Well do you agree that the following graph was contained in the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report?
And do you agree that the blue band represents the IPCC’s models of global surface temperature WITHOUT anthropogenic effects?
And do you agree that the red band represents the IPCC’s model’s of global surface temperature WITH anthropogenic effects?
And do you agree that before 1950, the red and blue bands essentially track each other?
This is is not inconsistent with the assertion that early 20th century warming is primarily NOT caused by mankind.
Nor is this.
Nope, but it’s the reasonable inference from the graph they present.
I’m assuming that fact is correct merely for the sake of argument.
I make no such demand. I am simply asking for a precise definition. If you choose to define “AGW” by making a series of claims, then you need to include all the claims in your definition.
Well you are making an argument from authority. If your argument is that the credible authorities accept proposition “X,” and that proposition “Y” follows from “X,” then you need to spell out what exactly X and Y are. That way, your claim is open to reasonable scrutiny.
Since I haven’t looked up things on nuclear for awhile, I was looking up information about waste free reactors and I came across what may be your almost waste free reactors. There is a test underway in Norway using a 90% Thorium Oxide/10% Plutonium Oxide (called Thorium MOX) and testing whether the reactor rods made from the composite oxide is able to be directly used by existing nuclear facilities. The plutonium is recycled from present reactors and it breaks down to a non-weapon-capable product.
As for Tepco, I could forgive them screwing things up early on - Disaster recovery is usually barely managed chaos, after all. But I believe their last spill was in October of 2013, two and a half years AFTER Fukushima. There comes a point when stupidity should be rewarded with a baseball bat upside someone’s cranium.
That copy of the graph you linked to was reduced in resolution, I assume to mislead people, but perhaps the person who originally posted the image is simply inept.
So, brazil, can I assume that you’ll stop linking to that misleading graph now that you know that there is a much clearer one out there?
Also, I think you’ll note that the graph does show what I’d consider to be significant variations between the blue and red, and the observations track the red much better.
Please respond to what I’m actually saying rather than rolling your eyes. Pay attention. You’re smart, you can make sense of it. Here’s what you said:
If the temperature rises, they lose, right?
Right.
If we assume that the temperature is rising regardless of what mankind is doing, there is NO point in this lottery, is there?
Now, I believe that we are causing CO2 levels to increase, and that increased CO2 levels cause increased temperature. I’m in the AGW camp. So, I don’t believe the argument above. But that will be the political position of the oil industry and the Republican party, so it’s a political impossibility.
Still worth trying. We just might catch them napping or something. Furthermore, if we do find the political gonads to do the right thing, the right thing could be far better this kind of solution than a simple cap & trade system. My grasp of economics isn’t up to it, but it sounds like a less arbitrary and more optimal system.
However, it’s worth doing ONLY if industry is actually causing climate change. I believe this is the truth, and you believe this is the truth, and Big Oil and the Republican party might even in its heart of hearts suspect it’s the truth, but they are unlikely to admit it, and publicly, they’ll fight tooth and nail against it. That is ALL I am saying.
Boslough covers many objections, but unfortunately omits this very obvious one and significant one.
Like I said: Even GWB admitted that global temperatures are increasing, but said it wasn’t proven to be caused by human activity. Why does Boslough think that industry and the Republican party won’t take this same “easy out” from having to do anything that would impact short-term profits?
Right, and that was reported before by me alright, what you are ignoring is that we are not supposed to let them get away with it, we are the ones that will have to set the insurance regardless of much they want to continue with the reckless bet they are doing. You are actually confusing that we are talking about an insurance to counteract the bet the carbon dumpers are doing right now with the efforts to set that insurance.
Now there is more :rolleyes:
My old folk actually made a very good analogy, their teeth are falling apart and I noticed how they devour lollipops with tons of sugar while watching TV, I pointed out that that is one of the most likely causes of their teeth problems and they should limit their use. Their reply? They are going to fall down anyway so why bother? Uh, one should bother because someone has to pay for the crowns, bridges or false teeth (notice that each of those issues are increases in damage and cost and they depend on how much sugar is used), the main point is that while there is manageable problems coming, there are things that they can do to prevent the bad situation from getting even worse.
That BTW does not include the costs of saving cities and building levees or helping with displaced populations, one should rather have the money ready to pay for all those items and letting the fossil fuel companies dictate what their politicians that will work to prevent even that insurance from becoming a reality is really reckless.
That does deserve another roll eyes, as once again it is missing the point, that is already granted, they will oppose it, they will continue with the bet, we have to make sure they will pay for making it.
And what I see is an effort to continuously attempted to ignore what needs to be done: the main point is that not only Democrats need to be counted for in the effort to make the changes needed, we need also the help of Republicans and independents that follow science, they need to recognize that the current crop of Republicans in power do not follow their interests.
The questions they are doing are reheated baloney, they are evidence that the idea is precisely to mislead the people just as before when many were fooled by the tobacco companies.
The real history is that mistakes that were made on the way to tell others that there were mistakes are never corrected from the part of the contrarian sources that assume that there is a conspiracy to hide the mistakes:
Probably when the remaining contrarians finally look at the evidence, like many skeptics did eventually and got convinced by the evidence as shown by Muller and the Berkeley team.
Do you realize that you are even denying that virtually all what you claim here was done by a bonafide team of skeptics that were paid mostly by fossil fuel interests? And that they came confirming what the IPCC and many others reported?
Do you even realize that that was posted already in this thread?
Your objections – including this one – have already been addressed, but I’ll add my own input.
That graph appears as one small low-resolution component of a much larger figure in Chapter 9 of the IPCC WG1 AR4 report which has been cherry-picked by your denialist pal in his ranting blog to try to illustrate a non-existent point. And the real irony is that the section in question in the actual IPCC document is titled “Can the Warming of the 20th Century be Explained by Natural Variability?” and the graph is part of the material that supports the fact that the answer is clearly “NO”. So how the hell do you imagine that this possibly supports your argument?
The point that is being illustrated is that the evidence for anthropogenic attribution of first-half 20th century warming is weaker than the overwhelming evidence for the second half and the post-industrial era overall, simply because there is not as much observational precision in the first half of the 20th century as we have in the second half. But to an oil industry shill, that is ample opportunity to peddle the FUD. The statement you made that “global warming in the first half of the 20th century was primarily NOT caused by mankind’s activities” is absolutely and categorically wrong, stated totally without basis, and this particular exercise serves as nothing more or less than an object lesson in denialist tactics.
The actionable conclusions of climate science are based on neither the first nor the second half of the 20th century but on an understanding of both in the context of millions of years of paleoclimate behaviors and an understanding of the basic physics of radiatively active atmospheric gases in our planetary history, and an honest and scientifically supportable assessment thereof.
Ah, yes, the “vetting” again! Somebody give that record player a whack – it’s stuck! The IPCC has been producing thoroughly cited assessments of the scientific literature for 25 years. Their conclusions are supported by the vast body of scientific literature and (as already noted) by the national academies of science of all the major nations. Your denialist pals have had ample opportunity to “vet” it. None of what they produce in their attempts at refutation is scientifically supportable, and most of it is laughable. This is why the “debates” of the kind you believe are valid in fact only take place in popular media and Internet blogs, and not in the legitimate scientific literature.
Do you agree that the chart comes from the IPCC report? (Extremely simple yes or no question).
And do you agree that the blue band represents the IPCC’s models of global surface temperature WITHOUT anthropogenic effects? (Extremely simple yes or no question).
And do you agree that the red band represents the IPCC’s model’s of global surface temperature WITH anthropogenic effects? (Extremely simple yes or no question).
And do you agree that before 1950, the red and blue bands essentially track each other? (Extremely simple yes or no question).
That may be the point you wish were being illustrated, but even assuming that point is being illustrated, it’s not the only point that’s being illustrated.
According to IPCC models, global surface temperatures in the first half of the 20th century are essentially the same whether or not anthropogenic effects are included in those models.
Thus, according to the IPCC, increases in global surface temperatures in the first half of the 20th century are NOT primarily caused by mankind’s activities.
Of course the next – and obvious – question is this:
Assuming this claim is correct, then absent human intervention, exactly what would have caused global surface temperatures to increase and then decrease in the 20th century?
I challenge any warmist here to answer that question.
P.S. In case anyone thinks that the IPCC’s position is somehow being obscured by the low resolution of the graph, here are two graphs with higher resolution:
This is straight from the IPCC web site and it shows the same thing, i.e. that the models with anthropogenic influence and without essentially track each other until 1950.
You seem to think I didn’t get your point. I got it. I agree with it. I’m not trying to say you’re wrong about anything.
You’re missing my relatively small (but politically important point). If you already knew it, fine, don’t bust my chops for agreeing with something you believe is true.
I am responding to the video. In the video, Boslough repeatedly makes the point that Industry has no reason to object, because if they don’t think that climate is rising, they’d win.
Unfortunately, the reality is that they think the temperature is rising. Furthermore, they have the argument that it’s not caused by carbon, so any attempt to focus on carbon is wasted. Boslough just hasn’t made his intended point in that regard.
Regardless, there may be some value in his suggestion. I have no idea how we can set up an insurance against GW, though, without mandating it, which would kinda disrupt the market-forces aspect (which otherwise I would love to see put into effect). That’s the beauty AND the flaw of cap-and-trade. You set some value on carbon (in the form of a penalty for exceeding the cap) and allow the free market to handle the trade part. The beauty is letting the free market handle the trade. The flaw is that the penalty is an estimate, which is nearly impossible to make, but IMHO it’s the only way to compensate for the externalities.
Anyway, please show a little respect and try not to act childish, assuming I’m an idiot and rolling your eyes in your replies. Do I make mistakes? Sure. Am I an idiot? Not usually. I’m no genius; I’m only in the top 1% or 0.1% or so, in most measures. Or was, it’s been a long time since any testing. I bet you’re smarter, and I know you’re far more educated on this subject. If I’m making a mistake, please just point it out and leave out the childishness. You only make enemies that way. I’m on your side here, so don’t make an enemy of me. It doesn’t do anyone any good.
Mmm, lets be clear, the other roll eyes was also directed at the old “it is too late” or “temperatures will rise anyway” flawed arguments, I get a little off when I have to wonder where is that you are getting your information, it is not you, but the ones pushing those points the ones that are childish. Can you do me a favor and report where you got that?
Government-mandated taxes and subsidies is clearly the way to go. “Free-market advocates” who don’t understand that need to go back to Junior High School and read up on “tragedy of the commons.”
That no one knows what the “perfect” price or tax would be is not a big deal, IMO. The idea that markets find perfect prices is something of a myth. (Consider gemstones, asset-prices during boom/bust cycles, wild disparities in the pricing of freshwater, pharmaceuticals, etc. etc.)
Instead of a tax and cap and trade and forcing artificial scarcity (and pretending that that’s somehow a free market…like gemstones), we should setup a scheme that adds the actual cost to mitigate or even undo the pollution to the energy source.
Let’s say that we setup a plant to actively remove carbon from the atmosphere. We can calculate from that construction and the ongoing maintenance needs what the cost should be for each ton of CO2. If you get all of your energy from wind or nuclear or the like, we would have almost a zero rate on the energy. if you get all of your energy from coal, we would have a rate that adds a cost per CO2 ton of actively remove the carbon. This would apply to all energy sources, including gasoline.
Over time as we switch to either carbon free power sources or as we get better at taking CO2 out of the atmosphere, we will reduce the rate to zero - or almost zero.
Adding the cost of actual clean up will add a true market force of cost to energy pricing. If we set that up to bypass government by putting it directly to a QGO, we can maximize the funds used for cleanup by streamlining administration of such plants.
As I noted, here, we already have most of the avenues people want to tax for covered, especially in the US. We have research going full tilt on all the aspects of bettering energy collection - better materials, more efficient processing, government investments into companies that cater to these sorts of things, and so forth. Adding additional taxes wouldn’t give a whole lot of benefit to these areas.
That’s why I have wind power right now, government subsidies to “seed” the industry. However, “taxes” are not currently mandated, I voluntarily pay extra. I believe these subsidies have ended now, the wind farms are “on their own” as it were. The private sector investments are returning an income without the subsidies.
Making the polluters pay … that’s Big Oil … and that’ll take more than civil discourse or IPCC reports.
I think any of the three ideas here are good … cap and trade, taxes and subsidies and point-source fees … so the question then becomes which of the three can be fairly and equitably enforced. The first two will have to be implemented by the Federales, thus allowing Big Oil a far cheaper expense of purchasing votes in Congress. This last suggestion by Farin might be enforceable at the state level. As the simplest to impose, it may be the easiest to enforce … and cost Big Oil the most in bribes.
Actually, “Big Oil” wouldn’t pay anything…well, except for what they use. This would be built into the cost side of the equation for energy source and would be marked up and paid by the consumer.
The utility of using free market mechanisms to achieve goals shouldn’t be underestimated when crafting legislation.
The problem with free markets is the existence of “externalities”, which are costs attributable to someone or something, but which don’t accrue to that someone or something. The best example is pollution. Say a company makes widgets that are really nifty and popular and sell for low prices, but making widgets causes very harmful pollution, which the public has to pay to clean up. The pollution here is the externality: part of the cost of making widgets that those who are making and buying widgets don’t have to pay. It’s a big flaw. The necessary recourse is legislation, over the objections of “total laissez faire pure free market” weenies.
That said, the most effective legislation takes advantage of the power of free markets, rather than simply slapping on a tax. Cap and trade is an excellent example, which lets the market figure out how best to allocate the (previous) externalities. The mandatory insurance program suggested above looks like another way, though I’d need to more about the details.
Granted. Setting the wrong price is better than setting no price at all.
That’s a reflection of the changing nature of human values and other things. The drug market is a terrible example of a free market, because drugs are paid for by the insurance companies rather than the people who use the drugs. The US heath system is a great example of the free market gone completely haywire, thanks to a complex mixture of factors, the biggest one being the inception of health care being paid for by employers, caused by government caps on wages shortly after WWII. Of course, you’re correct that free markets, even when run ideally, aren’t perfect, for a number of well-known reasons. It’s just the best one, and the least arbitrary. However, free markets can’t set the price for externalities (which is true by definition). Legislation has to do so. Free markets can only work to allocate these costs most efficiently.
They don’t teach any of this in Jr. High, unfortunately.
Please guys, be civil. Discuss the issues; don’t lob grenades at those who you disagree with.
I also didn’t make any “temperatures will rise anyway” argument, I simply said that this is an argument that deniers make, and the one that Boslough didn’t address. Remember, his point was not to defend AGW against skeptics, but rather, to provide a solution that would be agreeable to skeptics, and unfortunately he failed in that.
I shouldn’t need a cite. Just turn on Fox News or visit any anti-agw site. Is it a good argument? Not in my mind. Is it an argument that resonates with the public? It seems so. Regardless of its flaws, it’s a political fact.
The IPCC has been producing thoroughly cited assessments of the scientific literature for 25 years. Their conclusions are supported by the vast body of scientific literature and (as already noted) by the national academies of science of all the major nations. Your denialist pals have had ample opportunity to “vet” it. None of what they produce in their attempts at refutation is scientifically supportable, and most of it is laughable. This is why the “debates” of the kind you believe are valid in fact only take place in popular media and Internet blogs, and not in the legitimate scientific literature.