion, while the cost of eliminating world poverty OR mitigating climate change if and when-- they're about the same, take your pick-- are estimated at 1/10 that. Sure, it's easy if you imagine that we can magically transform to a low-carbon/renewable energy economy, but the Google engineers charged with making that happen have concluded it is essentially impossible and prohibitively expensive, and the project has been abandoned.
The fact that climate cycles have gone up and down for 100s of 1000s of years without humans and SUVs tells me the Earth is pretty stable all by herself. It takes a great conceit to imagine that simple human activity, regardless of how many of us there are, can significantly alter the whole climate(and it's factually inaccurate). It's almost a denial of God, if that bothers you. It's also humanity-denying. We got where we are as a species because, when our environment changes, we ADAPT. Unless we have solid proof of pending problems, we don't try to PREVENT those problems, assuming we knew how, while in this case we have neither the knowledge nor the solution.
And it's minor compared to the science, but the utter hypocrisy of these Climatistas just astounds. Obama flew 500 people to Paris, and now he's off to Hawaii.
Please provide a better source.
"because they are not the best data available and are arguably fraudulent."
So you believe that NASA is knowingly lying to the public?
You aren't wearing an aluminum foil hat yet are you? :-)
I believe NASA is knowingly lying to the public, based on numerous analyses that retrieved the raw temperature data from past years, and compared them to the temperatures actually published. Many of the numbers have obviously been "adjusted," and sometimes repeatedly. In most cases that was done to make recent years warmer and older years cooler. Some studies have actually pulled out and charted the "adjustments" and the trend is clear, that every year they adjust the data to support the theory, not the other way around. And with billions of dollars on the line, what would you expect?
Please provide sources that are better.
Is this group in on the conspiracy also?
How about these folks?
It is not necessary for people to conspire in order for there to be a massive hoax perpetrated. Each actor, in their own self-interest and inspired by a religious zeal, works in furtherance of some pre-established narrative despite all evidence and reason to the contrary. It survives, IMHO, only because the general public is unwilling to believe that the government, media, NASA, and "scientists" would ignore science and logic to promote a politically-driven non-solution to an obvious non-problem. I must confess I am baffled by how seemingly smart people are taken in by this; the truth is all over the place.
Nothing but conjecture from you, jerry.
Your denial is your religion, where everybody else is wrong and you're right.
The skeptical science website has a wealth of scientific information, both for "beginners" and for those with a more advanced understanding of science. You might start with the easy stuff.
Joel
Sorry, but the skeptical science website needs a lot more skepticism. I could not square most of their statements even with what the IPCC, EPA and NASA tell me, and they're among the true believers. We've turned science on its head in this debate. Usually those who propose a totally speculative scientific hypotheses that, to avoid the consequences of would require a radical (and undesirable) shift in the global economy, would be required to PROVE their case before any action was taken. Instead we have simple denials and suppression of the truth, starting with the reality that the only PROOF won't occur for another 85 years. We are being asked to take "preventive" action for something that we do NOT know will occur, yet requires us to know the exact cause, magnitude and timing for the prescription of that action. In this irrational haste, we have selected a terribly painful and costly preventive that, by all admissions, does NOT and cannot prevent the problem from occurring.
Here's my challenge. PROVE that 85 years from now something terrible will happen. How is that possible without a metric ton of conjecture? It is far easier to be a skeptic on this issue because the facts, if you look for them, are already available.
If they are so readily available, please provide sources.
The problem is that though the probability is low... The severity is very very high... Therefore the FMEA would say that doing nothing would be unacceptable.
Wiki FMEA See the following section for more detail.
Risk level (P*S) and (D)
"Risk is the combination of End Effect Probability And Severity where probability and severity includes the effect on non-detectability (dormancy time). This may influence the end effect probability of failure or the worst case effect Severity. The exact calculation may not be easy in all cases, such as those where multiple scenarios (with multiple events) are possible and detectability / dormancy plays a crucial role (as for redundant systems). In that case Fault Tree Analysis and/or Event Trees may be needed to determine exact probability and risk levels.
Preliminary Risk levels can be selected based on a Risk Matrix like shown below, based on Mil. Std. 882.[24] The higher the Risk level, the more justification and mitigation is needed to provide evidence and lower the risk to an acceptable level. High risk should be indicated to higher level management, who are responsible for final decision-making."
"Sorry, but the skeptical science website needs a lot more skepticism."
I think it just needs readers who can understand it and aren't blinded by their determination to do things the way they've always been done.
Joel
Joel, So are you a full on CAGW believer? Or more moderate?
Exxon Mobil Perspectives
British Petroleum's View
I am a little confused. According to google CAGW means citizens against government waste. As for climate change, I think it is not so much if one is a believer in global warming as is someone knowledgeable about the scientific facts that demonstrate climate change is already happening.
I don't think when it comes to science that one is knowledgeable or ignorant (or a crank) not a believer or a moderate.
Everyone I know believes in climate change, it is the cause and severity that are in question...
CAGW(catastrophic anthropogenic global warming)
Wiki Runaway Climate Change
the cause of climate change is not much in question either (again more a matter of knowledge than belief):
"Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities."
I agree the severity is uncertain, as we don't know how much carbon emissions might be reduced. I personally expect (believe) it will be very severe with many disastrous outcomes related to climate change.
Laurie, let me help.
Unfortunately, the cause of climate change IS in question, it's just that nobody wants the question answered. The Great Church of Global Warming demands belief that the sun moves around the earth and that manmade CO2 is the principle driver of global temperatures. Yet we've had 20 years where CO2 went up and temperatures (from satellite measurements) have stayed the same. We had periods earlier last century when CO2 went up and temps went DOWN. In the last 1/2 million years, CO2 in the atmosphere has always lagged behind temperature, going up only AFTER "something" warms the planet. The climate models are completely off the observed (real, not fudged) data both for the present AND the past, but yet sun cycles and geophysical factors (tilt, wobble) seem to correlate very well.
The correct statement is that "ONE study, thoroughly debunked, shows a 97% agreement among scientists." Not even the 2400 authors cited in IPCC reports agree that much, and many strenuously disagree with the political summary-- all that the politicians cite-- prefaced to their work. (I've looked at the actual science in the IPCC report, it's not too bad, and often doesn't support the politically driven summary.) At least 35,000 scientists have signed on to the opposite proposition. "Climate-warming trends over the past century" are pretty much normal for a post-ice age world.
As for consequences being "severe," I would agree, looking at this list:
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/globalwarming2.html
John, I understand FMEA pretty well, and though the severity is "very," true "failure" is both highly speculative (i.e. unlikely) AND the cost to prevent VASTLY outweighs the cost to mitigate, if and when. Again, prevention requires us to know with certainty the cause, magnitude and timing of the failure, while mitigation requires only a planned or easily developed response to the failure itself. For example: seas coming up around the beach house? Move! Assuming you didn't give up the SUV to prevent the seas from rising, of course.
I point out again that the ONLY "knowledge" we have of the future climate comes from a bunch of highly faulty computer models, based on dozens of assumptions, that disagree wildly with one another, as well as with reality. It's like betting the farm based on predictions from your computer modelling of horse races.
What Really Happened
The following statement is incorrect, rarely do my engineers know any of the following for certain. If things were known, it would not be "risk" management.
"prevention requires us to know with certainty the cause, magnitude and timing of the failure"
The human race is not "betting the farm" by slowing the use of coal and going to greener sources of energy. In fact it may be a great economic stimulus package. Just think of all the technology funding and manufacturing jobs that will be created. And the benefit of less air pollution in many large cities.
" It's like betting the farm based on predictions from your computer modeling of horse races."
Now if Exxon Mobil and BP understand and acknowledge that the issue is real. Where is your credible and respected source that proves it is not?
Here is one link from your page of links. It sure does not deny the issue.
Maybe these folks can help you...
Or this Page... This the data group that Heartland used for their graph.
Of course they only showed the data that they liked.
"Here is one link from your page of links. It sure does not deny the issue."
Sure is a lot of conjecture here. Interesting that "models are only now beginning to consider the increased CO2 from warming" (to "amplify" warming). In other words, they've finally realized that warming causes CO2, not that CO2 causes warming. Huh. And then we find that the modellers have actually DECREASED the projected warming but it is still higher than observation. What kind of "consideration" is that?
"Maybe these folks can help you..."
They have, and a lot. They would help you, too, if you read carefully and cannot disprove what they assert.
Yes, the RSS system is the most reliable global temperature dataset available. Anything that disagrees substantially with it is in error.
John,
I trust the scientific process.
I do not trust people with their heads in the sand.
Joel
"In other words, they've finally realized that warming causes CO2, not that CO2 causes warming. Huh."
Very well, then. What gave our climate the push to begin its warming? You do know about positive feedback, right?
I'll trust those who've been studying this.
Joel
"... rarely do my engineers know any of the following for certain..."
Not sure what kind of engineers you hire, and whether they use tea leaves or calculators, but without knowledge of the failure modes and effects, FMEA is pretty well worthless. The cause is usually something like "failure of part xyz." The timing is "MTTF of 1000 hours." The magnitude of the problem is "warranty cost and loss of customer satisfaction," with the latter not a concrete number but a subjective consideration. Depending on duty cycle and cost, we may want to find a more reliable part, or send a spare with every unit or it may be cheaper just to pay the warranty every time one breaks. That comes straight out of the FMEA and that's why you do one.
That's the problem here. We may think we do, but we obviously don't know the cause or timing or magnitude. All we have is a supposed solution. BUT, if it were economically and technically possible to "[slow] the use of coal and [go] to greener sources of energy" there would be people (like Google) rushing out there to do it and get rich. Instead we find Google giving up the idea, Warren Buffet giving up the idea, and only because of government mandates and subsidies do we have wind and solar on even the modest scale we do. Even WITH some unforeseen technology breakthrough, the conversion to it would be economically prohibitive unless drawn out over several decades. Now /maybe/ if the Greenies would let us build nuclear power plants... but even that would take billions of dollars and decades. AND WHY? Every climate model shows that even drastic proposed cuts to anthropogenic CO2 have an almost insignificant effect on temperature 100 years out. And that assumes the models are correct! So even if we correctly prognosticate the problem (catastrophic, i.e. higher than what is beneficial, global warming in 2100), we've got the wrong solution!
Joel, if you knew anything about the scientific process you would know for certain that the "Theory of CAGW" is simply a hypothesis, and doesn't become a working theory (worthy as a basis of public policy) until actual data matches the predictions made from the hypothesis, 85 years from now.
What began the warming? Gee, I don't know, maybe the same thing that caused the last 1000 or so warming trends in global history-- the sun and Earth's natural cycles? SOME who have been "studying this" have reached exactly those conclusions. Why don't you believe them?
"Joel, if you knew anything about the scientific process..."
You don't know enough about me to come this conclusion.
"What began the warming? Gee, I don't know, maybe the same thing that caused the last 1000 or so warming trends in global history-- the sun and Earth's natural cycles? SOME who have been "studying this" have reached exactly those conclusions. Why don't you believe them?"
Some. But not nearly most. Why do you believe the few and ignore the abundance of evidence in support of that which you deny?
Joel
"...only because of government mandates and subsidies do we have wind and solar on even the modest scale we do."
I'm glad you weren't in charge of our Lunar program.
Joel
Source?
"Every climate model shows that even drastic proposed cuts to anthropogenic CO2 have an almost insignificant effect on temperature 100 years out."
I think you need to study up some more on FMEA steps.
By the way, the FMEA starting requirement could be... "Shall maintain environmental equilibrium on Earth that is conducive to the continued survival of 99.9% of the current humans and animals."
CAGW would then be a potential failure mode...
I do agree though that very little is proven conclusively per the Scientific Method.
"You don't know enough about me to come this conclusion. "
Joel, thank you. May I recommend you consider your own admonition?
"Why do you believe the few and ignore the abundance of evidence in support of that which you deny?"
Not even sure to what you are referring here. If you are referring to past climate cycles, Al Gore has already given us the irrefutable evidence on that. If you're referring to the "scientific consensus" I remind you that science is not done by consensus and one skeptic with real data can screw up the best theory. In this case there are millions of skeptics, some with not only the highest qualifications, but with the skeptical evidence in hand.
By the way, the FMEA starting requirement could be... "Shall maintain environmental equilibrium on Earth that is conducive to the continued survival of 99.9% of the current humans and animals."
Far be it from me to disagree with an expert, but isn't your statement the REASON you would do an FMEA? A 1-line FMEA doesn't tell you much. The value is in breaking down all the ways in which failure can occur, with manmade CO2 being only a tiny one out of hundreds. And it's ill-defined. What exactly is the proper global temperature? To what degree is that determinant of species survival? (Most of the individuals in ANY species won't live to 2100.) Humans survived the Ice Age, the Roman Warm Period and Medieval Warm Period, and so did the Polar Bears.
Humans and animals adapt. It's what we do. I'm a little worried about the plants, but more CO2 is good for them and it's not like there was much we could do about it, anyway. Look, if you can come up with an energy source that is readily and widely available, and costs less than what I'm using today, I'll buy it and you won't need a government mandate to make me do it.
"I'm glad you weren't in charge of our Lunar program."
Me, too. I am, however, always looking for new forms of energy that might make me rich. I particularly like the nuclear fast breeder or thorium reactor, since they're current technology needing only government approval and substantial investment to roll out. The former being the obstacle. But I also like fusion, especially lithium (rather than hydrogen) fusion, and MHD from garbage, with gas as the byproduct. Cyclonic wind turbines have some potential, and I used to like solar boilers, but I've seen them, they're ugly and they fry too many birds. I really like solar electric although it's unreliable (works poorly at night, or in Minnesota all winter), but until the new print-on-plastic process is improved and expanded, cutting the cost 90%, it's simply not feasible economically. Let one of these technologies loose at a competitive price, and we won't need some silly Climate Agreement to reduce our CO2 emissions, nor will we care. We'll be doing it to save money, and the reduced CO2 is just a byproduct.
"Source?" IPCC climate models, EPA analysis. Good enough?
Yes a complete FMEA for that requirement would be MASSIVE and it could be specified in great detail. In this case they want to keep earth temperature to not increase by more than 2 degrees C. Apparently the Marshall Islands (~72,000 citizens) will cease to exist if it increases by >1.5 C.
It is amazing the world keeps working as well as it does... And the FMEA would likely identify rogue asteroids as a possible failure mode... Per the link I provided:
1. Review the product or process. What do you require from it?
2. Brainstorm potential failure modes. How could it fail to meet the requirements?
3. List of potential effects from the failure.
4. Assign Severity Rankings to each effect. (will people be inconvenienced or die)
5. Assign Occurrence Rankings. (ie probability score)
6. Assign Detection Ratings. (ie can design detect it)
7. Calculate the RPN
8. Develop the Action Plan
9. Take Action
10 Calculate the resulting RPN (repeat until acceptable)
FMEA Scoring
Jerry,
You claim that the IPCC, EPA, NASA, Exxon, BP, etc have it all wrong, or worse yet that they are intentionally misleading the public regarding the human causation factor with regard to climate change.
You say that it is obvious that they are WRONG. However you have not provided one good source to back up your claims that human behaviors have had and will have no significant adverse consequences on humans, plants and animals if we continue burning more stored fuel and emitting more gases into the environment at an ever increasing rate.
I am not sure why you are so against taking the safe environmentally friendly path?
It isn't too hard for me to understand that there is a significant effect to the following massive change/cause. And the future of my children and future grand children is worth not taking the risk just so we can have cheap energy. (even if the risk is moderate / small)
Population and Energy Growth
"...that might make me rich."
Such a beautiful, American sentiment.
The love of money...and all that.
Joel
Thanks, John, for posting the FMEA process. It's been so long, I had forgotten about the "detection" part. That's important, and I think it's been left out, certainly of your formulation of the problem. Yes, we have detected CO2 increasing. But we have NOT been able to observe experimentally, even, that manmade CO2 is the principle driver of the increase, that CO2 is the principal driver of global temperature, to what degree it drives global temperature or that global temperature rise isn't beneficial up to some threshold. All we have are computer models which ASSUME CO2 drives global temperatures and, mirabile dictu, the models say that if CO2 goes up temperatures go up! But reality doesn't follow those models. So what probability do we assign to this "failure mode"? What solution do we need?
My problem with the IPCC, etc., is two-fold. First, it seems they have latched onto this notion that manmade CO2 drives global temperature and won't let go, despite all evidence to the contrary. Second, and more importantly, their policy prescription of crippling the world economy to decrease CO2, BY THEIR OWN ADMISSION and calculation, doesn't solve the problem and in fact has a negligible impact on it. I worry more about my own descendants living in a deliberately impoverished world, freezing in the dark and knowing they have kept other people from developing their human potential, than I do about a couple of degrees of natural warming.
And I'm tired of that argument of "what if we're wrong?" Meaning that we ignored the "warnings" of the climate models and whole swaths of the planet are under water and there are droughts everywhere. Or something. My question always is, what if we are wrong about the real CAUSE, and "fixed" something else? We will be just as wet up to our knees, but we will have spent a whole lot of time, money and effort to accomplish nothing! Which would you rather do?
And let me give a hint: If we do nothing until the Marshall Islands, or wherever, start to sink, there will be plenty of time, money and effort available to help them move, put their homes on stilts, or whatever. We can adapt, if and when, for a LOT less money.
"The love of money...and all that."
So why do you think so many academics and politicians are on the CAGW bandwagon? Could it be because of the Billions of dollars the US alone spends on CAGW research, propaganda and "conferences"? Why do you think so many countries were eager to sign on to the Paris Agreement? Might HUNDREDS of Billions of dollars coming their way have had an influence?
Hey, if the Google engineers had come up with a breakthrough energy source that was as available and cheaper than whatever I'm now using, I would happily buy it and see them get stinking rich selling it to me, whether it reduced CO2 (the point of their efforts) or not. If I saw it coming, I would have bought stock in it and shared the wealth. Unfortunately they discovered, after exhaustive research, that it's not possible. OH, I forgot. Obama just signed an agreement that says we CAN, so I'm sure he knows what he's talking about.
"All we have are computer models which ASSUME CO2 drives global temperatures and, mirabile dictu, the models say that if CO2 goes up temperatures go up! But reality doesn't follow those models."
Prove this opinion?
"my own descendants living in a deliberately impoverished world, freezing in the dark and knowing they have kept other people from developing their human potential"
Really? Developing, implementing and using "clean energy" is going to result in that... How do you figure? Please remember that as long as every country is involved, this effort actually creates a huge market and opportunity. Probably a whole lot more useful than the space race ever was.
"My question always is, what if we are wrong about the real CAUSE, and "fixed" something else?"
So your answer would be to sit and wait in case there is a worse root cause out there?
And by prove your view. I mean by referencing a knowledgeable trusted institution that makes your case and has data to back it up.
Personally I think that Exxon and BP publicly saying that human behavior is a significant factor in climate change probably speaks volumes...
Now the only questions are:
- How aggressively do we want to change human behavior?
- How severe will the climate change be based on what we do?
- Will Mother Nature implement some changes to try and maintain the "proper balance"? (ie volcanic eruptions, earthquakes, etc) I mean we are heating up a HUGE amount of material and most things expand when heated.
You asked for it. Go read the IPCC reports 1 through 5, and you will see the following:
-- the computer models START with assumptions about what CO2 levels will be under a number of different scenarios-- full Kyoto, modest or robust 3rd world development, etc. and these radically alter the temperature predictions. So they set CO2 as the driver (manmade CO2 is obviously assumed to be the driver of CO2 concentrations because that is what creates the different scenarios, but that's ASSUMED.)
-- The computer modellers have long argued over the "sensitivity" of the climate to CO2 and in the latest IPCC reports/model runs have reduced (per their statements) that and their predictions now more closely match measured results.
-- But their predictions do NOT match measured results-- you've seen that data. Not only that, but the "correlation" between CO2 and temperature (which doesn't prove causation, mind you), doesn't seem to be consistent.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/12/16/energy-carbon-dioxide-and-the-pause/
-- Finally, look at the temperature predictions of the IPCC models when Kyoto (if followed), or Obama's "clean power plan" (if forced down our throats) or this new Paris Agreement (if it isn't all pure BS) are implemented. The reduction in global temperatures are almost negligible!
The solution of "developing...clean energy" is a fantasy! Wind energy currently costs about 3 times what coal energy does, and only operates 10-30% of the time. Recent high-profile solar installations have paybacks in the hundreds of years! The Google engineers couldn't find anything to replace fossil fuels in the foreseeable future. Expecting truly poor countries to adopt these technologies that even we cannot or should not afford is stupid and probably cruel.
Maybe you answered your own question. The Warmists predict not only warming but "extreme weather" that simply hasn't materialized. Quite the opposite. But if Mother Nature has balanced these things out over the last 100 million years or so, I'm not sure we should be concerned about Her doing it again. We just have to react to it because we cannot prevent it.
You gotta see this:
http://www.cato.org/blog/current-wisdom-we-calculate-you-decide-handy-dandy-carbon-tax-temperature-savings-calculator
Carbon Tax Calculator
If you read the fine print. It was odd that used only the OECD 90 when the China, India and others are huge contributors.
They left those two out because they are not "industrialized countries." And they aren't going to participate in CO2 reduction until they are. They're also excluded from the climate agreement, along with the rest of the world. Since only the OECD 90 are supposedly going to carry the burden of saving the world, it's important to know how much we're going to help that situation. Apparently driving the US to zero doesn't do much for global warming, while destroying our country economically and socially. Heckuva deal.
As far as I know no one is aiming to drive the USA to ZERO.
It looks like China is also working to constrain their use.
Now how again is reducing the use of Carbon going to "destroy our country economically and socially"? I can't see the loss of the coal industry having such dire consequences. Especially when it is replaced with the renewable energy jobs.
I know farmers like it when utilities companies rent / buy their land for wind towers. And when bio fuels are mandated.
I love these fantasies. The point about driving the US to zero CO2 emissions is that it wouldn't matter! The IPCC models (which overpredict warming), say the "US at zero" would reduce temperatures 100 years hence by about 0.1 degrees! We don't normally predict TOMORROW's weather that closely.
Reducing CO2 production means reducing energy production, which means the poor can no longer afford to heat their homes, food doesn't get transported, businesses shut down, etc.-- Economic and social ruin. After all, fossil fuels provide roughly 80% of the energy in this country. We can gain a smidgen with greater efficiencies, and we should-- it's economically beneficial for us to do so. But "renewable energy" is another fantasy. It's never going to fuel the nation, and certainly not the planet. All our dams are built. Ethanol burns more fuel to make than it returns. Wind power is 10%-30% available, as is solar, and solar takes more energy to build than it returns. Plus you still need the gas-fired backup capacity for these things, and they kill birds.
Since we only have ~4% of the world's population (ie 300mil/7,000mil) and have many clean energy sources in place, of course our changing will not have as big of an effect as helping other countries to develop cleaner energy sources that are more cost effective.
Now you are saying that a 20% reduction in CO2 (ie 20% increase in green fuels) is going to change life in America as we know it?
Seems to me that just converting from coal to natural gas will nearly get us there.
Helping other countries develop "cost effective alternatives" is part of the fantasy world. Those countries without coal resources, or natural gas or oil, sure, but those folks know they have to do something expensive to fuel economic and human development., The US can use natural gas, sure, especially if it's less expensive, easy to move about and easy to "convert" to. If it happens to reduce CO2 output, so be it. If that makes you happy, so be that, too, but it's not like it's going to matter.
But it is methane, which is a terrible greenhouse gas, and burning it produces twice as much water vapor-- the most prevalent greenhouse gas-- as it does CO2.
Post a Comment