Caution, Precaution, and the Precautionary Principle

[intention]

I'm getting increasingly frustrated by the confusion going around regarding the "precautionary principle". People seem to think it means being cautious, or in many cases super cautious, to the point of ridiculous action or inaction.

It means nothing of the sort.

Let me start with the birth of the “precautionary principle” (I’ll call it PP for short), which comes from the UN Rio Declaration on the Environment (1992). Here’s their original formulation:

“In order to protect the environment, the precautionary approach shall be widely applied by States according to their capability. Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation.”

This is an excellent statement of the PP, as it distinguishes it from such things as wearing condoms, denying bank loans, approving the Kyoto Protocol, invading Afghanistan, or using seat belts.

The three key parts of the PP (emphasis mine) are:

1) A threat of serious or irreversible damage.

2) A lack of full scientific certainty (in other words, the existence of partial but not conclusive scientific evidence).

3) The availability of cost-effective measures.

Here are some examples of how these key parts of the PP work out in practice.

We have full scientific certainty that condoms and seat belts save lives. Thus, using them is not an example of the PP, it is simply acting reasonably on principles about which we are scientifically certain.

There are no scientific principles or evidence that we can apply to the question of invading Afghanistan, so we cannot apply the PP there either.

Bank loans are neither serious nor irreversible, nor is there partial scientific understanding of them, so they don’t qualify for the PP.

Finally, the Kyoto Protocol is so far from being cost-effective as to be laughable. The PP can be thought of as a kind of insurance policy. No one would pay $200,000 for an insurance policy if the payoff in case of an accident were only $20, yet this is the kind of ratio of cost to payoff that the Kyoto Protocol involves.

On the other side of the equation, a good example of when we might use the PP involves local extinction. We have fairly good scientific understanding that removing a top predator from a local ecosystem badly screws things up. If you kill the mountain lions, the deer population skyrockets, then the plants are overgrazed, then the ground erodes, insect populations are unbalanced, and so on down the line.

So, if we are looking at a novel ecosystem that has not been scientifically studied, we do not have full scientific certainty that removing the top predator will actually cause serious or irreversible damage to the ecosystem. However, if there is a cost-effective method to avoid removing the top predator, the PP says that we should do so. It fulfils the three requirements of the PP -- there is a threat of serious damage, we have partial scientific certainty, and a cost-effective solution exists, so we should act.

I see the PP being invoked in all kinds of situations where it has no application at all, to justify an approach which is so cautious as to be absolutely paralyzing. Dear friends, caution is good in its place ... but caution is not any part of the precautionary principle.

w.

[magellan01]

Well done, sir. You just fought off ignorance I didn't even know I had. Really, nicely done.

[Kimstu]

Originally Posted by magellan01

You just fought off ignorance I didn't even know I had.

Maybe you didn't. intention's take on the subject is disputable in several respects:

Originally Posted by intention

Let me start with the birth of the “precautionary principle” (I’ll call it PP for short), which comes from the UN Rio Declaration on the Environment (1992).

Why should this event be considered the "birth" of the precautionary principle? A 2005 report by UNESCO's World Commission on the Ethics of Scientific Knowledge and Technology, The Precautionary Principle (pdf), gives a different backstory:

Precautionary ‘thinking’ has a much longer history. [...] The PP, however, dates from the 1970s. Some scholars mention a Swedish and some a German origin of the PP. In Germany the PP (‘Vorsorgeprinzip’) may be traced back to the first draft of a bill (1970) aimed at securing clean air. The law was passed in 1974 and covered all potential sources of air pollution, noise, vibrations and similar processes. The most unambiguous elaboration of the PP in German environmental policy is from a later date and reads: [...] ‘The principle of precaution commands that the damages done to the natural world (which surrounds us all) should be avoided in advance and in accordance with opportunity and possibility. Vorsorge further means the early detection of dangers to health and environment by comprehensive, synchronized (harmonized) research, in particular about cause and effect relationships..., it also means acting when conclusively ascertained understanding by science is not yet available.' [...] (Bundesministerium des Innern, 1984).

This doesn't support your assertion that the intrinsic definition of the PP includes any specific measure of cost-effectiveness.

Originally Posted by intention

Finally, the Kyoto Protocol is so far from being cost-effective as to be laughable.

The Kyoto Protocol by itself is certainly inadequate as a means of drastically reducing global greenhouse-gas emissions. However, it's a start at negotiating international agreements and mechanisms to use for emissions reduction. If you don't think that's worth paying for, you're entitled to your opinion, but that doesn't make it a fact.

[intention]

Originally Posted by Kimstu

Maybe you didn't. intention's take on the subject is disputable in several respects:

Why should this event be considered the "birth" of the precautionary principle? A 2005 report by UNESCO's World Commission on the Ethics of Scientific Knowledge and Technology, The Precautionary Principle (pdf), gives a different backstory:

Thanks, Kimstu, I was unaware of that. I should change the post to read something like "one of the first definitions" rather than "the first".

Originally Posted by Kimstu

This doesn't support your assertion that the intrinsic definition of the PP includes any specific measure of cost-effectiveness.

I don't understand. Are you advocating a definition of the PP that recommends actions which are not cost-effective? I fear that doesn't make sense ...

Originally Posted by Kimstu

The Kyoto Protocol by itself is certainly inadequate as a means of drastically reducing global greenhouse-gas emissions. However, it's a start at negotiating international agreements and mechanisms to use for emissions reduction. If you don't think that's worth paying for, you're entitled to your opinion, but that doesn't make it a fact.

I fear that "certainly inadequate as a means of drastically reducing global greenhouse-gas emissions" still wildly overestimates the projected effects of Kyoto.

What both supporters and opponents of the Kyoto Protocol agree on is that it will have no measureable effect on temperature. This is a fact. It is a fact even if the US had signed on, and even if the countries that signed on were able to meet their committments under the protocol, neither of which have occurred.

Now, perhaps you think it is worth spending billions of dollars on a temperature reduction program that will not measurably reduce the temperature ... I don't.

I am always mystified by people who say, in essence, "spending hundreds of billions of dollars to achieve nothing is OK, because it's a good start at attacking the problem" ... if that's a good start, spending billions for nothing, then what's the finish?

Finally, even if you are right that what follows after Kyoto is actually effective, my point still stands -- Kyoto is not effective, or as you say, it is "certainly inadequate". No matter which definition of the PP you wish to follow, there is nothing in the PP that recommends pouring billions of dollars down the drain just to make "a start at negotiating international agreements". Are you saying that we can't start negotiations without first pissing away billions of dollars just to get warmed up?

w.

[Kimstu]

Originally Posted by intention

Are you advocating a definition of the PP that recommends actions which are not cost-effective?

I don't think it's a question of "advocating". I'm just pointing out that there is nothing in the early formulations of the precautionary principle that mandates taking cost-effectiveness into account. You claimed that cost-effectiveness is by definition a key part of the PP, and I argue that you're wrong.

Originally Posted by intention

What both supporters and opponents of the Kyoto Protocol agree on is that it will have no measureable effect on temperature. This is a fact.

Right, but reducing global temperature is not the purpose of the Kyoto Protocol. As far as we can tell, we are already committed to enduring whatever global temperature rise our current elevated CO2 levels may cause. There's no possible emissions-reduction program that could turn the clock back on previous emissions and return us to pre-industrial CO2 levels and temperatures.

Its purpose is to start the reduction of carbon emissions so that we can reduce the risk of catastrophically increasing global temperatures in the future by massively increasing CO2 concentrations. The whole point of Kyoto is not to eliminate whatever climate problems we may already have caused---that can't be done*---but to start putting the brakes on our current headlong gallop toward much more serious problems.

Originally Posted by intention

Now, perhaps you think it is worth spending billions of dollars on a temperature reduction program that will not measurably reduce the temperature ... I don't.

The Kyoto Protocol is not a temperature reduction program. I think this misunderstanding is at the root of the widespread (and, in the case of climate change deniers, carefully fostered) concern over the Protocol's usefulness.




* Short of some pretty gee-whizzical fancy technology for atmospheric carbon removal and sequestration on an immense scale, which does not look at all likely in the near future.

[magellan01]

Originally Posted by Kimstu

Maybe you didn't. intention's take on the subject is disputable in several respects:

And now even more ignorance slayed. Thanks. I've learned quite a lot in just two posts.

[SentientMeat]

Originally Posted by intention

Finally, the Kyoto Protocol is so far from being cost-effective as to be laughable.

Well, that depends. No climatologist I know of considers a CO2 concentration of more than, say, 650 parts per million (ppm) to be anything other than extremely dangerous. The overwhelming majority consider around 500 ppm as the absolute limit. We're currently at 380 ppm, having shot up from the millennia of 280 ppm in just a few decades. And we're shooting up by 3 ppm per year, undeniably from digging up safely stored stockpiles of CO2 and burning them.

That's the maths: at the current rate of increase, we'll reach an undeniably dangerous concentration this century. Kyoto tries to buy us time - to give us a few more years or decades before we reach the danger limit and have to stop emitting CO2 at all or face the consequences.

I guess the question is, what will the cost-effectiveness of a dangerous CO2 concentration be compared to the cost of reducing our rate of increase per Kyoto?

[intention]

SentientMeat, thanks for your comments. You say:

Originally Posted by SentientMeat

Well, that depends. No climatologist I know of considers a CO2 concentration of more than, say, 650 parts per million (ppm) to be anything other than extremely dangerous. The overwhelming majority consider around 500 ppm as the absolute limit. We're currently at 380 ppm, having shot up from the millennia of 280 ppm in just a few decades. And we're shooting up by 3 ppm per year, undeniably from digging up safely stored stockpiles of CO2 and burning them.

That's the maths: at the current rate of increase, we'll reach an undeniably dangerous concentration this century. Kyoto tries to buy us time - to give us a few more years or decades before we reach the danger limit and have to stop emitting CO2 at all or face the consequences.

I guess the question is, what will the cost-effectiveness of a dangerous CO2 concentration be compared to the cost of reducing our rate of increase per Kyoto?

1) If Kyoto would have a measureable effect, this question would make much more sense ... but since even the Kyoto backers agree that it will make no measurable difference (estimated temperature reduction if everyone signed up and complied, ~0.07°C), I fail to see how it is "cost-effective" at all.

2) The overwhelming majority of nations that signed up to Kyoto have not been able to make the cuts required by the Protocol. Thus, in addition to making no difference, it also appears to be impractical ... what is the cost-effectiveness of a project that is costing billions and billions of dollars, which would make no difference if it succeeds, and which shows no sign of success?

w.

PS - The annual CO2 increase is only 2/3 of the figure you quoted ... see Atmospheric CO2 Concentrations

[Blake]

Let me just start out by saying that I loathe the precautionary principle to the depths of my soul.

Originally Posted by intention

1) A threat of serious or irreversible damage.

So who gets to decide what is serious? And isn't almost everything irreversible when it comes to the ecology of 'natural' systems.

Let's look at the example of controlled burns in forests. If we don't burn there is a very serious risk of open forests reverting to the pre-Indian closed forest system, and that change will then become irreversible. But if we do burn there is a serious risk that the burn cause unintentional damage which is, of course, irreversible.

And this is one of the biggest reasons why the precautionary principle is a crock. It sounds fine while sitting at a desk but in the real world it can be used to justify any course of action in any siutuation, and usually is. When we are delaing with natural systems all management decisions are ireversible since we can not bring back to life even one single dead anaimal or plant or replace a single gram of leaf litter. And all risks are serious. Yet the precautionary principle never bothers to say what level of risk it should be applied to.

A lack of full scientific certainty (in other words, the existence of partial but not conclusive scientific evidence).

The problem is that there is some scientific evidence for almost any position and as a result this criterion is totally superfluous. When people get publioshe din credible science journals advocating intelligent design and that that germs don't cause disease you can imnagine that in an inherently fuzzy field like ecology all positions can be supported by at least some evidence.

So there is no point stipulatiung partial scientific evidence. All positions have partial scientific evidence.

The availability of cost-effective measures.

Once again no attempt is made to define what is cost effective or who decides cost effectiveness. What exactly is the cost of the extinction of every brown bear in the US? The cost is either negligible or infinitely high. And that applies to almost every situation. Whatis the cost of the loss of a thousand hecatres of forest to fire? IS it just the economic cost of the lumber? Is it the cost of the environmental services of that forest area? And what about the converse? What is the cost of not burning that patch of forest? Is it higher or lower?

The problem with the precautionary principle is that it has no practical boundaries or qualifiers whatsoever. I have far too often seen people make cases for diametically opposing positions usingthe precuationary principle on both sides. And because that can always be done the precautionary principle is worthless. The only vlaue is that it allows people with weak scientifica and economic cases to try to bolster them with some sort of guiding principle thatis itelf without foundation.

On the other side of the equation, a good example of when we might use the PP involves local extinction. We have fairly good scientific understanding that removing a top predator from a local ecosystem badly screws things up. If you kill the mountain lions, the deer population skyrockets, then the plants are overgrazed, then the ground erodes, insect populations are unbalanced, and so on down the line.

That's neat. But in the real world every action has a reaction, and failure to take action is an action in itself.

What is the effect of not removing the mountain lions? There must be an efect. Deer for example are important as browsers in mitigating fires in woodlands. And mountain lions are predators on endagered species as well as common deer. And they also prey on livestock and reduce the ability of landholders to manage their land for environmental services. Now I can make a case using the precautionary principle that we should remove the mounatin lions.

So how much value is the precautionary principle in the real world? It seems like it is of no value at all. Both of us can produce arguments with some scientific evidence that irreversible results will pertain to our suggested courses of action. Yet you are proposing conserving the mountain lions and I am proposing extermination.

The precautionary principle is worthless because in any case such as this either side can use it to provide support for their position.

So, if we are looking at a novel ecosystem that has not been scientifically studied, we do not have full scientific certainty that removing the top predator will actually cause serious or irreversible damage to the ecosystem. However, if there is a cost-effective method to avoid removing the top predator, the PP says that we should do so.

No, it doesn't.

If we are looking at a novel ecosystem that has not been scientifically studied, we do not have full scientific certainty that failure to remove the top predator will actually cause serious or irreversible damage to the ecosystem. However, if there is a cost-effective method to remove the top predator, the PP says that we should do so.

This is the point that you have repreatedly overlooked: failure to take action is still an action. The fact that all ecosystems on continents and major islands were extensively managed and modified by indigenous populations prior to recent disruption by western culture makes the proposition all the more ludicrous. Any acton or inaction we decide on is equally an action and can be validly ajudged by the precautionary principle. That means that we can make as good an argument that we should remove the ptop predators as that we should not.

It fulfils the three requirements of the PP -- there is a threat of serious damage, we have partial scientific certainty, and a cost-effective solution exists, so we should act.

But failure to remove the top predator also presents a threat of serious damage, we have partial scientific certainty, and a cost-effective solution exists. So does that mean we should act to remove the predators.

The fact that we can argue diametrically opposing positions using the precautionary principle shows just how worthless it is.

[intention]

Kimstu, thank you for your contribution. You say:

Originally Posted by Kimstu

Right, but reducing global temperature is not the purpose of the Kyoto Protocol. As far as we can tell, we are already committed to enduring whatever global temperature rise our current elevated CO2 levels may cause. There's no possible emissions-reduction program that could turn the clock back on previous emissions and return us to pre-industrial CO2 levels and temperatures.

Its purpose is to start the reduction of carbon emissions so that we can reduce the risk of catastrophically increasing global temperatures in the future by massively increasing CO2 concentrations. The whole point of Kyoto is not to eliminate whatever climate problems we may already have caused---that can't be done*---but to start putting the brakes on our current headlong gallop toward much more serious problems.

The Kyoto Protocol is not a temperature reduction program. I think this misunderstanding is at the root of the widespread (and, in the case of climate change deniers, carefully fostered) concern over the Protocol's usefulness.

Paragraphs 1 and 3 say that reducing current temperatures is not the purpose of Kyoto. I never said it was, nor have I heard anyone else claim that, so perhaps you could provide a cite for the "misunderstanding" that you say is "carefully fostered".

Paragraph 2 says that reducing the risk of future increases in temperature is the purpose of Kyoto.

But it won't do that in a measurable way, even if it were to succeed, and there appears to be no chance of it succeeding. The future reduction in the projected temperature increase due to Kyoto is estimated to be ~0.07°C, too small to measure. And that's only if everyone achieved the reductions, which there is no sign of their doing.

Finally, you say:

Originally Posted by Kimstu

I don't think it's a question of "advocating". I'm just pointing out that there is nothing in the early formulations of the precautionary principle that mandates taking cost-effectiveness into account. You claimed that cost-effectiveness is by definition a key part of the PP, and I argue that you're wrong.

Certainly the OP quote of the PP from 1992, although not the earliest (as you point out), is an early and very important formulation of the PP. It is the only definition directly quoted in the European Union document adopting the PP, COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION on the precautionary principle. Also, it is the definition from the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, so it is clearly relevant to Kyoto. By that definition, cost-effectiveness is a key part.

However, a more interesting question is not whether cost-effectiveness is a part of a given definition of the PP or not, but whether it should be a part of the definition

I agree that you were not advocating whether it should be a part of the PP or not ... me, I think it has to be, or the PP becomes meaningless. So, despite the fact that you were not "advocating" anything in your previous post, do you think it should be part of the PP, as the UN Climate Change folks obviously think, or do you think cost-effectiveness should not be a part of the PP?

w.

PS - my main reason for posting this thread had nothing to do with either Kyoto or cost effectiveness, and I don't want to see the thread hijacked (by myself or anyone) into a discussion of Kyoto. The reason for posting the thread was that I see far too many definitions of the PP that are along the lines of this sad example:

"Better safe than sorry" attitude. The idea that, in the face of uncertainty, society should assume that potential problems are real and address them accordingly

SOURCE

BZZZZT! This idea, that the precautionary principle means "better safe than sorry", or that society should assume that all potential problems are real, is a tragic joke ... in my opinion, anyone who thinks all potential problems are real needs professional help dealing with reality, but clearly there are people out there who think that's what the PP means.

That's the ignorance I was fighting.

[Kimstu]

Originally Posted by intention

Paragraphs 1 and 3 say that reducing current temperatures is not the purpose of Kyoto. I never said it was

Well, you called it a "temperature reduction program", which sounded to me exactly as though you were saying that its purpose is to reduce temperatures.

You are now clarifying that you meant that Kyoto is intended to reduce the projected increase in future temperatures. Which is somewhat different.

But I think you're still misunderstanding the way the Protocol works. The chief value of Kyoto is not in the direct effect of the emissions reductions that it explicitly mandates (which as you correctly note is nearly zilch), but in its establishment of working prototypes for agreements and mechanisms for how to reduce emissions.

Yes indeed, we definitely, desperately, need emissions reductions agreements much stronger than Kyoto if we're to seriously address the problem of anthropogenic atmospheric forcing. But you've got to start somewhere, and Kyoto is at least a start in figuring out how a real solution would work. It has set in motion the long laborious trial-and-error process for marketizing and regulating the global climate commons.

Kyoto opponents like to complain about its shortcomings, but they don't seem to have any better ideas for solving the problems that it addresses. It is not okay to ignore a problem just because you don't have an ideal solution.

Originally Posted by intention

do you think cost-effectiveness should not be a part of the PP?

I agree that there is a lot of sense in taking cost-effectiveness into account when applying the PP in practical strategies for solving problems. But it isn't what the PP is essentially about, so I see no point in demanding that the definition of the PP should include appeals to cost-effectiveness.


I think the main problem here is that some people, both among advocates and opponents of the PP, are trying to make it into something it isn't: namely, a set of explicit criteria for how to address problems. I really don't think the PP can fulfill that role. It's a principle, not a strategy. It can inform or be part of decision-making about strategies for solving problems, but it doesn't prescribe how to make those decisions. Trying to reformulate it as an explicit decision-making strategy seems to me kind of pointless.

[SentientMeat]

Originally Posted by intention

1) If Kyoto would have a measureable effect, this question would make much more sense ... but since even the Kyoto backers agree that it will make no measurable difference (estimated temperature reduction if everyone signed up and complied, ~0.07°C), I fail to see how it is "cost-effective" at all.

Again, you're thinking rather too linearly, in terms of a slightly higher temperature or not. The point about Dangerous Anthropogenic Interference (DAI) is that climatologists believe you can only push the system so far off equilibrium before rapid and destructive changes occur. Yes, Kyoto is only a gentle press of the brakes, but the point is that there is a metaphorical cliff somewhere up ahead, and we need more time to work out how to stop the car completely before we reach it. Small steps themselves are indeed insignificant, but the small step over the edge is the most significant of all, and we're blindfolded.

2) The overwhelming majority of nations that signed up to Kyoto have not been able to make the cuts required by the Protocol. Thus, in addition to making no difference, it also appears to be impractical ... what is the cost-effectiveness of a project that is costing billions and billions of dollars, which would make no difference if it succeeds, and which shows no sign of success?

Even if they sadly do not reduce to 1990 levels their efforts don't make no difference: They are still applying the brakes to a greater or lesser degree. Even the US has stopped accelerating towards the edge (while, of course, still providing the biggest share of the forward momentum from any country). Again, if Kyoto is "costing billions" (and some countries have achieved or will get very close to 1990 levels with no apparent economic detriment), one must ask what DAI will cost.

PS - The annual CO2 increase is only 2/3 of the figure you quoted ... see Atmospheric CO2 Concentrations

Beg pardon: 2.6 ppm per year, or 86% of my quoted figure. But this annual increase is accelerating, thus perhaps getting us to undeniably dangerous levels in mere decades rather than the end of the century.

If the probability of some situation costing a vast amount of money and lives were extremely unlikely, I'd agree that the PP would be unnecessary scaredy-cattery. But the probability approaches certainty the higher the CO2 concentration rises. Kyoto merely makes it rise slower. We'll still ultimately have to stop to avoid passing the limit.

[SentientMeat]

And, incidentally, if we are to throw out the Precautionary Principle regarding increasing emissions and hope that our climate won't be unduly affected, why not throw it out regarding the consequences of reducing emissions and hope that our economies won't be unduly affected, too?

[intention]

SentientMeat, thank you for your thoughts.

Your point seems to be that it's better to do something than nothing ... however, this is hardly a general rule of life. In some cases, it's far better to do nothing than something.

In particular, this is true when the "something" has no measurable effect but is horrendously expensive. The reason that the projected reduction in temperature from Kyoto is so small is because the projected reduction in emissions is so small.

So to use your example, if we are going towards the cliff in a car, Kyoto is not like gently pressing on the brakes to slow us down. That would have a measureable effect, but Kyoto doesn't have any measureable effect at all. Kyoto is like putting your hand out the car window and claiming the air pressure will slow us down, while madly throwing money out the window with the other hand. Neither course of action makes much sense. I'm all for doing something about problems in the world ... but Kyoto is doing nothing. It is a feel-good measure that allows people to believe they are actually doing something about the problem.

Let me state again that, according the the UNFCCC, which of course was the founding father of the Rio Convention and then of Kyoto, the PP requires cost-effective solutions. You certainly may take another definition if you like ... but you can hardly fault me for applying to Kyoto the definition proposed by the people who brought us Kyoto.

w.

PS - you are right that last year, with much fanfare, the increase in CO2 was announced (as in your link) to be 2.6 ppm. This was taken as verification of something or other ... however, the year before, there was only a 1.5 ppm increase, there was no fanfare, and nobody said anything about what that verified.

Nor does your claim that we are "shooting up at 3 ppm per year" agree with the previous year's 1.5 ppm increase, or the increase over the last decade for that matter. Over the last ten years, the average has been slightly below 2 ppm per year, which is why I said "2/3" of your figure of 3 ppm.

[SentientMeat]

Originally Posted by intention

So to use your example, if we are going towards the cliff in a car, Kyoto is not like gently pressing on the brakes to slow us down. That would have a measureable effect, but Kyoto doesn't have any measureable effect at all.

If the emission rates (and, therefore, their increase or decrease) aren't measurable, how do you know some countries will fail to return to 1990 rates?

Kyoto is like putting your hand out the car window and claiming the air pressure will slow us down, while madly throwing money out the window with the other hand.

Almost all industrialised democracies, even the US, have demonstrably slowed down in the last decade. Kyoto is merely a signed promise to slow down to a particular speed (1990 levels).

the PP requires cost-effective solutions. You certainly may take another definition if you like ... but you can hardly fault me for applying to Kyoto the definition proposed by the people who brought us Kyoto.

Yes, and I keep asking: cost-effective compared to what? If, hypothetically, the DAI limit was crossed this century and, say, the Great Ocean Conveyor changed radically, causing trillions of dollars of damage and millions of deaths, the costs of Kyoto (whatever they are, and hey, who cares about such Precaution? It might all work out economically peachy!) would be a drop in a rapidly rising ocean.

PS - you are right that last year, with much fanfare, the increase in CO2 was announced (as in your link) to be 2.6 ppm. This was taken as verification of something or other ... however, the year before, there was only a 1.5 ppm increase, there was no fanfare, and nobody said anything about what that verified.

Nor does your claim that we are "shooting up at 3 ppm per year" agree with the previous year's 1.5 ppm increase, or the increase over the last decade for that matter. Over the last ten years, the average has been slightly below 2 ppm per year, which is why I said "2/3" of your figure of 3 ppm.

Read the article again: it's an average over several years in which the skeing effects of an enormous El Nino (which ramps up the increase one year but retards the increase in the next few) must be accounted for. In any case, even a 2 ppm rise per year (and it's not - it's 2.6 over the last four) would put us above 570 ppm this century.

[intention]

Originally Posted by SentientMeat

Read the article again: it's an average over several years in which the skeing effects of an enormous El Nino (which ramps up the increase one year but retards the increase in the next few) must be accounted for. In any case, even a 2 ppm rise per year (and it's not - it's 2.6 over the last four) would put us above 570 ppm this century.

I have this ugly habit ... I don't believe articles in the popular press, so I go to the data itself. Your article refers to NOAA data. According to NOAA , the CO2 increases for the last few years have been:

1990 1.31
1991 0.99
1992 0.45
1993 1.31
1994 1.89
1995 2.01
1996 1.19
1997 1.98
1998 2.95
1999 0.91
2000 1.78
2001 1.60
2002 2.55
2003 2.31
2004 1.54
2005 2.53

There are a few things worth noting in this data:

1. The article lied, it wasn't 2.6 ppm, it was 2.5 ppm. Typical media exaggeration

2. Your claim that the average increase over the last four years is 2.6 is either a sad commentary on the exaggeration typical of global warming proponents, or a sad commentary on your math ability ... the actual average over the last four years is 2.2 ppm. Since not one of the last four years has been above 2.55, you'll be very hard pressed to average 2.6.

3. Read the article again? Dude, you read it again, they do not report an average as you blithely claim, it is a one year increase.

4. If the El Nino "ramps up the increase one year but retards the increase in the next few", there is no need to adjust for it in an average, it's already done that ... and in any case, the El Nino was in 1998, so it can't affect your four year average.

5. Yes, if we increase 2 ppm per year for 100 years, we will break 570 ... but this kind of extension of a series, by taking a lineal trend and extending into the future, is well known as a trap for the foolish. Mark Twain's comment on this type of idiocy is relevant here:

In the space of one hundred and seventy six years the Lower Mississippi has shortened itself two hundred and forty-two miles. That is an average of a trifle over a mile and a third per year. Therefore, any calm person, who is not blind or idiotic, can see that in the Old Oölitic Silurian Period, just a million years ago next November, the Lower Mississippi was upwards of one million three hundred thousand miles long, and stuck out over the Gulf of Mexico like a fishing-pole. And by the same token any person can see that seven hundred and forty-two years from now the Lower Mississippi will be only a mile and three-quarters long, and Cairo [Illinois] and New Orleans will have joined their streets together and be plodding comfortably along under a single mayor and a mutual board of aldermen. There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact.

[David Simmons]

Originally Posted by SentientMeat

Well, that depends. No climatologist I know of considers a CO2 concentration of more than, say, 650 parts per million (ppm) to be anything other than extremely dangerous. The overwhelming majority consider around 500 ppm as the absolute limit.

Question. What is the presumed effect of going over the 500 ppm figure? Is it a sudden jump in average temperature of say 2^o instead of one? Or is it something like the onset of a runaway greenhouse effect?

If it is the latter then the use of "cost effective" is falacious. Cost effective is meaningful only if the difference between action and no action is manageable. When the result of no action is worldwide disaster, such as a trigger leading to runaway greenhouse effect over 500 ppm or so, then cost effective goes out the window.

Since we don't have a gilt-edged, iron-bound guarantee from the scientific community as to either the limiting CO₂ figure or the exact effect expected, it becomes a matter of probability. At what odds we willing to gamble that at some CO₂ level the temperature will not rise as a step function to 500 C?

[jshore]

intention: Your attitude on the Kyoto Protocol completely ignores how markets work and how technology gets developed and implemented. The purpose of the Kyoto Protocol is certainly not primarily to hold emissions down for a 4-year period and thus reduce the warming because of that. Hell, if we totally stopped emitting CO2 for 4 years and then went back to emitting at the previous levels, we would have only delayed warming by 4 years. So, when you throw around this 0.07 C figure, would you kindly tell us exactly how that was calculated?

At any rate, the purpose of the protocol, besides those that Kimstu and Sentient Meat mentioned, is to put a cost on CO2 emissions so that the technologies to reduce or sequester those emissions get developed. Some people say we don't yet have the technologies to drastically reduce emissions as if magically in the future those technologies will appear if we just continue on our merry ways. That is not how the world works. When you let everyone use the atmosphere as a free sewer, there is absolutely no market mechanism in place that pushes people to develop and implement such technologies. The only thing motivating them would be altruism.

If you don't believe in market economics, then I would agree that Kyoto might not make that much sense. However, if you do believe in market economics and understand how it works, then Kyoto (or some similar mechanism to effectively put a cost on emissions) does make sense.

And, by the way, there has been some more rigorous attempts to look at the economic issue of how to deal with climate change. The one that I am most familiar with is this article in Science: "To Hedge or Not Against an Uncertain Climate Future". It concludes:

Implementing modest mitigation over the near term minimizes the expected cost of selecting equally likely temperature targets in 2035 across a recently calibrated probability distribution for climate sensitivity that extends up to 9ºC. Hedging effectively "buys insurance" against future adjustment costs and is extremely robust across most possible futures, especially when compared with a wait-and-see strategy that would eschew mitigation over the first third of this century.

[Kimstu]

Originally Posted by intention

Yes, if we increase 2 ppm per year for 100 years, we will break 570 ... but this kind of extension of a series, by taking a lineal trend and extending into the future, is well known as a trap for the foolish. Mark Twain's comment on this type of idiocy is relevant here:

"In the space of one hundred and seventy six years the Lower Mississippi has shortened itself two hundred and forty-two miles. That is an average of a trifle over a mile and a third per year. Therefore, any calm person, who is not blind or idiotic, can see that in the Old Oölitic Silurian Period, just a million years ago next November, the Lower Mississippi was upwards of one million three hundred thousand miles long [...]"

It's certainly foolish to extend lineal trends unreasonably far into the future, completely ignoring the appropriate timescales and producing meaningless results. That's exactly why Twain's joke is funny: because he's facetiously trying to extrapolate a comparatively short-term local phenomenon to a timescale of a million years, so of course the answers he gets are ridiculous.

However, it is not foolish at all to extrapolate lineal trends along an appropriate timescale where they can reasonably be expected to persist. If Twain had suggested instead that ten years earlier the Lower Mississippi was about thirteen miles shorter, it wouldn't have been funny, precisely because it would have been realistically plausible.

Similarly, there is nothing ludicrous about suggesting that humans look likely to go on increasing atmospheric CO2 concentrations by an average of about 2 ppm per year for the next hundred years. The graph of long-term CO2 measurements that is linked to the NOAA page you linked to shows that between about 1960 and about 2005, CO2 concentrations have increased from under 320 ppm to over 380 ppm.

That's an increase of over 60 ppm in the most recent 45 years. So it doesn't seem at all absurd to suggest that we might well add another 190ppm over the coming 100 years, if we don't make some major efforts to prevent it.

Certainly, that might not happen, because we might change our carbon-pumping habits. But as jshore pointed out, changing our habits doesn't magically just happen. We have to establish regulations and market mechanisms that will provide incentives for our habits to change.

[SentientMeat]

intention, thanks for setting me straight - you're quite right, I should have said an average of at least 2.3 ppm in three of the last four years. From now on, I won't claim we're shooting up at 3 ppm per year, but shooting up at 2.5 ppm per year.

But that is still terrifyingly fast given the cliff somewhere up ahead:

Yes, if we increase 2 ppm per year for 100 years, we will break 570 ... but this kind of extension of a series, by taking a lineal trend and extending into the future, is well known as a trap for the foolish.

That would be so if climatologists were not telling us that, far from there being some mysterious mechanism which somehow absorbs more CO2 the more we pump it into the atmoshpere, the bioshpere actually gets gradually worse at absorbing CO2 the higher we go in concentraion, ie. that if we keep burning fossil fuels at the same rate, the actual atmospheric concentration will increase by more than the current 2-ish ppm per year, every year. The next few years' data might give a strong indication of this, and we're due another El Nino very soon. An annual increase over 3 ppm will be very serious cause for concern indeed, agreed?

Originally Posted by David

Question. What is the presumed effect of going over the 500 ppm figure? Is it a sudden jump in average temperature of say 2o instead of one? Or is it something like the onset of a runaway greenhouse effect?

Rapid climate change, in which the Ocean Conveyor is severly disprupted causing enormous local changes, has happened regularly in the Earth's history. This article on Dangerous Anthropogenic Interference is a good start.

[intention]

Originally Posted by jshore

intention:
...

And, by the way, there has been some more rigorous attempts to look at the economic issue of how to deal with climate change. The one that I am most familiar with is this article in Science: "To Hedge or Not Against an Uncertain Climate Future". It concludes:

I note that they didn't recommend Kyoto ... hardly an accidental oversight.

w.

[intention]

Originally Posted by SentientMeat

intention, thanks for setting me straight - you're quite right, I should have said an average of at least 2.3 ppm in three of the last four years. From now on, I won't claim we're shooting up at 3 ppm per year, but shooting up at 2.5 ppm per year.

But that is still terrifyingly fast given the cliff somewhere up ahead:
That would be so if climatologists were not telling us that, far from there being some mysterious mechanism which somehow absorbs more CO2 the more we pump it into the atmoshpere, the bioshpere actually gets gradually worse at absorbing CO2 the higher we go in concentraion, ie. that if we keep burning fossil fuels at the same rate, the actual atmospheric concentration will increase by more than the current 2-ish ppm per year, every year. The next few years' data might give a strong indication of this, and we're due another El Nino very soon. An annual increase over 3 ppm will be very serious cause for concern indeed, agreed?

Rapid climate change, in which the Ocean Conveyor is severly disprupted causing enormous local changes, has happened regularly in the Earth's history. This article on Dangerous Anthropogenic Interference is a good start.

1) To date, the biosphere has shown no sign of getting worse at absorbing CO2. Yes, there are folks out there who say it could, or it might, get worse ... but not yet, there's nothing in the record that supports your fear.

2) Citing Wikipedia on the SDMB? Puh-lease ...

3) Jim Hansen has been saying that the sky is falling for the last twenty years ... but we haven't seen anything happen. In fact, despite claims of mass extinctions, and sea level rises, and all of the rest, the rise in temperature since the Little Ice Age has not produced a single calamity of the type you guys are always hollering about.

He has also pushed some very, very shonky results, like his recent claim of a "smoking gun" regarding ocean warming. Yes, his results were a good match to the 1995-2005 period ... but they were a terrible match to the 1955-1995 period, and somehow he forgot to mention that in his paper ... likely just an oversight ... see my analysis for details of his chicanery.

4) The climate is always changing, either cooling or warming. Given a choice, I take warming any day, it causes much less damage.

5) The level of CO2 in the atmosphere can be modelled very accurately by assuming that a certain percentage of the atmospheric CO2 increase is sequestered each year. This means, of course, that if we continue to emit CO2 at the current rate, the atmospheric concentration will level off, and not rise indefinitely as you naively assume. If we continue emitting at the current rate, all indications are that it will level off at about 480 ppm ...

6) All of your claims assume that CO2 is the cause of the recent temperature rise, which is by no means proven. There is no "consensus" on the question, as you claim. In a study, a quarter! of the climatologists polled said they didn't think the CO2 case had been proven ... see the study for details.

7) Certainly CO2 is not the cause of the temperature rise from 1700 to 1945 ... and then you have to explain the falling temperature from 1945 to 1980. It's not from aerosols as some claim, because aerosols don't venture far from where they were emitted, and the overwhelming majority of them are emitted in the northern hemisphere ... which hasn't cooled more than the southern hemisphere, as the northern would have to if aerosols were the answer.

This leaves only the last twenty years or so ... but if CO2 didn't make the temperature rise from 1700-1980, what makes you think it is responsible for the subsequent rise?

7) The computer models are a joke, many of them give results that have never been seen on earth. The IPCC has made no effort to distinguish the terrible from the merely inaccurate, it just accepts them all ... I wouldn't bet 50 cents on the model forecasts, much less billions of dollars, without rigorous testing ... which has never happened. The model makers just crank them out, and all of their results are given equal weight ... perhaps you think that's a good plan, to bet billions on untested computer models ... if so, perhaps you could explain your reasoning.

So, you can go on and on about the costs of rising CO2 ... but temperatures have been rising for three centuries without visible bad effects, so you have a lot to prove before you can say that your fears are realistic. Three centuries of rising temperatures, no catastrophes, and now you say a bit more temperature rise will cost trillions of dollars?

I don't think so ...

Now, unlike the future temperature, and whether it will actually cost us money, we know for a fact that Kyoto will cost us billions of dollars. Spending billions of dollars to make a meaningless dent in a hypothetical problem strikes me as foolish ... but of course, YMMV ...

w.

[Kimstu]

Originally Posted by intention

6) All of your claims assume that CO2 is the cause of the recent temperature rise, which is by no means proven. There is no "consensus" on the question, as you claim. In a study, a quarter! of the climatologists polled said they didn't think the CO2 case had been proven ... see the study for details.

Your cite doesn't actually support your position on the issue of whether or not we should spend money to address anthropogenic climate change.

Yes, scientists disagree about whether it's been proven that human-caused CO2 increases are responsible for climate forcing; "proven" is a very strong term in science, and there are still lots of uncertainties in the models and the data.

However, as you'll see from a graph on page 15 of the study you linked to, when the 400-odd climate scientists it surveyed were asked to evaluate the statement "There is enough uncertainty about the phenomenon of global warming that there is NO need for immediate policy decisions", an overwhelming majority of them disagreed with it. On a scale of 1 for "strongly agree" to 7 for "strongly disagree", over half of all the scientists polled gave an answer of 5 or higher. And only in one sample of a mere 35 scientists was there even ONE answer that was lower than the neutral value of 4.

So yes, according to your study, there is indeed an overwhelming consensus among climate scientists that even though there are still some uncertainties in the anthropogenic-climate-change hypothesis, there is definitely enough certainty to justify doing something about it, policy-wise.

[SentientMeat]

Originally Posted by intention

1) To date, the biosphere has shown no sign of getting worse at absorbing CO2. Yes, there are folks out there who say it could, or it might, get worse ... but not yet, there's nothing in the record that supports your fear.

Yes, but who says it will get better, exactly? I’m telling you that the overwhelming consensus is that it will get worse, and DAI is inevitable even if it stays the same.

2) Citing Wikipedia on the SDMB? Puh-lease ...

Well, I didn’t see anything particularly inaccurate in that article, but OK: The ocean conveyor from the UN Environment Program. This is basic science – you could find it in Britannica or any respected university resources.

3) Jim Hansen has been saying that the sky is falling for the last twenty years ... but we haven't seen anything happen.

Apart from clearly accelerated ice-cap/glacier melting and the huge forcing off equilibrium for greenhouse gases I keep going on about. I can only tell you what every climatologist in the world says: that, somewhere, there is a limit to what we can do to the atmosphere without serious negative consequences. Your attitude is one of “Well, we haven’t seen the cliff yet, so let’s keep driving!”.

4) The climate is always changing, either cooling or warming. Given a choice, I take warming any day, it causes much less damage.

Then Venus must seem like a paradise.

5) The level of CO2 in the atmosphere can be modelled very accurately by assuming that a certain percentage of the atmospheric CO2 increase is sequestered each year. This means, of course, that if we continue to emit CO2 at the current rate, the atmospheric concentration will level off, and not rise indefinitely as you naively assume. If we continue emitting at the current rate, all indications are that it will level off at about 480 ppm ...

What? I highlight this because it is by far the most outlandish claim you have made so far. Yes, some is sequestered, but at the current rate most isn’t, hence the >2 ppm increase per year. Yes, it could level off in the way you’re suggesting if we stopped emitting completely. What is this magic natural mechanism which suddenly kicks in and starts collecting all the CO2 we emit into neat little sequestered packages only above a certain concentration?

6) All of your claims assume that CO2 is the cause of the recent temperature rise, which is by no means proven.

But all climatologists think that, say, 600 ppm is dangerous. (The vast majority think 500 ppm is, too).

Certainly CO2 is not the cause of the temperature rise from 1700 to 1945

Of course – the concentration then was near the 280 ppm it had been for millennia.

then you have to explain the falling temperature from 1945 to 1980.

Again, even by 1960 the concentration was only 300 ppm, still no big deal, and the time lag between releasing greenhouse gases and their effect on temperature would mean that only by around 1980 would the warming effect be noticeable. It’s the enormous gas increase after 1980 which is the current worry.

if CO2 didn't make the temperature rise from 1700-1980, what makes you think it is responsible for the subsequent rise?

Because there’s vastly more of it than before 1980.

7) The computer models are a joke

I certainly hope so – I really do. Because our grandchildren certainly won’t be laughing if they’re not.

we know for a fact that Kyoto will cost us billions of dollars.

Funny, my skepticism says “ Don’t worry, it’ll be economically OK!”

[jshore]

Originally Posted by intention

1) To date, the biosphere has shown no sign of getting worse at absorbing CO2. Yes, there are folks out there who say it could, or it might, get Sworse ... but not yet, there's nothing in the record that supports your fear.

Actually, a skeptic on AGW recently pointed me to this article, which suggests there is some evidence that this may be starting to happen.

3) Jim Hansen has been saying that the sky is falling for the last twenty years ... but we haven't seen anything happen. In fact, despite claims of mass extinctions, and sea level rises, and all of the rest, the rise in temperature since the Little Ice Age has not produced a single calamity of the type you guys are always hollering about.

Can you please give a cite for anything that Hansen has claimed would happen by 2006 that hasn't occurred?

5) The level of CO2 in the atmosphere can be modelled very accurately by assuming that a certain percentage of the atmospheric CO2 increase is sequestered each year. This means, of course, that if we continue to emit CO2 at the current rate, the atmospheric concentration will level off, and not rise indefinitely as you naively assume. If we continue emitting at the current rate, all indications are that it will level off at about 480 ppm ...

Again, can you give me some cite that shows any evidence to support this claim which is at odds with all the scientific literature that I am aware of.

6) All of your claims assume that CO2 is the cause of the recent temperature rise, which is by no means proven. There is no "consensus" on the question, as you claim. In a study, a quarter! of the climatologists polled said they didn't think the CO2 case had been proven ... see the study for details.

In addition to what kimstu noted is the fact that that survey is now 10 years old. At the time, only the second assessment of the IPCC was out, which itself had a considerably weaker statement regarding the attribution of the warming observed so far compared to the third assessment. (And, the fourth assessment will no doubt have a stronger statement still.)

7) The computer models are a joke, many of them give results that have never been seen on earth. The IPCC has made no effort to distinguish the terrible from the merely inaccurate, it just accepts them all ... I wouldn't bet 50 cents on the model forecasts, much less billions of dollars, without rigorous testing ... which has never happened. The model makers just crank them out, and all of their results are given equal weight ... perhaps you think that's a good plan, to bet billions on untested computer models ... if so, perhaps you could explain your reasoning.

There has been plenty of testing of the models. As but one recent example, last year there was a paper in Science that tested how well the models are handling water vapor high in the atmosphere...which is important because the water vapor feedback is one of the principle ones predicted to magnify the warming...and the data was very compatible with the models and completely incompatible with the models when the models were instead run while forcing the water vapor to remain constant.

Furthermore, the basic physics is well-understood; the point of the models is basically to work out the details...like the feedback effects and such. Furthermore, one can obtain independent estimates of climate sensitivity from other methods, such as looking at the ice age - interglacial oscillations.

So, you can go on and on about the costs of rising CO2 ... but temperatures have been rising for three centuries without visible bad effects, so you have a lot to prove before you can say that your fears are realistic. Three centuries of rising temperatures, no catastrophes, and now you say a bit more temperature rise will cost trillions of dollars?

It is not "a bit more". And, in fact, from the historical record we know things like the fact that the ice sheets seem very sensitive to temperature. In fact, climate change has done in many species in the past; we are in the fortunate situation of being able to foresee and head off a potential danger...if we are not so wedded to our current ways that we are unwilling to make any changes.

[jshore]

And, in regards to the current thinking on the warming, just this week the U.S. Climate Change Science Program formed by Pres. Bush in 2002 released the first of its assessments which concluded:

that research to detect climate change and attribute its causes using patterns of observed temperature change in space and time shows clear evidence of human influences on the climate system due to changes in greenhouse gases, aerosols, and stratospheric ozone. Also, the observed patterns of change over the past 50 years cannot be explained by natural processes alone, nor by the effects of short-lived atmospheric constituents such as aerosols and tropospheric ozone alone.

Chief Editor Dr. Thomas Karl, director of NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center said: "Discrepancies between the data sets and the models have been reduced and our understanding of observed climate changes and their causes have increased. The evidence continues to support a substantial human impact on global temperature increases. This should constitute a valuable source of information to policymakers.”

[jshore]

Originally Posted by intention

I note that they didn't recommend Kyoto ... hardly an accidental oversight.

w.

What they look at is putting a modest tax on CO2 emissions, which Kyoto or the McCain-Climate Stewardship Bill effectively does. I wouldn't expect an article in Science to specifically advocate or not advocate for a specific international agreement.

[intention]

Originally Posted by SentientMeat

But all climatologists think that, say, 600 ppm is dangerous.

Sentient, I surrender. I can't do it. Anyone who thinks that ...

1) Every climatologist in the world has said that 600 ppm is dangerous, and

2) Those climatologists have revealed themselves to SM, but no one else, and

3) There is some kind of "consensus" among climate scientists (just last week 60 climate scientists petitioned the Canadian Government saying that Kyoto was a mistake, no consensus there) ...

... clearly is on another planet than the one I inhabit. Being ill versed in interplanetary communication, I surrender.

SM, the reason that the climate debate continues is that THERE IS NO CONSENSUS! If there were, the scientific debate would have ended long ago.

Consider, for example, the flat-earthers. Although there are folks out there who seriously think the earth is flat, there is no scientific debate on the question. Why? Because in the flat-earth case, a scientific consensus truly exists.

The climate system, on the other hand, is a chaotic, multi-stable, driven, optimally-turbulent constructal tera-watt scale heat engine with dozens of known and unknown forcings and feedbacks. It has five main subsystems (atmosphere, lithosphere, ocean, cryosphere, and biosphere), none of which are well understood.

New forcings and feedbacks are discovered on a monthly basis. Recently, it was discovered that trees emit the strongest common greenhouse gas, methane. Who knew? What effect does this have on the climate? No one knows. Recently, it was discovered that plankton can affect cloud formation ... who knew? What effect, etc.? Recently, it was discovered that there are orders of magnitude more natural plant-generated aerosols than previously thought. Who knew? What effect does it have?

To claim, as you do, that there is some "consensus" about these and the rest of the climate questions is nonsense. And to claim that there is a "consensus" in our scientific understanding about, not simply how the system works, but the future state of that system, is the height of hubris.

I started this thread to discuss the Precautionary Principle (PP). The version of the PP espoused by the branch of the UN most responsible for Kyoto says that if a cost-effective solution to a serious problem exists, lack of scientific certainty should not be an excuse for not acting. Far from having certainty, we have no agreement at all, neither about the science or about the cost effectiveness. You think Kyoto is cost effective, and perhaps on your planet it is.

On this planet, on the other had, many countries are complaining about the costs already, and we're less than a year into the game. Canada is considering bailing because of the costs, as is Italy. So on this planet, the people paying the bills are saying it isn't cost effective ... I'll leave it at that.

A couple of final points. I said

Originally Posted by Willis

5) The level of CO2 in the atmosphere can be modelled very accurately by assuming that a certain percentage of the atmospheric CO2 increase is sequestered each year. This means, of course, that if we continue to emit CO2 at the current rate, the atmospheric concentration will level off, and not rise indefinitely as you naively assume. If we continue emitting at the current rate, all indications are that it will level off at about 480 ppm ...

You replied:

Originally Posted by SentientMeat

What? I highlight this because it is by far the most outlandish claim you have made so far. Yes, some is sequestered, but at the current rate most isn’t, hence the >2 ppm increase per year. Yes, it could level off in the way you’re suggesting if we stopped emitting completely. What is this magic natural mechanism which suddenly kicks in and starts collecting all the CO2 we emit into neat little sequestered packages only above a certain concentration?

OK, let's go back to basics. For any additional increase to a system at equilibrium, the system will generally return to equilibrium in a manner known as "exponential decay". This means that when the disturbance is large, the restoring force is large, and vice versa. In chemistry this characteristic return to equilibrium is known as "Le Chatelier's Principle".

With the atmosphere, consider what would happen to a single pulse of CO2 emitted into the atmosphere. The first year, a certain amount of the excess would be sequestered. With each following year, less and less would be sequestered, until equilibrium was restored. The process can be modeled as C(t1) = X C(t0), where C is the CO2 level, X is some number from 0 to 1, t1 is a given year, and t0 is the previous year. The meaning of this is that the amount of excess atmospheric CO2 will reduce by a fraction (1-X) per year. Exponential decay is the name for this.

It is certainly not necessary to take my word for this. The relevant data is all available from CDIAC, which is the amount of annual emissions and the annual CO2 content. Right now, slightly less than half of the emissions are sequestered.

If emissions stay the same, CO2 in the air will rise. As it rises, more CO2 (in tonnes, not percentage) will be sequestered, until the tonnage sequestered will equal the amount emitted. Please go and do the math, and report back what you find.

If you don't understand this ... I'm not surprised. Go to the CDIAC, get the data, take a look, do the math. I'm not making this up, it's basic atmospheric science. A google search for ("exponential decay" atmospheric CO2), for example, brings up 25,000 hits, so your What? is just revealing your utter lack of knowledge of the subject.

Also, someone asked about the calculations of the effect of Kyoto. These were made by a believer in anthropogenic global warming, and the calculations (shown in Wigley, T.M.L., 1998. Geophys. Res. Lett., 25, 2285-2288) reveal that it is ludicrously small.

Lastly, jshore commented about Kyoto that "I wouldn't expect an article in Science to specifically advocate or not advocate for a specific international agreement."

Well, I wouldn't either, which shows how far Science magazine has fallen. See, for example,

Science 14 June 2002:
Vol. 296. no. 5575, pp. 1971 - 1972
DOI: 10.1126/science.1071238
CLIMATE CHANGE : Dangerous Climate Impacts and the Kyoto Protocol

for one of many, many articles espousing the protocol ... which is why I pointed out that the cited article did not espouse the protocol. Instead, it suggested a much lower-cost solution, bearing out my claim that Kyoto is not cost effective, at least on my planet ... but as always, YPMV ...

w.

[DMC]

Originally Posted by intention

3) There is some kind of "consensus" among climate scientists (just last week 60 climate scientists petitioned the Canadian Government saying that Kyoto was a mistake, no consensus there) .

Not to put a damper on your point or anything, but many of those 60 are deep in the pockets of Exxon, and some of them are also tied to organizations that get their funding from the Koch brothers and their cohorts. Also, while some of the mouthpieces are indeed climate scientists, I don't think the economists, math professors, energy consultants, physics professors, etc. can really qualified to be called climate scientists (not that the actual climate scientists being paid as mouthpieces are super qualified themselves).

[intention]

Originally Posted by DMC

Not to put a damper on your point or anything, but many of those 60 are deep in the pockets of Exxon, and some of them are also tied to organizations that get their funding from the Koch brothers and their cohorts. Also, while some of the mouthpieces are indeed climate scientists, I don't think the economists, math professors, energy consultants, physics professors, etc. can really qualified to be called climate scientists (not that the actual climate scientists being paid as mouthpieces are super qualified themselves).

I was expecting that ad hominem attack, and DMC, you did not disappoint me. Heck, you even called them "mouthpieces" ... it was perfect, you're too good to be true.

Tell me, DMC. If a scientist is paid by that noted bastion of greenhouse warming true believers, NOAA, is his work suspect?

What about if he's taken money from Greenpeace? Does that automatically make him wrong?

What if the scientists' entire livelihood depends on the "existence" of anthropogenic greenhouse warming? Should we disbelive him because his livelihood is on the line?

I don't care if someone is being paid by the devil himself. Unlike you, I care about only one thing -- if their science is right or wrong. Your ad hominems make me sick to my stomach, it's as bad as saying, "You can't believe him, his skin is black."

Neither the color of a man's skin nor whose name is on his paycheck makes him either right or wrong, and it is the vilest kind of slander to make that claim as you are doing.

If you think one or more of the 60 signers have done bad science, give us a citation to support your insinuation ... otherwise, put a sock in it, because without a scientific basis to your claim, it is prejudice pure and simple.

w.

[SentientMeat]

Originally Posted by intention

Being ill versed in interplanetary communication, I surrender.

Duly accepted. Enjoy Venus.

With the atmosphere, consider what would happen to a single pulse of CO2 emitted into the atmosphere: ... Exponential decay.

Yes, quite right. I didn't deny it. That's why I said that if we stopped emitting entirely, tomorrow, the CO2 concentration would level off at around 480 ppm. But if we keep emitting enormous pusles every day, only part of each of which is sequestered. How else do you explain the rise each year?

As it rises, more CO2 (in tonnes, not percentage) will be sequestered, until the tonnage sequestered will equal the amount emitted.

Cite, please. This is magic, not science.

[jshore]

Originally Posted by intention

Sentient, I surrender. I can't do it. Anyone who thinks that ...

1) Every climatologist in the world has said that 600 ppm is dangerous

intention, consensus does not mean unanimity. This website gives a list of PhD scientists who believe in creationism and not evolution.

3) There is some kind of "consensus" among climate scientists (just last week 60 climate scientists petitioned the Canadian Government saying that Kyoto was a mistake, no consensus there) ...

As others have pointed out, most aren't climate scientists and many are the usual list of suspect. This article discusses just how strong the consensus is within the peer-reviewed scientific literature. While some have argued that her definition of what qualifies agreement or disagreement with the consensus might have been imperfect, noone has demonstrated how this can change things more than from completely overwhelming to very overwhelming.

Consider, for example, the flat-earthers. Although there are folks out there who seriously think the earth is flat, there is no scientific debate on the question. Why? Because in the flat-earth case, a scientific consensus truly exists.

No, the reason is mainly because there are not enough people who have strong economic interests or political or religious beliefs that compel them to believe the earth is flat. As the debate about evolution shows, there can indeed be cases where debate is essentially manufactured.

As for your complaint about ad hominem attacks, I think this complaint would make sense if you were applying it within the peer-reviewed scientific community. I.e., science should be decided on the basis of the science itself (although many journals do require now the disclosure of any competing interests). However, when one has the case where a group of scientists has either essentially lost the battle in the literature (or, in many cases, not or barely even entered into it) and is instead taking their case directly to the public and politicians, it is perfectly legitimate to question their motives, as we already know they haven't been winning the scientific debate.

The climate system, on the other hand, is a chaotic, multi-stable, driven, optimally-turbulent constructal tera-watt scale heat engine with dozens of known and unknown forcings and feedbacks. It has five main subsystems (atmosphere, lithosphere, ocean, cryosphere, and biosphere), none of which are well understood.

It is complex, no doubt. However, we understand enough about it to know that the perturbation that we are putting on it is not a small one. We know roughly how it will behave if things behave fairly linearly...and we know there is the possibility of even more dramatic scenarios.

Far from having certainty, we have no agreement at all, neither about the science or about the cost effectiveness.

Why should we believe your opinion regarding the degree of certainty that exists and whether it justifies taking action when we have the opinion of 11 National Academies of Science? They say:

There will always be uncertainty in understanding a system as complex as the world’s climate. However there is now strong evidence that significant global warming is occurring.

...

The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action. It is vital that all nations identify cost-effective steps that they can take now, to contribute to substantial and long-term reduction in net global greenhouse gas emissions. Action taken now to reduce significantly the build-up of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere will lessen the magnitude and rate of climate change. As the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) recognises, a lack of full scientific certainty about some aspects of climate change is not a reason for delaying an immediate response that will, at a reasonable cost, prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system.

Originally Posted by intention

OK, let's go back to basics. For any additional increase to a system at equilibrium, the system will generally return to equilibrium in a manner known as "exponential decay". This means that when the disturbance is large, the restoring force is large, and vice versa. In chemistry this characteristic return to equilibrium is known as "Le Chatelier's Principle".

First of all, you seem to be assuming that the perturbation itself doesn't increase over time. The amount of CO2 we are emitting has done so. Second of all, this is not any universal law of nature, in fact many of the sinks for CO2 will likely saturate and warming is likely to release new sources of CO2 and methane.

Your supposed scientific hypothesis here in regards to the carbon cycle goes against all...or nearly all...of the peer-reviewed science on the subject.

Also, someone asked about the calculations of the effect of Kyoto. These were made by a believer in anthropogenic global warming, and the calculations (shown in Wigley, T.M.L., 1998. Geophys. Res. Lett., 25, 2285-2288) reveal that it is ludicrously small.

Well, again, what were the assumptions in Wigley's calculation? Unfortunately, I don't have easy access to GRL. However, I can tell you almost for sure that the assumptions were based only on what Kyoto would do to actual CO2 levels in the period 2008-2112 when it regulates them. It did not include the effects on technological development, etc.

for one of many, many articles espousing the protocol ... which is why I pointed out that the cited article did not espouse the protocol. Instead, it suggested a much lower-cost solution, bearing out my claim that Kyoto is not cost effective, at least on my planet ... but as always, YPMV ...

And, your evidence that what it advocated was a much lower-cost solution is what exactly? Since Kyoto has set up a market for trading CO2 emissions credits, I don't see how it could be much more expensive than any other alternative that also effectively puts a tax on greenhouse gas emissions, which is very clearly what they are talking about in that article. What is your proposed alternative?

[jshore]

Originally Posted by intention

Tell me, DMC. If a scientist is paid by that noted bastion of greenhouse warming true believers, NOAA, is his work suspect?

This technique, by the way, is called "poisoning the well". I.e., you are attempting to imply that the trusted scientific sources can't be trusted, so we would do just as well to listen to the scientists who are associated the Cato Institute [Patrick Michaels], the George C. Marshall Fund [Soon and Baliunas], Tech Central Station, the National Center for Policy Analysis, and so forth.

I'm sorry but you can't equate these groups and, for example, NOAA (or the National Academy of Sciences). I don't think one should be listening to either Greenpeace or the George C. Marshall fund on this issue; I think one should be listening to the peer-reviewed scientific community and highly-respected scientific organizations.

[Kimstu]

Originally Posted by intention

The level of CO2 in the atmosphere can be modelled very accurately by assuming that a certain percentage of the atmospheric CO2 increase is sequestered each year. This means, of course, that if we continue to emit CO2 at the current rate, the atmospheric concentration will level off, and not rise indefinitely as you naively assume. If we continue emitting at the current rate, all indications are that it will level off at about 480 ppm [...] If emissions stay the same, CO2 in the air will rise. As it rises, more CO2 (in tonnes, not percentage) will be sequestered, until the tonnage sequestered will equal the amount emitted.

I have to concur with jshore and SentientMeat in thinking that this claim sounds rather Beechnutty. Are you perhaps confusing "total amount of emissions staying the same" (i.e., humans totally stop adding any new CO2 to the atmosphere at all) with "rate of emissions staying the same" (i.e., humans continue to pump CO2 into the atmosphere, but at a constant rate)?

In the former case, as Sentient explained, the system would regain equilibrium in accordance with Le Chatelier's principle. But I don't see what mechanism would produce that effect in the latter case.

Basically, you seem to be saying that no matter how much CO2 we emit into the atmosphere at a constant rate, the atmospheric CO2 level would remain constant indefinitely at 480 ppm. That is, as soon as we'd pumped in enough to bring the concentration up to 480 ppm, all the CO2 we pumped in from that point onward would have no effect whatsoever on the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. How you figure?

Originally Posted by intention

I'm not making this up, it's basic atmospheric science. A google search for ("exponential decay" atmospheric CO2), for example, brings up 25,000 hits [...]

Indeed it does, but I haven't been able to find even one that says what you're saying. (I haven't looked at all 25000, natch.) The first hit is from the CDIAC organization that you're recommending to us as a source, but it isn't saying that atmospheric CO2 will level off to a constant value if we keep our emissions rate constant.

If this hypothesis is such "basic atmospheric science" as you claim, you must surely be able to point us to a cite that specifically and clearly explains how it works. Thanks in advance.

[jshore]

Oh, and, by the way, in response to those 60 scientists who wrote the Canadian government, a group of 90 wrote a counter-letter and they are all actually Canadian scientists and all are apparently working on climate science. And, note that at least one of the original 60 says he was misled in regards to what the content of what he was signing onto was going to be and he is now one of the 90 who signed the counterletter.

[jshore]

Originally Posted by Kimstu

In the former case, as Sentient explained, the system would regain equilibrium in accordance with Le Chatelier's principle. But I don't see what mechanism would produce that effect in the latter case.

Even here, things are more complex, as this RealClimate post explains. I.e., it is not a simple exponential decay but actually has an extremely long tail:

When you release a slug of new CO2 into the atmosphere, dissolution in the ocean gets rid of about three quarters of it, more or less, depending on how much is released. The rest has to await neutralization by reaction with CaCO3 or igneous rocks on land and in the ocean [2-6]. These rock reactions also restore the pH of the ocean from the CO2 acid spike. My model indicates that about 7% of carbon released today will still be in the atmosphere in 100,000 years [7]. I calculate a mean lifetime, from the sum of all the processes, of about 30,000 years. That's a deceptive number, because it is so strongly influenced by the immense longevity of that long tail. If one is forced to simplify reality into a single number for popular discussion, several hundred years is a sensible number to choose, because it tells three-quarters of the story, and the part of the story which applies to our own lifetimes.

However, the long tail is a lot of baby to throw out in the name of bath-time simplicity. Major ice sheets, in particular in Greenland [8], ocean methane clathrate deposits [9], and future evolution of glacial/interglacial cycles [10] might be affected by that long tail. A better shorthand for public discussion might be that CO2 sticks around for hundreds of years, plus 25% that sticks around forever.

The sticking-around-forever idea is not new, and the picture has not changed by very much since the effect was first predicted back in 1992 [2]. You can estimate the magnitude of the effect pretty well just using CO2 thermodynamics and the back of an envelope.

[Kimstu]

Originally Posted by intention

I don't care if someone is being paid by the devil himself. Unlike you, I care about only one thing -- if their science is right or wrong. Your ad hominems make me sick to my stomach, it's as bad as saying, "You can't believe him, his skin is black."

No it isn't. I agree with you that we can't automatically discount the conclusions of researchers funded by industry sponsors. But it is perfectly valid to note that industry sponsorship does sometimes bias research, and to take that into account when considering research results. (And yes, that would apply just as much to pro-AGW results sponsored by, say, manufacturers of wind turbines or solar panels as it does to anti-AGW results sponsored by ExxonMobil.)

It is certainly not comparable to a racist ad hominem attack, and attempting to play the race card in this way just makes your objection look silly.

[DMC]

Originally Posted by intention

I was expecting that ad hominem attack, and DMC, you did not disappoint me. Heck, you even called them "mouthpieces" ... it was perfect, you're too good to be true.

If you were expecting it, then you already knew that they were paid mouthpieces. Not that I find that shocking or anything.

Tell me, DMC. If a scientist is paid by that noted bastion of greenhouse warming true believers, NOAA, is his work suspect?

If the NOAA was almost purely funded by corporations that would benefit greatly from their findings leaning one way or another, sure. It's not, so no.

What about if he's taken money from Greenpeace? Does that automatically make him wrong?

If the volume of money is significant, I'm certainly going to take it into consideration when ascertaining the credibility of his statements.

What if the scientists' entire livelihood depends on the "existence" of anthropogenic greenhouse warming? Should we disbelive him because his livelihood is on the line?

See above.

I don't care if someone is being paid by the devil himself. Unlike you, I care about only one thing -- if their science is right or wrong.

No, you care only if their "science" agrees with you or not.

Your ad hominems make me sick to my stomach, it's as bad as saying, "You can't believe him, his skin is black."

Not unless having black skin takes away from one's credibility. It doesn't in my book, but perhaps your book is different.

Neither the color of a man's skin nor whose name is on his paycheck makes him either right or wrong, and it is the vilest kind of slander to make that claim as you are doing.

I'm starting to think you're one of the mouthpieces. Seriously.

If you think one or more of the 60 signers have done bad science, give us a citation to support your insinuation ... otherwise, put a sock in it, because without a scientific basis to your claim, it is prejudice pure and simple.

Many of them haven't even done any science to refute. That public letter they put out contains such gems as:

Observational evidence does not support today's computer climate models, so there is little reason to trust model predictions of the future.

So the fact that today's results don't match what the models predict will happen in the future, it's not real? This is science? By the way, how are you able to read that memo that was in my link and still come back with a straight face to defend them?

[intention]

I asked if you could refute any of their science. You replied

Originally Posted by DMC

Many of them haven't even done any science to refute. That public letter they put out contains such gems as:

So the fact that today's results don't match what the models predict will happen in the future, it's not real? This is science? By the way, how are you able to read that memo that was in my link and still come back with a straight face to defend them?

I'll take that as a "no", that you don't have a clue if they are good scientists or not. I have read the list, and I have been impressed by the work of a number of them.

By the way, you totally misunderstand the quote about the models. Models are tested by seeing if they can match up with observational evidence. This process, often called "back-casting" or "hind-casting", shows whether the models can at least reproduce historical climate data. It is vital that we do this before we trust them to predict an unknown future.

Their quote points out that the models have done horribly in hindcasting actual observations, and thus should not be relied upon.

Finally, you guys seem to think that the way scientific credibility works is to determine where someone went to school, who pays their salary, whether they agree with the "consensus", and the like. You say we should use that to establish their credibility.

I attempted to point out that where a scientist went to school, or who pays his salary, has as little to do with the scientific validity of their work as the color of their skin.

There is one, and only one, way to establish scientific credibility, which is to LOOK AT THE SCIENCE. Not at the schooling. Not at the degree. Not at the beliefs. Not at the skin colour. THE SCIENCE.

Sheesh ...

w.

[intention]

To all of you ... yes, 90 scientists did submit a reply to the 60 scientists ... and yes, there were some non-scientists on both lists.

However, this just proves my point, that there is in fact no consensus.

[jshore]

Originally Posted by DMC

That public letter they put out contains such gems as: ...

And, the bigger problem with that statement is that it is not supported. In fact, the computer models can do a good job on the current climate and hindcasting the temperature variations over the last century or so. (See for example here.) And, Hansen's prediction from back in the 80s is holding up well...although some people like Patrick Michaels and Michael Crichton have tried to convince people otherwise by comparing to the wrong scenario (as Hansen made the prediction for 3 different scenarios of future carbon emissions and of occurrence of major volcanic eruptions).

Of course, they are not perfect...and there is continual work to make them better...but the computer models and the paleoclimate evidence seem to be all converging on the middle range of climate sensitivity of around 3 C rise for a doubling of CO2, with it being quite unlikely that it is below ~1.5 -- 2 C and a low probability tail out to high sensitivities but in all likelihood less than ~5C.

[jshore]

Originally Posted by intention

To all of you ... yes, 90 scientists did submit a reply to the 60 scientists ... and yes, there were some non-scientists on both lists.

However, this just proves my point, that there is in fact no consensus.

No, it doesn't prove that anymore than the site I linked to on creation science proves there is no consensus on evolution. What matters is the science in the peer-reviewed literature. And, at any rate, the fact that the letter with 60 signers had to include mostly scientists from outside Canada, as well as some outside the field (and few who have published much in the peer-reviewed literature on the subject, as far as I can tell) and that they signed on at least one person who didn't know what he was signing and subsequently renounced it shows how desperate they were.

[jshore]

Originally Posted by intention

I'll take that as a "no", that you don't have a clue if they are good scientists or not. I have read the list, and I have been impressed by the work of a number of them.

Like who in particular?

Their quote points out that the models have done horribly in hindcasting actual observations, and thus should not be relied upon.

But, this claim is not true. They haven't been perfect...but they have done reasonably well against trustworthy data. And, they have also been tested in many other ways (e.g., looking at how well they predict upper-atmospheric water vapor, for instance).

I attempted to point out that where a scientist went to school, or who pays his salary, has as little to do with the scientific validity of their work as the color of their skin.

There is one, and only one, way to establish scientific credibility, which is to LOOK AT THE SCIENCE. Not at the schooling. Not at the degree. Not at the beliefs. Not at the skin colour. THE SCIENCE.

Well, those qualified to look at the science are those scientists in the field and trustworthy scientific organizations such as the National Academy of Sciences. As I noted, the reason their motives become relevant is that they have lost the debate in the scientific literature and are now trying to take their case directly to the public. This alone is a very good sign that their science is bad. Another good sign is that it actually is bad, as has been shown by organizations such as RealClimate.

In practice, your recipe for how science should be handled is a recipe for going back to the Dark Ages. The reason we have been able to use science to make progress is that science has been structured in a way that makes it fairly immune to corrupting influences. However, what you want to do is destroy this...Just as those who are fighting evolution want to do.

[Kimstu]

Originally Posted by intention

There is one, and only one, way to establish scientific credibility, which is to LOOK AT THE SCIENCE. Not at the schooling. Not at the degree. Not at the beliefs. Not at the skin colour. THE SCIENCE.

Good idea. Could you show us some credible science supporting your claim that "if we continue to emit CO2 at the current rate, [...] all indications are that it will level off at about 480 ppm"?

This hypothesis sounds to me (and, AFAICT, to everyone else here) like a very unlikely prediction with no plausible physical rationale behind it. But you told us that this was "basic atmospheric science", so it should be fairly easy for you to find a cite that specifically and convincingly explains it.

You are talking a lot about the importance of the quality of scientific research and the comparative unimportance of formal credentials, but you haven't successfully persuaded anyone so far that you yourself are capable of telling good research from bad. You cannot make convincing arguments about other people's credibility if you've got serious credibility problems of your own.

[intention]

Originally Posted by Kimstu

Good idea. Could you show us some credible science supporting your claim that "if we continue to emit CO2 at the current rate, [...] all indications are that it will level off at about 480 ppm"?

This hypothesis sounds to me (and, AFAICT, to everyone else here) like a very unlikely prediction with no plausible physical rationale behind it. But you told us that this was "basic atmospheric science", so it should be fairly easy for you to find a cite that specifically and convincingly explains it.

You are talking a lot about the importance of the quality of scientific research and the comparative unimportance of formal credentials, but you haven't successfully persuaded anyone so far that you yourself are capable of telling good research from bad. You cannot make convincing arguments about other people's credibility if you've got serious credibility problems of your own.

I'm not making arguments, convincing or otherwise, about anyone's scientific credibility. You guys are, but you haven't done anything but attack their funding.

Now, you've decided to attack my credibility ... why am I not surprised?

w.

[SentientMeat]

Originally Posted by intention

Now, you've decided to attack my credibility ... why am I not surprised?

We are attaacking the credibility of the incredible proposal "If we attained a certain concentration of CO2 ([i]eg. 480 ppm) and then kept pumping more CO2 into the atmosphere, the concentration suddenly wouldn't change". Can you back this up at all? I can't understand this as anything other than "if I keep adding alcohol until a drink is 20% ABV, then if I add more alcohol it doesn't get any more alcoholic".

[DMC]

Originally Posted by intention

II'll take that as a "no", that you don't have a clue if they are good scientists or not. I have read the list, and I have been impressed by the work of a number of them.

I'm saying that it doesn't matter if they are good scientists or not. They're not doing good science.

By the way, you totally misunderstand the quote about the models. Models are tested by seeing if they can match up with observational evidence. This process, often called "back-casting" or "hind-casting", shows whether the models can at least reproduce historical climate data. It is vital that we do this before we trust them to predict an unknown future.

I understood it just fine.

Their quote points out that the models have done horribly in hindcasting actual observations, and thus should not be relied upon.

Cite? Not some of the models, all of the models. If you want to state that some models are sometimes proven to be incorrect, sure. That's not nearly the same thing.

Finally, you guys seem to think that the way scientific credibility works is to determine where someone went to school, who pays their salary, whether they agree with the "consensus", and the like. You say we should use that to establish their credibility.

I don't care where they went to school or whether they agree with the "consensus", but when they receive a ton of funding from groups that would like for them to reach a specific point of view, then yes, I question their credibility. When the CEOs of various tobacco companies testified that "cigarrette smoking is not addictive", I also questioned their credibility (Actually I laughed out loud for a long time). Not due to which school they went to, nor the color of their skin, but because of who pays their salary. Silly PR letters aren't going to give me warm fuzzy feelings about their work.

I attempted to point out that where a scientist went to school, or who pays his salary, has as little to do with the scientific validity of their work as the color of their skin.

Who pays their salary can have absolutely nothing to do with the validity of their work, or everything to do with it. When their work happens to disagree with the vast majority of peer reviewed science, but coincidentally aligns perfectly with their funders, then both eyebrows get raised really high.

There is one, and only one, way to establish scientific credibility, which is to LOOK AT THE SCIENCE. Not at the schooling. Not at the degree. Not at the beliefs. Not at the skin colour. THE SCIENCE.

There's also a limit to how much time most scientists are going to waste chasing down every bogus rebuttal from paid mouthpieces. Many of them have actual work to do.

Sheesh ...

Indeed.

[DMC]

Originally Posted by jshore

And, the bigger problem with that statement is that it is not supported. In fact, the computer models can do a good job on the current climate and hindcasting the temperature variations over the last century or so.

I'm shocked. I'm getting sick to my stomach by the thought of those poor well funded "climate scientists" being proven wrong. I think I need a Tums.

[intention]

Kimstu, you say you don't believe that if emissions level off (or as I said, if we continue to emit at the current rate, which is about 7 gigatonnes of carbon annually) that the atmospheric CO2 will level off.

Before I go to look for citations, I'm not sure what the source of your disbelief is. Is it that:

a) You think that the decay of CO2 is not exponential, or

b) You agree that the decay is exponential, but you think that with exponential decay, that a steady addition of the same amount annually will not eventually be matched by the increased sequestration.

Let me know, so that I can find citations that address your uncertainty.

Me, I just did the calculations myself. It is clear from the data that the amount being sequestered has been increasing annually. Here's 50 years of data, from the CDIAC, expressed in tonnes of carbon (C), not CO2:

Total Atmos.
Year Emitted Increase Sequestered

1950____1.63____0.43____1.20
1951____1.77____0.85____0.91
1952____1.80____0.85____0.94
1953____1.84____0.85____0.99
1954____1.87____1.07____0.80
1955____2.04____1.28____0.76
1956____2.18____1.28____0.90
1957____2.27____1.28____0.99
1958____2.33____1.49____0.84
1959____2.46____1.49____0.97
1960____2.58____1.49____1.09
1961____2.59____1.14____1.45
1962____2.70____1.31____1.39
1963____2.85____1.36____1.49
1964____3.01____1.44____1.57
1965____3.15____1.61____1.53
1966____3.31____1.86____1.44
1967____3.41____2.08____1.33
1968____3.59____2.25____1.34
1969____3.80____2.34____1.46
1970____4.08____2.34____1.73
1971____4.23____2.40____1.83
1972____4.40____2.55____1.85
1973____4.64____2.60____2.03
1974____4.64____2.48____2.16
1975____4.62____2.41____2.20
1976____4.89____2.61____2.27
1977____5.03____2.94____2.09
1978____5.10____3.16____1.93
1979____5.39____3.23____2.16
1980____5.32____3.16____2.16
1981____5.16____3.07____2.08
1982____5.11____3.06____2.05
1983____5.10____3.15____1.95
1984____5.27____3.24____2.04
1985____5.43____3.30____2.13
1986____5.60____3.46____2.13
1987____5.73____3.70____2.03
1988____5.95____3.75____2.21
1989____6.07____3.48____2.59
1990____6.14____3.04____3.10
1991____6.23____2.64____3.59
1992____6.10____2.47____3.63
1993____6.10____2.65____3.45
1994____6.23____3.10____3.13
1995____6.40____3.50____2.90
1996____6.55____3.71____2.83
1997____6.68____3.85____2.84
1998____6.67____3.88____2.79
1999____6.51____3.57____2.95
2000____6.67____3.06____3.61

As you can see, the amount sequestered has increased annually. This is because the amount sequestered is related to the total atmospheric excess CO2 -- the more excess, the more is sequestered.

Using Excel, it's easy to figure the size of the exponent involved in this exponential decay. However, even without any calculation, you should be able to see that if the size of the emissions were to be held constant, eventually the amount sequestered would equal the amount added, and the atmospheric concentration would then stabilize at a new level.

You could think of it as having a hose filling a swimming pool with a drain at the bottom. The deeper that the water gets in the pool, the faster it runs out of the bottom, because of the increased pressure as the pool gets deeper. Eventually, the amount entering and leaving will be the same, and the level of the pool will stabilize.

If we increase the amount of water coming out of the hose into the pool, the level in the pool will not increase indefinitely. Instead, it will reach a new equilibrium, at a deeper level, where the new higher outflow matches the new higher inflow.

The same is true of the atmospheric CO2. If we add a steady amount to the atmosphere, a new higher equilibrium will be reached.

Let me know which part of this seems unclear to you, and I'll dig up some citations that address your concerns.

w.

[DMC]

I would like to apologize for insinuating that intention might have been one of the 60 signers of that document. He's not. On the other hand, his employer would not only be hurt by global warming, but it would even be hurt badly by the mere acceptance of global warming by potential customers.

When are we going to finally get a naysayer who doesn't have an actual financial agenda in this?