Global Warming

[AngryAnt]

His economic argument makes the assumption AGW is happening ??? His pointing to the fragility of the pseudoscience of AGW was separate from that. You call it mumbo jumbo, your response to it I call the emperors new clothes. We're not really getting anywhere by arguing like this though are we?

So he accepts the premise yet feels compelled to post junk science to debunk the premise?

Perhaps you can provide the link to the green blog that has apparently debunked the car study?

Too easy mein Austrian freund.

http://cleantechnica.com/2013/06/20/electric-cars-arent-greener-myth-debunked/
http://shrinkthatfootprint.com/electric-car-emissions

Of course he didn't explain how the problem would be tackled with increased wealth. No-one can actually specifically detail what the problem is anyway, so pretending to know how to deal with a problem we don't know about would be ridiculous.

Oh you still don't understand the problem? Let me lay it out for you.

Burning fossil fuels releases CO2 into the atmosphere at increased rates. Increases in atmospheric CO2 means infrared heat reflected from the Earth's surface is retained to a greater extent. This leads to increases in average and local ambient temperatures around the globe. This in turn leads to changes in climate, weather, environment, sea level.

Using ad hominem might make you feel better, but it just weakens your argument. Perhaps you can just outline why you think that strategy is a bad one?

An argument that both accepts and argues against AGW shows profound confusion. An argument that admits itself it cannot define the problem it is trying to solve demonstrates both wilful ignorance of empirical evidence and an inability to reason.

A strategy that argues do nothing because it cannot understand or define the problem is nihilistic.

 

[KnightersRevenge]

Climate itself is the really hot issue
Sydney Morning Herald
July 16, 2013
Peter Hartcher
Sydney Morning Herald political and international editor


Julia Gillard spent the past three years implementing a climate change policy she neither wanted nor believed in. The carbon tax was not her idea. She was doing the bidding of the Greens and independents as a condition of winning their support to form government.

And Tony Abbott was loving it. A business leader asked Abbott to reconsider his policy on climate change a little over a year ago. Would he support an emissions trading scheme so that companies could get on with the job of investing?

''I've got Gillard on the ropes and there's no way I'm going to let her off now,'' came the reply.

This Punch and Judy show that dominated Australian politics had a number of effects. One was to distract the country from developments in the physical world.

How else do we explain the fact that Australia barely even noticed key events, such as the annual report on climate change by the World Meteorological Organisation 13 days ago?

Here's how Britain's Financial Times began its news account: ''The first 10 years of this century were the hottest in 160 years and filled with more broken temperature records than any other decade as global warming continued to accelerate, the UN's top weather agency has reported.''

In its report, the WMO said that the decade to 2010 ''was the warmest for both hemispheres and for both land and ocean surface temperatures'' since the start of modern measurement in 1850.

''The record warmth was accompanied by a rapid decline in Arctic sea ice, and accelerating loss of net mass from the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets and from the world's glaciers.

''As a result of this widespread melting and the thermal expansion of sea water, global mean sea levels rose about three millimetres per year, about double the observed 20th-century trend of 1.6 mm per year. Global sea level averaged over the decade was about 20 centimetres higher than that of 1880.''

This report barely registered in Australia. Of the major daily newspapers, only The Age carried a substantive story, and even that was relegated to page 21. The Herald Sun in Melbourne carried a news brief on page 32. The only paper to run a long article on it was The Australian, which carried an 800-word opinion piece devoted to trying to dismiss its validity, written by a climate change sceptic. This is just one example of how Australia has somehow managed to lose sight of perhaps the most important single event of our time.

If you put some of the scenes of climate change distress from around the world into a movie, it'd be a blockbuster. The government of the tiny Pacific island state of Kiribati has declared a policy of orderly evacuation called ''migration with dignity'' as rising seas eat the low-lying country's habitable land; the government of India struggles to cope with almost 9 million people fleeing increasingly intense flooding.

But it happens in the real world, and we pay little heed, or, worse, pretend it's not real. The concentration of carbon in the atmosphere reached 400 parts per million two months ago.

This is the highest it's been for millions of years, according to ice core samples.

The people and institutions telling us what's happening, such as the WMO, are not just a handful of cranky socialists or enviro-nazis.

The Australian Strategic Policy Institute, a respected research body funded by the federal government, issued a report in March pointing out that the defence implications of climate change were emerging much sooner than imagined: ''The 2009 Defence white paper dismissed climate change as an issue for future generations, judging that the strategic consequences wouldn't be felt before 2030. But that's no longer the case. The downstream implications of climate change are forcing Defence to become involved in mitigation and response tasks right now. Defence's workload will increase, so we need a new approach.''

Regional impacts, wrote Anthony Press, Anthony Bergin and Eliza Garnsey, ''include possible population displacement due to the effects of climate and increased conflict over resources.''

The International Energy Agency was set up by the governments of the rich countries to monitor global energy trends after the oil shocks of the 1970s.

Its chief economist, Fatih Birol, said last month he was ''very worried about the emissions trends.'' The chance of holding the global average temperature rise to the 2 degrees limit beyond which dangerous climate change is thought to occur still remained, he said, ''but it is not very great. It is becoming extremely challenging.'' He urged ''a change in political mood''.

The heartening news is that the political mood is indeed showing some signs of change. When the global climate negotiations at Copenhagen collapsed in 2009, the ugly spat between the world's two biggest carbon emitters, the US and China, was at the centre of the discord.

But in recent weeks the US and China have jointly announced new measures to reduce emissions. They are piecemeal and inadequate, but they represent a fundamental shift in political mood.

The president of the World Bank, Jim Yong Kim, was sufficiently encouraged to declare that ''the world is starting to get serious about climate change. It is happening for one major reason: leadership.''

Australia already has a carbon tax, and emissions from the energy industry are falling. Hasn't Australia done enough already? Overall carbon emissions have stopped rising, but they're not falling, either.

The change of prime minister gives Australia an opportunity to reconsider.

Ultimately, Abbott's plan to use the carbon tax against Gillard succeeded, with indispensable help from Kevin Rudd. It may have succeeded too well for Abbott's comfort as Labor resurges under Rudd.

Polling to be released by the Climate Institute on Tuesday shows what its director, John Connor, calls the people's ''climate ambition emerging from the shadow of the carbon lie''.

Australia ''retreated into its shell'' as Gillard and Abbott slugged it out over the carbon tax. On Tuesday the country emerges to see what the Rudd government can do with Australia's second chance.

Peter Hartcher is the international editor.

Ben Cubby writes here

 

[Willo]

Hey Knighters, do you think Gillards *Carbon Tax or Rudd's ETS is the right way to go?



(*Using accepted terminology, not as political terminology)

 

[Peaka1]

I have no doubt that there has been climate change in the last 20 years (as the climate has always been changing - we have had a number of ice ages for example).

What concerns me and what I have as yet been unable to find a decent explanation for why, if climate change is being driven by CO2 emissions, then the temperature graph and the CO2 in the atmosphere should show a correlation. In the recent past as I understand it there has been a significant divergence between changes in atmospheric CO2 levels and changes in global temperatures. This suggests that other factors are at work rather than simply CO2 emissions and has me concerned that we are focussing on an area that may not be as significant in driving up temperatures as many believe. put another way if we don't completely understand what is driving the changes the action we take wont work or be as effective as it could be.

Before I get howled down I am all for reducing emissions but given that there are only a finite number of resources to devote to the problem I want to make sure our resources are spent in the right area.

 

[lamb22]

Peaka, I've heard that a lot of climate change is exponential nor linear.

I.e normal variation or mild changes for a while and then bang,

They stuff with ocean warming is literally a long burn.

https://www2.ucar.edu/atmosnews/news/5364/deep-oceans-can-mask-global-warming-decade-long-periods

 

[Peaka]

Hi lamb , it could be true that they are a slow burn but if this was the case you would expect the curves to lag each other somewhat but still have the same trend at least in a general sense. Difficult to understand why there would be a temperature plateau.

One of the difficult things here scientifically is that whenever the world warms ( specifically the worlds water - predominantly oceans) then you would expect atmospheric CO2 to rise. This therefore makes the correlation difficult to work out which is driving which ( which is the cause which is the effect).

Also climate is such a multi-variable thing to study so hard to determine what effect if any each variable is having. Not to mention the lack of quality data over a long period of time. I suspect in 100 years time if people on both sides were still alive they would both claim to be right irrespective of what happens. You find this in almost any scientific experiment where there can't be a control study.

Interesting times.

 

[KnightersRevenge]

Hey Knighters, do you think Gillards *Carbon Tax or Rudd's ETS is the right way to go?

It is almost impossible to prise the politics away from this Willo. I have said many times I think the best way forward regardless of climate change is to transition away from fossil fuels and that a push is needed as industry will not move until the situation is beyond dire. I see it as a great advantage to industry and to society to be able to generate our power from sources that do not deplete and that do no (or much much less) harm. Markets are not democratic. It is unreasonable to expect them to do what is best for people off their own bat, that is what governments are for.

So my answer is: it doesn't matter. Action is better than inaction, though I'm not sure too about "direct action".

(*Using accepted terminology, not as political terminology)

Thanks, I noticed Christine Milne was at pains to make that point on Insiders on Sunday.

 

[KnightersRevenge]

Hi lamb , it could be true that they are a slow burn but if this was the case you would expect the curves to lag each other somewhat but still have the same trend at least in a general sense. Difficult to understand why there would be a temperature plateau.

One of the difficult things here scientifically is that whenever the world warms ( specifically the worlds water - predominantly oceans) then you would expect atmospheric CO2 to rise. This therefore makes the correlation difficult to work out which is driving which ( which is the cause which is the effect).

Also climate is such a multi-variable thing to study so hard to determine what effect if any each variable is having. Not to mention the lack of quality data over a long period of time. I suspect in 100 years time if people on both sides were still alive they would both claim to be right irrespective of what happens. You find this in almost any scientific experiment where there can't be a control study.

Interesting times.

It is a very complex area of study but there are people capable. They just don't write on this forum. Quantum physics is a minefield of logical contradictions but there are people who work effectively in that field. The multitudinous systems of feedback in the atmosphere and the oceans means that just tracking the carbon, and looking for correlations, doesn't begin to explain what is happening. Hence looking for easy pickings to explain it 'once and for all' is futile IMO.

Given this difficulty Peaka what do you see as prudent action? Do you think we should wait for those hundred years to pass and check again? I think that if we have the technology to remove fossil fuels and the harm they do from our power generation systems (and our transport systems) then we should. Doing so will have a beneficial effect on our bottom line as power will get cheaper (Solar and wind are free the only costs are maintenance especially when you factor in a carbon price) AND the environmental impact will be reduced.

 

[Peaka]

Hi knighter I agree it's complex.

Nevertheless as people tend to say a lot on this forum the Science on the correlation is settled. Studies show that when global temperatures rise there is a corresponding rise of CO2 concentration that occurs about 800 to 1200 years later. Similarly when global temperatures fall there has historically been a fall in CO2 concentrations that occurs between 1200 and 2000 years later. These trends have been pretty constant for almost the entire period for which such measurements have been done.

What of course climate is complex the data simply does not support the claim that CO2 is the major cause of temperature rises. In fact the data supports the opposite conclusion. Indeed there is a simple explanation for this as well. The solubility of CO2 in water decreases as the temperature rises and so logically as the world warms the oceans reads CO2 hence it concentration goes up. When temperatures drop historically then the ability of the ocean to a sorb CO2 increases and CO2 concentration goes down. People might want to confuse matters but the data fits this happening.

As far as reducing pollution I am all for it but not due to AGW but rather as CO2 concentration goes up ocean acidity goes up. Another thing that doesn't get mentioned when we discuss AGW is that there are limited resources to combat any problem. One question I have is that given 660 000 people die from Malaria every year is it a better use of resources to save these lives. As with anything we do there is a cost and any resources we spend on AGW are resources we don't spend in other areas.

As I said all for reducing CO2 emissions but not for the same reasons as you. Just not convinced it will have any impact on global temperatures. But hey I am sure we will disagree.

 

[KnightersRevenge]

Hi knighter I agree it's complex.

Nevertheless as people tend to say a lot on this forum the Science on the correlation is settled. Studies show that when global temperatures rise there is a corresponding rise of CO2 concentration that occurs about 800 to 1200 years later. Similarly when global temperatures fall there has historically been a fall in CO2 concentrations that occurs between 1200 and 2000 years later. These trends have been pretty constant for almost the entire period for which such measurements have been done.

What of course climate is complex the data simply does not support the claim that CO2 is the major cause of temperature rises. In fact the data supports the opposite conclusion. Indeed there is a simple explanation for this as well. The solubility of CO2 in water decreases as the temperature rises and so logically as the world warms the oceans reads CO2 hence it concentration goes up. When temperatures drop historically then the ability of the ocean to a sorb CO2 increases and CO2 concentration goes down. People might want to confuse matters but the data fits this happening.

As far as reducing pollution I am all for it but not due to AGW but rather as CO2 concentration goes up ocean acidity goes up. Another thing that doesn't get mentioned when we discuss AGW is that there are limited resources to combat any problem. One question I have is that given 660 000 people die from Malaria every year is it a better use of resources to save these lives. As with anything we do there is a cost and any resources we spend on AGW are resources we don't spend in other areas.

As I said all for reducing CO2 emissions but not for the same reasons as you. Just not convinced it will have any impact on global temperatures. But hey I am sure we will disagree.

We do disagree, but only because you are simplifying the science and misrepresenting it in doing so. Coming out of ice ages the global temperature increase (temperature is only one measure and doesn't tell us everything) isn't "initiated" by a CO2 rise but as the oceans warm the CO2 release ramps it up to the point where overall, about 90% of the global warming occurs after the CO2 increase.
Here is a video that takes your 800 year lag "in context" and applies some real science to it:
[youtube=560,315]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=8nrvrkVBt24#at=685[/youtube]
But as I have said in many of these debates it is pointless for those of us who haven't done the hard yards to become scientists and then specialists in these fields of study to debate the science. Best to stick to the policy, that is an area we can affect and can use reason and logic to discuss. Arguing the science is to get bogged down and end up mired, which is itself a debating technique but not one I plan to get into.

On policy I didn't ask you about pollution per se. I asked what you think action should look like and I'd be interested if you think it is a bad thing to move from expensive and polluting technology to much cheaper cleaner and almost infinite technology that we have the ability to implement today?

 

[KnightersRevenge]

...

One question I have is that given 660 000 people die from Malaria every year is it a better use of resources to save these lives. As with anything we do there is a cost and any resources we spend on AGW are resources we don't spend in other areas.

On this point we are in furious agreement but I'd be looking elsewhere. Specifically at cancer research and charities. The staggering disparity between funding and charitable donations for this area, which is mostly incurable and affects long-lived prosperous white people, over malaria which we can absolutely prevent but affects poor mostly black people, makes me sick.

 

[Peaka]

Hi Knighter will look at the video when I get more time as a bit busy today.

In answer to your question though of course it's a no brained to move from "expensive" to cheaper technology in almost every situation. Not sure this applies to the debate though as in relation to energy generation coal fired generation is early far cheaper than any alternative energy source. If your premise was correct then there would be no need for any government action at all as market forces would drive the uptake of the "cheaper "( your words) technology. As its pretty clear that this is not the case I think your question misrepresents the debate.

Glad we can agree that there are lots of problems in the world that should be addressed such as preventable disease, starvation and the like. The pity is that there are limited resources and we sometimes get distracted by things that in the wider scheme of things are not as important. This will always be a problem as there will always be vested interests ands by groups pushing the debate in their direction regrettably usually for economic gain rather than the greater good. Has always happened in the past and I see no sign that this is likely to change any time soon.

 

[KnightersRevenge]

Hi Knighter will look at the video when I get more time as a bit busy today.

In answer to your question though of course it's a no brained to move from "expensive" to cheaper technology in almost every situation. Not sure this applies to the debate though as in relation to energy generation coal fired generation is early far cheaper than any alternative energy source. If your premise was correct then there would be no need for any government action at all as market forces would drive the uptake of the "cheaper "( your words) technology. As its pretty clear that this is not the case I think your question misrepresents the debate.
...

I take your point and I was pushing my barrow a little. Fossil fuels are subsidised in many ways though so there is an argument that coal isn't as cheap as it appears. It is also allowed to externalise the costs related to the damage it does in both mining and burning which carbon pricing attempts to put right. The market is dominated by relics that have existing infrastructure, supply chains and captive markets and are pushing into poorly regulated developing markets. That they aren't about to change tack isn't a strong argument that the alternatives don't measure up. More that vested interests wield great power in framing the debate and policy.

 

[KnightersRevenge]

Peaka, I've heard that a lot of climate change is exponential nor linear.

I.e normal variation or mild changes for a while and then bang,

They stuff with ocean warming is literally a long burn.

https://www2.ucar.edu/atmosnews/news/5364/deep-oceans-can-mask-global-warming-decade-long-periods

Ask any engineer about "positive feedback" in almost any system. It quickly ramps up usually exponentially. The video I posted goes through it fairly comprehensively and entertainingly. Again I don't think it serves any purpose, other than obfuscation, to debate the science. We mere lay folks (apologies if there are any Chemistry, Physics or Climate Science PhD's, on board) ought to stick to what we're good at and talk about the best policy and stop devaluing the conclusions of people who have worked hard and understand an incredibly complex system far better than we do.

 

[bullus_hit]

Not sure this applies to the debate though as in relation to energy generation coal fired generation is early far cheaper than any alternative energy source. If your premise was correct then there would be no need for any government action at all as market forces would drive the uptake of the "cheaper "( your words) technology. As its pretty clear that this is not the case I think your question misrepresents the debate.

It's very simplistic to claim coal as a cheaper energy source. Old coal-fired plants are more expensive than wind, they are also subsidised by the government. There's plenty of politics at play when dealing with coal, the lobby groups are extremely powerful and have individuals using their financial clout to influence decision makers.

When looking at the costs, one also has to look at the energy used to extract the raw materials and how this is also contributing to emissions. Then there's the disparity in costs when dealing with the end-users location to electricity grids. On this point, it's certainly more practical to use solar panels in situations where consumers require extensive infrastructure and maintenance. This is particularly relevant to many developing nations that are literally building from the ground up.

Much of the problem with this debate is that too many laymen (myself included) are fed misinformation by a media with a clear cut agenda. Very few of these 'sceptics' are interested in the science and are more intent on character assassination. Instances such as the insignificant 'Climategate' scandal received a ridiculous amount of publicity when stacked up against the weight of 30 years of extensive climate related research.

Digging a little further, one also finds that many of the supposed 'scientific experts' are actually bankrolled by the fossil fuel industry. Groups like the Heartland Institute have been peddling propaganda which would even make the tobacco industry look like angels. In Australia, we have to deal with similar such campaigns on the health risks of wind turbines - one wonders whether the detractors would prefer living next to a couple of coal spewing smoke stacks.

In the end, we can take our cues from a handful of agenda driven commentators, or we can listen to the scientists who have devoted their lives to climate science and related issues. Like Nicholas Stern said many years ago, the cost of inaction is far greater than the cost of changing the current energy paradigm. Australia may have missed the boat on becoming world class innovators of renewable energy, but they still have the opportunity to make a significant contribution to one of the world's great challenges.

 

[Dyer'ere]

 

[Liverpool]

"There is no debate, the science is in and is final", they said :spin :hihi


We got it wrong on warming, says IPCC

THE Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's latest assessment reportedly admits its computer drastically overestimated rising temperatures, and over the past 60 years the world has in fact been warming at half the rate claimed in the previous IPCC report in 2007.

More importantly, according to reports in British and US media, the draft report appears to suggest global temperatures were less sensitive to rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide than was previously thought.

The 2007 assessment report said the planet was warming at a rate of 0.2C every decade, but according to Britain's The Daily Mail the draft update report says the true figure since 1951 has been 0.12C.

Last week, the IPCC was forced to deny it was locked in crisis talks as reports intensified that scientists were preparing to revise down the speed at which climate change is happening and its likely impact.

It is believed the IPCC draft report will still conclude there is now greater confidence that climate change is real, humans are having a major impact and that the world will continue to warm catastrophically unless drastic action is taken to curb greenhouse gas emissions.

The impacts would include big rises in the sea level, floods, droughts and the disappearance of the Arctic icecap.

But claimed contradictions in the report have led to calls for the IPCC report process to be scrapped.

Professor Judith Curry, head of climate science at the Georgia Institute of Technology in Atlanta, told The Daily Mail the leaked summary showed "the science is clearly not settled, and is in a state of flux"

The Wall Street Journal said the updated report, due out on September 27, would show "the temperature rise we can expect as a result of manmade emissions of carbon dioxide is lower than the IPCC thought in 2007".

The WSJ report said the change was small but "it is significant because it points to the very real possibility that, over the next several generations, the overall effect of climate change will be positive for humankind and the planet".

After several leaks and reports on how climate scientists would deal with a slowdown in the rate of average global surface temperatures over the past decade, the IPCC was last week forced to deny it had called for crisis talks.

"Contrary to the articles the IPCC is not holding any crisis meeting," it said in a statement.

The IPCC said more than 1800 comments had been received on the final draft of the "summary for policymakers" to be considered at a meeting in Stockholm before the release of the final report. It did not comment on the latest report, which said scientists accepted their forecast computers may have exaggerated the effect of increased carbon emissions on world temperatures and not taken enough notice of natural variability.

According to The Daily Mail, the draft report recognised the global warming "pause", with average temperatures not showing any statistically significant increase since 1997.

Scientists admitted large parts of the world had been as warm as they were now for decades at a time between 950 and 1250, centuries before the Industrial Revolution.

And, The Daily Mail said, a forecast in the 2007 report that hurricanes would become more intense had been dropped.

Writing in The Wall Street Journal, Matt Ridley said the draft report had revised downwards the "equilibrium climate sensitivity", a measure of eventual warming induced by a doubling of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. It had also revised down the Transient Climate Response, the actual climate change expected from a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide about 70 years from now.

Ridley said most experts believed that warming of less than 2C from pre-industrial levels would result in no net economic and ecological damage. "Therefore, the new report is effectively saying (based on the middle of the range of the IPCC's emissions scenarios) that there is a better than 50-50 chance that by 2083 the benefits of climate change will still outweigh the harm," he said

- See more at: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/health-science/we-got-it-wrong-on-warming-says-ipcc/story-e6frg8y6-1226719672318#sthash.60B50w0Q.dpuf

 

[AngryAnt]

"There is no debate, the science is in and is final", they said :spin :hihi

Whoever said science was ever "final" doesn't understand science.

 

[Liverpool]

Whoever said science was ever "final" doesn't understand science.

You lot changing your tune at last because the IPCC are backtracking? :spin....an example of the pedestal-standing that has been going on here:

The debate over the science is done and dusted. There is zero point engaging with any barfly, blogster, footy forum deniers on the internet on it. Waste of time and the main game has already been decided. Its now like engaging with a Carlton supporter saying 'I was behind the goals Yarrans kick went through Carlton really won the game'. Pointless.
The dabate now, very real and crucial, is what do about it nationally and internationally.

 

[Brodders17]

It is believed the IPCC draft report will still conclude there is now greater confidence that climate change is real, humans are having a major impact and that the world will continue to warm catastrophically unless drastic action is taken to curb greenhouse gas emissions.

The impacts would include big rises in the sea level, floods, droughts and the disappearance of the Arctic icecap.

thanks for that.