# Guys What is your take on the climate change deal situation **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 18, 2009, 2:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guys-what-is-your-take-on-the-climate-change-deal-situation/521737 "2009-12-18T14:30:21Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Clothahump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/51bf81/32.png) [@Clothahump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Clothahump)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2009, 6:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guys-what-is-your-take-on-the-climate-change-deal-situation/521737/21 "2009-12-18T18:38:32Z")
> [@](#): > > Guys What is your take on the climate change deal situation It’s just another socialist wealth redistribution scheme. Until we figure out how to invent a thermostat for the sun, there’s not a damn thing humans can do about global warming or cooling. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2009, 9:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guys-what-is-your-take-on-the-climate-change-deal-situation/521737/22 "2009-12-18T21:13:11Z")
> [@Clothahump](#): > > It’s just another socialist wealth redistribution scheme. Until we figure out how to invent a thermostat for the sun, there’s not a damn thing humans can do about global warming or cooling. :rolleyes: > **[Sun & climate: moving in opposite directions](https://skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htm)** > > \In the last 35 years of global warming, the sun has shown a slight cooling trend. Sun and climate have been going in opposite directions.\ > [@](#): > > What the science says… > > Solar activity has shown little to no long term trend since the 1950’s. Consequently, any correlation between sun and climate ended in the 1970’s when the modern global warming trend began. [QUOTE=flickster] I think it’s a good idea to lessen the impact we have on the planet but that no matter what we do, the planet will do what the planet will do, regardless of our tiny efforts. [/quote] Not so tiny.. > **[How do human CO2 emissions compare to natural CO2 emissions?](https://skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions.htm)** > > \The CO2 that nature emits (from the ocean and vegetation) is balanced by natural absorptions (again by the ocean and vegetation). Therefore human emissions upset the natural balance, rising CO2 to levels not seen in at least 800,000 years. In... > [@](#): > > What the science says… > > The CO2 that nature emits (from the ocean and vegetation) is balanced by natural absorptions (again by the ocean and vegetation). Therefore human emissions upset the natural balance, rising CO2 to levels not seen in at least 800,000 years. In fact, human emit 26 gigatonnes of CO2 per year while CO2 in the atmosphere is rising by only 15 gigatonnes per year - much of human CO2 emissions is being absorbed by natural sinks. [QUOTE=buttonjockey308] Or on the other hand, when there is broad acceptance that “hey you were right after all”, they will be throwing ticker tape parades for them. [/QUOTE] So far, the best, best, chance I see for the skeptics is to discover an unknown natural mechanism that will accelerate the sequestration of CO2. > [@Leaffan](#): > > :rolleyes: It’ll never happen. No side will ever claim victory in this. It’s almost like the right-to-lifers versus abortionists. IMO Abortion in the end is a moral issue, the oceans rising up don’t care if one is a moral person with beach property. We have to remember that the science remains, Copenhagen is part of “so what we leaders will do about climate change?” With the science I’m confident, with politicians I’m not. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2009, 9:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guys-what-is-your-take-on-the-climate-change-deal-situation/521737/23 "2009-12-18T21:31:07Z")
I think the earth is warming - it would be warming about about a degree per century right now even if man wasn’t here. I also agree that man-made CO2 increases are increasing the amount of warming. I do not believe that there is good evidence that the warming will be above 2-3 degrees C - the natural forcing rate of CO2. I believe that an overall warming of 2-3 degree will be not hurt the planet overall, but will help the temperate nations and hurt the equatorial nations and to some degree coastal areas. Therefore, a perfectly valid approach is to simply help those countries pay for the damage when it occurs. I don’t believe that you can pass a treaty and get countries to voluntarily restrict their own economic output. Self-interest is far too strong. The only way to stop them from burning fossil fuel to make fossil fuel uncompetitive by introducing cheaper alternatives. I also believe, based on the standing ovation Hugo Chavez got for his anti-capitalist rant at Copenhagen yesterday, that this is more about leftists trying to control more of the economies of the world, and frankly I think they’d do more damage that global warming might do. As a result, I hope nothing happens at Copenhagen, and the world instead turns towards increased emphasis on mitigation, renewable energy research, nuclear power, and other solutions that don’t involve world government bureaucracies managing our lives. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2009, 9:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guys-what-is-your-take-on-the-climate-change-deal-situation/521737/24 "2009-12-18T21:34:39Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Seems like everyone is already talking about how things will have to wait until the next meeting in Mexico next year. This one seems like a dud. And the political theater continues. Scheduling a global warming summit in Mexico in July will have a lot better visuals than scheduling one in Copenhagen in the middle of winter. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2009, 9:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guys-what-is-your-take-on-the-climate-change-deal-situation/521737/25 "2009-12-18T21:41:42Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > So far, the best, best, chance I see for the skeptics is to discover an unknown natural mechanism that will accelerate the sequestration of CO2. Or show that the positive feedback mechanisms required (but not proven) for high levels of warming don’t exist. The science on these is still shaky, which is why the IPCC’s estimates have error bars so big that their predicted warming could range from 1.8 degrees to 6.4 degrees. 1.8 degrees is only slightly higher than the non-CO2 warming expected in the inter-glacial period. Or come up with a cloud model that shows a negative feedback, since the current cloud models suck, and this is a very important factor. Or show that the raw data was cherry-picked and massaged, and the original assumptions are wrong. (I’m not saying it was, but I think there is some scant evidence that it may have been to some degree). Or just wait, and watch whether warming actually tracks the model predictions. Or just wait for the price of fossil fuels to increase and the price of alternative energy sources decrease, and fossil fuels become uncompetitive and go away on their own. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2009, 10:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guys-what-is-your-take-on-the-climate-change-deal-situation/521737/26 "2009-12-18T22:22:47Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > Or show that the positive feedback mechanisms required (but not proven) for high levels of warming don’t exist. The science on these is still shaky, which is why the IPCC’s estimates have error bars so big that their predicted warming could range from 1.8 degrees to 6.4 degrees. 1.8 degrees is only slightly higher than the non-CO2 warming expected in the inter-glacial period. Cite for this warming being expected? Both sun activity and warming from the earth’s orbit are not the main cause of the current warming. > [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > Or come up with a cloud model that shows a negative feedback, since the current cloud models suck, and this is a very important factor. I wonder where that is, because so far there is just evidence that it is positive: > **[Water Vapor Confirmed As Major Player In Climate Change](http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/11/081117193013.htm)** > > Water vapor is known to be Earth's most abundant greenhouse gas, but the extent of its contribution to global warming has been debated. Using recent NASA satellite data, researchers have estimated more precisely than ever the heat-trapping effect of... > [@](#): > > Climate models have estimated the strength of water vapor feedback, but until now the record of water vapor data was not sophisticated enough to provide a comprehensive view of at how water vapor responds to changes in Earth’s surface temperature. That’s because instruments on the ground and previous space-based could not measure water vapor at all altitudes in Earth’s troposphere – the layer of the atmosphere that extends from Earth’s surface to about 10 miles in altitude. > > AIRS is the first instrument to distinguish differences in the amount of water vapor at all altitudes within the troposphere. Using data from AIRS, the team observed how atmospheric water vapor reacted to shifts in surface temperatures between 2003 and 2008. By determining how humidity changed with surface temperature, the team could compute the average global strength of the water vapor feedback. > > “This new data set shows that as surface temperature increases, so does atmospheric humidity,” Dessler said. “Dumping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere makes the atmosphere more humid. And since water vapor is itself a greenhouse gas, the increase in humidity amplifies the warming from carbon dioxide.” > > Specifically, the team found that if Earth warms 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit, the associated increase in water vapor will trap an extra 2 Watts of energy per square meter (about 11 square feet). > > “That number may not sound like much, but add up all of that energy over the entire Earth surface and you find that water vapor is trapping a lot of energy,” Dessler said. “We now think the water vapor feedback is extraordinarily strong, capable of doubling the warming due to carbon dioxide alone.” > > Because the new precise observations agree with existing assessments of water vapor’s impact, researchers are more confident than ever in model predictions that Earth’s leading greenhouse gas will contribute to a temperature rise of a few degrees by the end of the century. > > “This study confirms that what was predicted by the models is really happening in the atmosphere,” said Eric Fetzer, an atmospheric scientist who works with AIRS data at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, Calif. “Water vapor is the big player in the atmosphere as far as climate is concerned.” > [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > Or show that the raw data was cherry-picked and massaged, and the original assumptions are wrong. (I’m not saying it was, but I think there is some scant evidence that it may have been to some degree). Nope, you are still just listening to Rush and the Fox bloviators. [![](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/7nnVQ2fROOg/hqdefault.jpg "6. Climate Change -- Those hacked e-mails") ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nnVQ2fROOg) > [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > Or just wait, and watch whether warming actually tracks the model predictions. > **[How reliable are climate models?](https://skepticalscience.com/climate-models.htm)** > > \While there are uncertainties with climate models, they successfully reproduce the past and have made predictions that have been subsequently confirmed by observations.\ > [@](#): > > What the science says… > > While there are uncertainties with climate models, they successfully reproduce the past and have successfully predicted future climate change. > [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > Or just wait for the price of fossil fuels to increase and the price of alternative energy sources decrease, and fossil fuels become uncompetitive and go away on their own. That may work, but I would like to see more pressure towards that goal and not just seeing the pressure that the fossil fuel lobbies are doing to many governments. ---
**Author:** ![HoboStew](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/f17d59/32.png) [@HoboStew](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HoboStew)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2009, 10:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guys-what-is-your-take-on-the-climate-change-deal-situation/521737/27 "2009-12-18T22:45:26Z")
I thought Gregg Easterbrook had a pretty reasonable synopsis on the current state of climate change in his most recent column on ESPN (of all places). To summarize, he basically says that climate change is real, but probably not the most dire threat to humanity on the table right now. He notes that “Smog and acid rain turned out to be far cheaper to control than predicted; the same may happen with greenhouse gases.” Here is the article, scroll down about 3/4 of the way to the section entitled “Heads of State Pause Their Limos at Their Personal Jets to Denounce Fossil Fuel Use:” > **[Easterbrook: Get smart!](https://www.espn.com/espn/page2/story?page=easterbrook%2F091215&sportCat=nfl)** > > Colleges, you don't have to lower your academic standards to succeed; players, you need to go to class! ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2009, 11:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guys-what-is-your-take-on-the-climate-change-deal-situation/521737/28 "2009-12-18T23:14:25Z")
> [@HoboStew](#): > > I thought Gregg Easterbrook had a pretty reasonable synopsis on the current state of climate change in his most recent column on ESPN (of all places). To summarize, he basically says that climate change is real, but probably not the most dire threat to humanity on the table right now. He notes that “Smog and acid rain turned out to be far cheaper to control than predicted; the same may happen with greenhouse gases.” > > Here is the article, scroll down about 3/4 of the way to the section entitled “Heads of State Pause Their Limos at Their Personal Jets to Denounce Fossil Fuel Use:” > [NCAA colleges and universities don't have to lower academic standards to field a successful football team - ESPN](http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=easterbrook/091215&sportCat=nfl) The rebuttals to Gregg Easterbrook have not been kind. [http://www.realclimate.org/wiki/index.php?title=Gregg\_Easterbrook](http://www.realclimate.org/wiki/index.php?title=Gregg_Easterbrook) [http://climateprogress.org/2008/09/13/gregg-easterbrook-still-knows-nothing-about-global-warming-and-less-about-clean-energy/](http://climateprogress.org/2008/09/13/gregg-easterbrook-still-knows-nothing-about-global-warming-and-less-about-clean-energy/) > [@](#): > > In Easterbrook’s list of problems, the only one that is “an existential threat to civilization,” as the head of the IPCC put it recently, “barely makes the Top 10.” Many girls around the world lack education, for sure, and that is tragic for them and their families — and preventable at low cost. The lack of knowledge by the likes of Easterbrook and Slate, however, is far more tragic since it is helping to ensure the self-destruction of civilization, helpling to ensure that the girls (and boys) of the world — and their children and the next 50 generations of girls and boys — experience decades of misery and suffering no matter how smart they are. > > And it is also preventable at low cost — as the IPCC, McKinsey, IEA and many others have shown. But uneducated Easterbrook says: > > > [@](#): > > > > ``` > > Besides, the solution can’t be a panicked pullback from the present economic system, though perhaps that system can be amended over the long term. Economic growth is needed to allow the world to afford environmental protection. At least for the next few decades, headlong resource consumption will be necessary to generate the capital that will pay for a clean-energy infrastructure. > > > > ``` > > Even two more decades of “headlong resource consumption” means no amount of capital in the world will save us from crossing tipping points into catastrophic outcomes that cannot be reversed (see “Is 450 ppm (or less) politically possible? Part 0: The alternative is humanity’s self-destruction” and “Tundra, Part 2: The point of no return“). > > > [@](#): > > > > ``` > > Why does the cocktail-party circuit embrace claims about a pending climate doomsday? Partly owing to our nation’s shaky grasp of science…. > > > > ``` > > Actually, the cocktail-party circuit most certainly does not embrace claims about a pending climate doomsday (see “Most opinion leaders just don’t get global warming.” If they did, the nation would have a serious climate policy. In fact, thanks to publications like him Slate and “experts” like Easterbrook, the claims about a pending climate doomsday have been largely ignored. And that is due to “our nation’s [and Easterbrook’s] shaky grasp of science.” > > Shame on Slate for asking Easterbrook to write this review. ---
**Author:** ![matt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/a6a055/32.png) [@matt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/matt)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2009, 2:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guys-what-is-your-take-on-the-climate-change-deal-situation/521737/29 "2009-12-19T02:44:02Z")
> [@Sam Stone](#): > > Or come up with a cloud model that shows a negative feedback, since the current cloud models suck, and this is a very important factor. > [@GIGObuster](#): > > I wonder where that is, because so far there is just evidence that it is positive: > [Water Vapor Confirmed As Major Player In Climate Change | ScienceDaily](http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/11/081117193013.htm) **GIGObuster** , you are conflating the water vapour greenhouse effect with albedo changes due to cloud cover, and they are two entirely different mechanisms. The warming effect of CO[sub]2[/sub] is simple physics, but the sensistivity of the amount of radiation absorbed by CO[sub]2[/sub] to changes in the level of CO[sub]2[/sub] is relatively small. (A 50% increase in CO[sub]2[/sub] gives [about a 1% increase in the radiation it absorbs](http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/06/a-saturated-gassy-argument-part-ii/).) The expected warming for a simple grey-body Earth model for a doubling of CO2 all on its own is [1.2 deg. C](http://www.sciencebits.com/OnClimateSensitivity). The rather larger IPCC predicted range of 1.5 to 4.5 deg. C increase for a CO[sub]2[/sub] doubling is based on the quite reasonable assumption that the CO[sub]2[/sub] greenhouse effect will be amplified by the water vapour greenhouse effect. And it has been confirmed by measurement that the overall humidity of the atmosphere rises with increasing temperatures (as you would expect, but the climate is an odd beast, and it was barely possible that circulation changes from increased temperature might have reduced the Earth’s average relative humidity of about 20%.) This additional water vapour certainly increases the water vapour greenhouse effect, but it is invisible **vapour** we’re talking about, not clouds. The effects of clouds are a whole different matter, which aren’t captured very well by climate models, hence the factor-of-three variability in the IPCC figure. Measured fluctuations in cloud cover give [decreases of about 0.5 W/m[sup]2[/sup] for 1% increases in cloud](http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/Trenberth/trenberth.papers/EnergyDiagnostics09final2.pdf) - increased clouds give cooling. (Note that this cite is Kevin Trenberth’s paper, linked to by Realclimate as an explanation of Trenberth’s “climategate” email stating it was a “travesty” that we can’t account for the lack of warming over the past six or seven years, so it gets your favourite cite’s seal of approval!) It’s also a pretty good summary read in general, showing where the science is at. Interestingly we still cannot measure “total energy in” and “total energy out” at the top of Earth’s atmosphere in absolute terms - estimated energy imbalance at the top of the atmosphere 2003-2005 was estimated to be 0.9 +/- 0.5 W/square metre - that’s a BIG uncertainty. And looking at figure 4, it doesn’t look like cloud cover is included at all, if I’m reading it right. (The “cloud albedo effect” refers to [aerosols increasing the albedo of clouds](http://www.igac.noaa.gov/newsletter/23/noone.php) and is not an estimate of the effect of natural cloud cover.) ---
**Author:** ![marshmallow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/df705f/32.png) [@marshmallow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/marshmallow)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2009, 3:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guys-what-is-your-take-on-the-climate-change-deal-situation/521737/30 "2009-12-19T03:13:54Z")
I wish climate change would stop being used as the reason to switch to green technology. I can think of a lot more pressing reasons that are applicable in the present time, not something that may or may not happen in 2200. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2009, 3:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guys-what-is-your-take-on-the-climate-change-deal-situation/521737/31 "2009-12-19T03:24:32Z")
> [@matt](#): > > (Note that this cite is Kevin Trenberth’s paper, linked to by Realclimate as an explanation of Trenberth’s “climategate” email stating it was a “travesty” that we can’t account for the lack of warming over the past six or seven years, so it gets your favourite cite’s seal of approval!) Notice too that in the video I linked to it is explained that Trenberth was not hiding the issues he had, in the end he still supports the science. The ones claiming that he was privately discussing doubts missed the paper that he had published with his concerns (and he linked to it in the stolen e-mail!). His position was and is that the earth is warming but we are not doing a good job of accounting where the heat is going into the system, not that there is no unnatural heat. But yes, you have a point about the water vapor and clouds. (However Sam did mention feedback, so I did think that he was referring to it). But I would not be so confident that clouds would be our saviors in this case. > **[Strong Evidence That Cloud Changes May Exacerbate Global Warming](http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/07/090723141812.htm)** > > As the earth warms, it is not known whether clouds will dissipate and let more heat in, or whether cloud cover will increase. In a study in Science, researchers begin to unravel this mystery. Using observational data and models, they have established... > [@](#): > > Strong Evidence That Cloud Changes May Exacerbate Global Warming > > Because of inconsistencies in historical observations, trends in cloudiness have been difficult to identify. The team broke through this cloud conundrum by removing errors from cloud records and using multiple data sources for the northeast Pacific Ocean, one of the most well-studied areas of low-level stratiform clouds in the world. The result of their analysis was a surprising degree of agreement between two multi-decade datasets that were not only independent of each other, but that employed fundamentally different measurement methods. One set consisted of collected visual observations from ships over the last 50 years, and the other was based on data collected from weather satellites. > > “The agreement we found between the surface-based observations and the satellite data was almost shocking,” said Clement, a professor of meteorology and physical oceanography at the University of Miami, and winner of the American Geophysical Union’s 2007 Macelwane Award for her groundbreaking work on climate change. “These are subtle changes that take place over decades. It is extremely encouraging that a satellite passing miles above the earth would document the same thing as sailors looking up at a cloudy sky from the deck of a ship.” > > What was not so encouraging, however, was the fact that most of the state-of-the-art climate models from modeling centers around the world do not reproduce this cloud behavior. Only one, the Hadley Centre model from the U.K. Met Office, was able to reproduce the observations. “We have a long way to go in getting the models right, but the Hadley Centre model results can help point us in the right direction,” said co-author Burgman, a research scientist at the University of Miami. > > Together, the observations and the Hadley Centre model results provide evidence that low-level stratiform clouds, which currently shield the earth from the sun’s radiation, may dissipate in warming climates, allowing the oceans to further heat up, which would then cause more cloud dissipation. > > “This is somewhat of a vicious cycle potentially exacerbating global warming,” said Clement. "But these findings provide a new way of looking at clouds changes. This can help to improve the simulation of clouds in climate models, which will lead to more accurate projections of future climate changes. " > > One key finding in the study is that it is not the warming of the ocean alone that reduces cloudiness – a weakening of the trade winds also appears to play a critical role. All models predict a warming ocean, but if they don’t have the correct relationship between clouds and atmospheric circulation, they won’t produce a realistic cloud response. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2009, 3:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guys-what-is-your-take-on-the-climate-change-deal-situation/521737/32 "2009-12-19T03:35:42Z")
> [@marshmallow](#): > > I wish climate change would stop being used as the reason to switch to green technology. I can think of a lot more pressing reasons that are applicable in the present time, not something that may or may not happen in 2200. The point is that the more greenhouse gases that we add, the warmer the world will get and the more time and money future generations would use to allow nature and technology to reduce the concentration of those gases. [http://www.ngcasia.com/programmes/six-degrees](http://www.ngcasia.com/programmes/six-degrees) > [@](#): > > As the volume of greenhouse gases increases yearly, scientists are warning that the global average temperature could increase by as much as 6 degrees Celsius over the next century, which would cause our world to change radically. This documentary joins British author Mark Lynas and climate experts as they take a look at what effect each rise of 1ºC could have on the world. > > Even if greenhouse emissions stopped overnight, the concentrations already in the atmosphere would still mean a global rise of between 0.5 and 1ºC. But what if the global temperature increased by another degree? According to Mark Lynas, author of Six Degrees, the changes would no longer be gradual. Greenland’s glaciers and some of the lower lying islands would start to disappear. At 3ºC higher the Arctic would be ice-free all summer, the Amazon rainforest would begin to dry out and extreme weather patterns would become the norm. An increase of 4ºC would see the oceans rise drastically. ---
**Author:** ![marshmallow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/df705f/32.png) [@marshmallow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/marshmallow)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2009, 4:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guys-what-is-your-take-on-the-climate-change-deal-situation/521737/33 "2009-12-19T04:06:21Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > The point is that the more greenhouse gases that we add, the warmer the world will get and the more time and money future generations would use to allow nature and technology to reduce the concentration of those gases. A fair amount of people don’t believe this. So using it as the main reason to push green technology on them is pretty silly and counter productive IMO. And even if it is true and they agree it’s true it’s still a questionable strategy – it’s not gonna happen for like 100 years. No one cares what happens in 100 years. Use other motivations that apply to the here and now, like national security, pollution, or their pocket book. Maybe mention getting free from Arab and Mexican oil. People eat that stuff up. ---
**Author:** ![matt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/a6a055/32.png) [@matt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/matt)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2009, 4:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guys-what-is-your-take-on-the-climate-change-deal-situation/521737/34 "2009-12-19T04:11:16Z")
> [@skyporse](#): > > U.S. President Barack Obama told them Friday. > “There is no time to waste,” he said. “Now I believe it’s the time for the nations and the people of the world to come behind a common purpose. We are ready to get this done today, but there has to be movement on all sides.” Re the OP - personally I think there _is_ time, not to waste but to work out properly what is going on and how to fix it. Wer’re going to feel a bit stupid if we switch to nuclear and natural gas and it turns out the cooling sulphate aerosols from burning coal make it a warming-neutral fuel. (It’s barely possible - the uncertainties in the cooling effects of sulphate aerosols are BIG.) Or we plant a bunch of carbon-offsetting trees and their methane emissions offset the CO2 they absorb. Time or not, if we’re serious as a species about ditching our fossil fuel habit, all this piddly little treaty signing isn’t going to achieve much. To stop using fossil fuels, we either have to dial right back our industrialised, mechanised, energy hungry economies, which isn’t going to happen, or make some fairly drastic changes in our infrastructure, which is going to take a hell of a lot more focus and work than what is being proposed. Politicians cruising around in limos watching presentations written by staffers doesn’t get a lot done. All this bullshit about caps and tariffs, which will be tough even to monitor and tougher still to enforce, isn’t going to work. Who’s going to measure how much CO2 various countries are emitting? Who’s going to measure how much carbon they’re offsetting by planting trees? What standing army of technicians are going to install and callibrate sensors on the various international smokestacks? Any country can cheat SO easily - thumbs on the scales, bypasses on the meters. Are we going to have an international “greenhouse” CIA to spy on countries and check they haven’t surreptitously increased the lengths of their coal rail wagons by 10%? It all comes down to an effort to force the market to fix the problem - make energy expensive, especially high -carbon energy, and the market will develop alternatives and people will learn to conserve. Weak, unco-ordinated, slow way to do things. What we need is an international effort on the scale of the Manhattan Project to develop the needed technologies fast, ship them out and get them in place. If we want to go nuclear, take the standardised French versions of the Pressurised Water Reactor, build a monster production facility for the reactor cores and ship them out al over the world. The rest is just industrial plumbing, steam turbines and poured concrete for redundant containment - anyone can build them. Set up an international school and teach everyone how to do it, and do it right. I’m always been a fan of OTEC and ICETEC - solar power that uses the whole ocean as a collector, but you don’t have to build all over the ocean. (I’m delighted to see that a Google seach of “otec icetec” leads to my previous Straightdope posts on the subject as hits 3 and 4!) And the offshore energy companies are the VERY people to build the plants - they have the ships, the expertise, the divers, the ROVs, the people. But nobody wants to build the first big OTEC plant - it’ll take more energy to construct than it’ll generate over it’s lifetime, and it’ll never turn a profit. But building the first one is a giant learning exercise for building all the following ones, and governments need to stump up a big cash incentive, right now. Pay for the first one outright, or offer a prize for the first company to build a 100 MW plant, or guarantee a subsidised price for OTEC electricity. Our industrialised nations employ thousands of talented scientists and excellent engineers, at high salaries and with HUGE budgets, to develop stealth bombers and kill drones and x-ray invisible grenade fragments. That is a hideous waste of all that expensively-educated brain power. Turn them over to something constructive! We could do it tomorrow. Our armies and navies and airforces are also full of engineers and technicians. Mothball half the death machines, change the uniforms, get them building solar power plants in the deserts. We could do it, but we won’t. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2009, 4:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guys-what-is-your-take-on-the-climate-change-deal-situation/521737/35 "2009-12-19T04:46:00Z")
> [@marshmallow](#): > > A fair amount of people don’t believe this. > So using it as the main reason to push green technology on them is pretty silly and counter productive IMO. As I pointed out before, believing that it will go away by doing nothing is wishful thinking. (Not that you said it, buy I get the impression that you support what that “fair” amount of people are proposing) > [@marshmallow](#): > > And even if it is true and they agree it’s true it’s still a questionable strategy – it’s not gonna happen for like 100 years. No one cares what happens in 100 years. Corporations and governments that lasted longer than that do. > [@marshmallow](#): > > Use other motivations that apply to the here and now, like national security, pollution, or their pocket book. Maybe mention getting free from Arab and Mexican oil. People eat that stuff up. Why do you assume those are not \*\*also \*\*mentioned? ---
**Author:** ![matt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/a6a055/32.png) [@matt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/matt)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2009, 5:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guys-what-is-your-take-on-the-climate-change-deal-situation/521737/36 "2009-12-19T05:06:49Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > His position was and is that the earth is warming but we are not doing a good job of accounting where the heat is going into the system, not that there is no unnatural heat. So is mine, as it happens. I just don’t think we have as good a handle on how much of that heat is down to what humans have put into the atmosphere as we’d like to believe. The CO2 contribution alone is easy to calculate, the feedback effects aren’t so simple. For example, take a peek at this figure from Meehl’s 2004 paper. > **[File:Climate Change Attribution.png](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Climate_Change_Attribution.png)** > > \[edit\] > > This figure, based on Meehl et al. (2004), shows how a global climate model (the DOE PCM ) is tuned to reconstruct the historical temperature record and the corresponding assumptions in the model to which the associated temperature changes can be decomposed into various forcing factors. The top part of the figure compares a five year average of global temperature measurements (Jones and Moberg 2001) to the Meehl et al. results incorporating the effects of five predetermined forcing fact... It’s quite impressive - the model takes the effects of solar variation, ozone, greenhouse gases, volcanos and sulphates, adds them all up and “predicts” the whole 20th century temperature record. Not perfectly, but it apparently captures the dips in the 1900’s and the 1970s and the steep rise through the 30’s. Problem is, it didn’t predict a plateau decade after 2000, nor did any other models. A model that matches the past doesn’t mean that much, especially if you’re using the temperature record itself to calibrate it! And Trenberth’s paper basically admits that we probably have a net radiative imbalance right now but the temperature isn’t rising, and we don’t know where the energy is going, or why it wasn’t going into the same places in the 90’s. The models are far from perfect. Interesting times. > [@GIGObuster](#): > > But I would not be so confident that clouds would be our saviors in this case. I think you’re reading more into my statement than was there, or perhaps you’re addressing **Sam**? I was simply pointing out that your cite re water vapour feedback was not directly relevant to his statement regarding clouds. Cloud feedback is a topic that is still being studied - earlier work by Lin also found a positive cloud feedback. [Does the Earth Have an Iris Analog? - NASA Science](http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Iris/iris2.php) ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2009, 5:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guys-what-is-your-take-on-the-climate-change-deal-situation/521737/37 "2009-12-19T05:10:34Z")
> [@matt](#): > > So is mine, as it happens. I just don’t think we have as good a handle on how much of that heat is down to what humans have put into the atmosphere as we’d like to believe. The CO2 contribution alone is easy to calculate, the feedback effects aren’t so simple. For example, take a peek at this figure from Meehl’s 2004 paper. The cites I posted on the feedback and modelings are from this year. > [@matt](#): > > I think you’re reading more into my statement than was there, or perhaps you’re addressing **Sam**? I was simply pointing out that your cite re water vapour feedback was not directly relevant to his statement regarding clouds. Cloud feedback is a topic that is still being studied - earlier work by Lin also found a positive cloud feedback. [Does the Earth Have an Iris Analog? - NASA Science](http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Iris/iris2.php) Also the cloud citation came from this year, but wasn’t the Iris effect used to discredit the models and projections? That cite is against it. ---
**Author:** ![matt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/a6a055/32.png) [@matt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/matt)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2009, 5:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guys-what-is-your-take-on-the-climate-change-deal-situation/521737/38 "2009-12-19T05:39:57Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > The cites I posted on the feedback and modelings are from this year. So? I’m pointing out that older models failed to predict the current temperature plateau. I’m not interested in whether a model from this year includes the current temperature plateau unless it also _predicts when it’s going to end_, so we can test the model properly. > [@GIGObuster](#): > > Also the cloud citation came from this year, but wasn’t the Iris effect used to discredit the models and projections? That cite is against it. Um, yes? I was offering an earlier cite than yours for positive cloud feedback, just fyi. Did you just read the link title, see the word “iris” in it and assume I was arguing for negative cloud feedback? I even said Lin’s paper was about positive feedback in my post! ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2009, 5:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guys-what-is-your-take-on-the-climate-change-deal-situation/521737/39 "2009-12-19T05:58:17Z")
[Potential Biases in Feedback Diagnosis from Observational Data: A Simple Model Demonstration](http://www.drroyspencer.com/Spencer-and-Braswell-08.pdf), Journal of Climate, Feb 2008: > [@](#): > > ABSTRACT > Feedbacks are widely considered to be the largest source of uncertainty in determining the sensitivity of the climate system to increasing anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations, yet the ability to diagnose them from observations has remained controversial. Here a simple model is used to demonstrate that any nonfeedback source of top-of-atmosphere radiative flux variations can cause temperature variability, which then results in a positive bias in diagnosed feedbacks. This effect is demonstrated with daily random flux variations, as might be caused by stochastic fluctuations in low cloud cover. The daily noise in radiative flux then causes interannual and decadal temperature variations in the model’s 50-m-deep swamp ocean. The amount of bias in the feedbacks diagnosed from time-averaged model output depends upon the size of the nonfeedback flux variability relative to the surface temperature variability, as well as the sign and magnitude of the specified (true) feedback. For model runs producing monthly shortwave flux anomaly and temperature anomaly statistics similar to those measured by satellites, the diagnosed feedbacks have positive biases generally in the range of -0.3 to -0.8 W m/2 K^-1. These results suggest that current observational diagnoses of cloud feedback—and possibly other feedbacks—could be significantly biased in the positive direction. ---
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2009, 6:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guys-what-is-your-take-on-the-climate-change-deal-situation/521737/40 "2009-12-19T06:09:46Z")
> [@matt](#): > > Problem is, it didn’t predict a plateau decade after 2000, nor did any other models. Matt, I don’t strongly disagree with most of what you have written in terms of the current uncertainties and such but I do think that the above statement is incorrect…or at least irrelevant. The current climate models predict trends over time periods long enough that the climate forcings rather than internal variability dominate the temperature change. The internal variability is more of an initial conditions problem, and it is well-understood that the system is very sensitive to initial conditions. (There is some recent work trying to predict trends on decadal scales, with some hope that this is possible since the timescales for variability in the oceans might be long enough to allow some predictability over periods of several years, but this work is still in its infancy.) So, yes, the models did not predict exactly the trend over the last ~10 years…but the errorbars in such trends due to the internal variability component (not primarily due to any measurement limitations) are so large as to make such trends largely meaningless. And, while the models may not have predicted the particular trajectory that we are following, they do in fact predict that periods of 10…or even 15…years where a linear least squares gives essentially no trend or even a small negative trend are to be expected over some periods even in a system driven by steadily-increasing forcings due to greenhouse gases. See [here](http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/csi/images/GRL2009_ClimateWarming.pdf). [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guys-what-is-your-take-on-the-climate-change-deal-situation/521737.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/guys-what-is-your-take-on-the-climate-change-deal-situation/521737.md?page=3)