I’m betting that mother nature will have the last word. She always does.
I think you are not paying attention to what I posted before, This is what I also point out many times, the point here is that worse scenarios are possible if there is not a concerted effort to curb our emissions.
And that is good, but the main point is missed, there is a lot that we could start doing that is not being done. And politics is the main stumbling block now.
Not what the experts recommend, again, you are jumping illogically to the low end of the emissions and then to the low levels of the predicted warming as if it was already done.
Not really. What the numbers tell me and many others is that there is really even less of an excuse to not to act (I do think this is the problem here). What I see here is to now just support half ass efforts that in reality will not do much to prevent the worse scenarios.
And of course the main point is avoided, who will pay for that and how?
On top of what we are putting in the background.
https://www2.ucar.edu/atmosnews/attribution/steroids-baseball-climate-change
This is still just going back on the hijack, this is happening and scientists do already take nature into account, it is not likely that CO2 has changed their past natural behavior and the CO2 we are releasing will not do the same. CO2 is doing what physics dictates.
Like what? Even if emissions caps and cap and trade haven’t come to pass, we are working diligently as an international milieu to address the problem. It’s also the set of measures that I don’t advocate for.
I am jumping to what the report is focusing on because they estimate that that’s where we’ll end up. So, either they ignored all current trends and current policy and political climate and just picked a target number out of thin air, or they have cause to believe this is a likely scenario. I would prefer to assume the second, unless you can provide a cite that shows the first is the case.
Except we aren’t “not acting”. We have been acting. Even China is trying to develop non-coal fuels, even though they seem to be founding a new coal plant every sixteen seconds.
I never said we “had” to do this. Only that the only way we are going to “reverse” our course is to go over and above adaption. But, should this idea catch on, it would be trivial to levy a direct cost to the producer of the energy with a cost of mitigating the CO2. If, for instance, it costs $1/ton of CO2 to scrub it from the air using Method X, then that cost gets pinned to anything that creates CO2. But, as I said, this technology isn’t yet to fruition, despite a few promising methods being tested currently.
But this also introduces a few new questions, however: How much backstep should we do? Mitigate everything back to 250ppm from 1850? Only mitigate back to 280? 300? Do we have an oversupply of reduction capacity to scrub and measure daily to see how much scrub happens that day? Do we need a geometric coverage of the globe for it to happen well?
I still do not see where you got that only a low estimate of warming was being reported. And you are being too simplistic, there are a few scenarios that the report is looking at, not just the ones that are optimistic.
Others that looked at the report agree with what I see the IPCC is telling us.
That was also pointed by me before in previous discussions, the point is still missed, remember that old song? The one about the girl claiming that she could do better than the guys? Again, we can do better than that and we do have to deal with the groups that are using propaganda, lawyers and politicians to prevent us from doing better. This is important because once we do better the costs for adaptation will be less for the future.
Then your blogger friend isn’t reading the SPM properly. The SPM says
and also:
and
RCP2.6 shows less than 1 degree of warming by 2100 and the cuts are never going to happen. So, in this scenario, I agree with you - if we want to REVERSE warming after 2100 we have to all but stop modern activity. The 1.5-2.5C is the RCP4.5 scenario range and it’s the likely range given our current trends on a global level.
Granted, there is potential for all environmental laws, globally, to roll back and send us to an RCP6.0 or even an RCP8.5 scenario, but I find that highly unlikely. Just as unlikely as us stopping all of our energy production to meet the RCP2.6.
It sorta reminds me of the phrase “missing the forest for the trees.” Yes, there are other possibilities. Those possibilities aren’t used for the impacts assessment.
Yes, there are trees. But the forest itself is more specialer.
That blogger is from the World Resources Institute
And yes, the IPCC are talking there about one possible scenario, that will be possible if we start a more determined effort.
Yeah, as I’m posting also to figure out the sources and spin that is coming from other posters, so who told you to look just at the low end?
Not if the ideas like that look like if they are coming from Delingpole; really, like Delingpole many contrarians are grabbing that point about the cost being less… and therefore we should stop doing more efforts. But the point made before by Richard Alley and economists like Nordhous is with the context of doing more than what we are doing right now. Again we need to invest more than we have done already to reduce the chances of even more increases that will get us more risks.
Well, that appeal to authority fails. :rolleyes: They should be ashamed that he stated factually incorrect information on his blog. Easily looked up factual inaccuracy, I might add.
14 to 96% reduction below 1990’s levels by 2050? Either we halt all modern activity or we switch 100% to nuclear (or thorium which has an estimated availability of mid to late 2020s). Do you see either of those as likely, even with the current crop of renewed nuclear interest?
Want to know my sources? Okay. Read it all, please. Your blogger proxies are giving you bad information.
Except I haven’t said that. In fact, I advocated for staying the course and absorbing the needed adaptions as a cost for dragging our feet.
I agree. Let’s break ground on 100 G3 nuclear reactors within the next 18 months. We can begin phasing in G4 around 2025 or 2030.
By experience I don’t think you are correct. And one link goes to the 4th assessment.
As Eli Rabett reported the reality is that the conservative nature of the IPCC makes them concentrate on the best scenario. Time will tell if that approach will work and the ones making policy will follow the advise, but the spin I see tells me that the idea is to not do much more. Leading to then sometime in the future for the IPCC to deal with the costs and more likely adaptations that we will have to consider as many then (if the spin about the low end is the only thing that is looked at) decided to follow the more optimistic scenario.
It will be interesting to see what unfolds, won’t it?
I am not going to pretend to be an expert where I am not, although I note that the hurricane PDI was advanced–developed, maybe?–by Dr Emanuel who must have been unhappy with the ACE as a measurement. And I note that the reasons for the remarkably quiescent 2013 season were “discovered” after the season crapped out. PDI and ACE predictions in advance of the season were both abnormally high, and if my memory serves me quite high in confidence also, based on a reasonable confidence that the models which help us understand why hurricane intensity is increasing are so good. So now we’ll fall back on “variation” and hope for an intense next season so that we can go back to “harbinger” and “statistical trend.”
One of my pals in Chicago sent me a link to a Huffpost article claiming Chicago had its coldest winter in 140 years–that is, the coldest four months ever recorded since they began recording in 1870 or so. I’m not one to hop on a single “variant” and make a harbinger out of out, but I’m old enough to be equally skeptical of ACC explanations suddenly figured out after this viciously cold winter affects such a large area.
Someone here has complained about my observation that much of ACC proselytizing parallels religious proselytizing, but it does. Human nature gives us all a very powerful compulsion to have the world fit our paradigms so that we are not faced with contradictions that need resolution. For this reason, even scientists are caught up in this phenomenon. Record cold winter?..let us first decide how we can reconcile such an outlier event with what we know to be correct: AGW. Drought? Flood? Intense storm? Quiescent season? All reconcilable and attributable if we do enough careful science to show how it relates.
And what is difficult to parse out–even when we know it is a danger–is our fundamental paradigm that drives which explanations we research and find acceptable. Even science has a very long and fragile history of being caught up in paradigms which so color everything we look at that we end up being badly wrong about a good bit of it–in retrospect, of course.
This is not a skepticism from me about ACC. I’m not expert enough to have any skepticism or certainty about climate models containing millions of lines of code with parameterizations I couldn’t begin to understand. It is a skepticism about how good we are at predicting what will actually happen.
And I will say there is a good bit in the current report that seems to this old geezer to be a hand overplayed for hyperbole.
But…we’ll see.
And in any case, I don’t think it will move the public to action. Not when many of the folks who have to pay just froze their asses off. I don’t think the opposition to ACC is there at a very broad level, but I do think the motivation to sacrifice deeply is substantially diminished by events such as the 2013 hurricane season or the upper midwest 2013-14 winter.
Yes, because as I explained in 296, I was reading them both. It’s been my reading over the last several days.
No comment on nuclear, eh?
Then you are indeed not paying attention to what I said before, I’m on the record of supporting nuclear power.
No comment on the expected higher land temperatures?
The point still stands, much more can be done to reduce the risks.
:dubious: Why would I comment on what I explicitly quoted from the SPM in post 306?
I may not remember you saying you were a nuclear booster, but it wasn’t six posts ago. 
I don’t disagree. However staying the course of reductions we are on won’t kill us. I also disagree with several of the proposed “much more” methods.
Simply because it does really show that the most optimistic scenario still means that we will have to invest now on adaptation efforts that are going to be less cheap the longer we wait. Of course if you have a party in government that is telling us that no problem is coming it is more likely that the other higher level scenarios will have to be investigated more than just the low end one.
Again, even in this thread I pointed at the relatively low cost that we will encounter by making a more concerted effort. The problem here is to insist that the current course will be enough to avoid going over the total carbon budget that we can use. Not good enough, we are going to be lucky to get under the 2 degrees that are expected** if** we do a good effort. If we do the usual we are not going to see that, 3 degrees or more are then in store.
The funny thing here is back when this debate started, the activists sneered at any study that wasn’t part of the IPCC report, because it was ‘the authoritative source’. But when the IPCC revised its projections and clarified others and they didn’t sound quite as scary, now the IPCC is ‘conservative’ and the argument instead becomes justified by outlier studies, or cites to environmental groups that tend to take the most extreme IPCC scenario, assume the high end of the range of that scenario, and present that as the ‘consensus’.
The shell game never ends. And the CAGW side is getting more shrill and more aggressive every day, while the actual since is moving very slightly in the opposite direction and world CO2 trends are moving very much in the opposite direction.
A couple of weeks ago Nate Silver’s 538 blog published a piece on climate change that made the very obvious point that current extreme weather changes can’t be blamed on climate change. The author isn’t a ‘denier’ - he’s someone who has testified before Congress that climate change is real, man is partly responsible, and it’s going to cause future damage unless we do something about it.
His point was simply that climate change is a long-term phenomenon, and the data on extreme weather events is extremely ‘noisy’, and that we still don’t understand how climate change will effect them. That means that even though we might say climate change should lead to more extreme weather in the future, that future is not now, and we don’t have clear evidence for it having any effect at this moment.
The author made one little error - he said that the data showed that climate change wasn’t responsible, when what he should have said was that the data wasn’t sufficient to establish causation or even to tell us whether extreme weather events were increasing. A small correction to that statement would would have been sufficient.
I thought it was a rather mild point, and the author was just doing what Silver’s 538 site was set up to do - use proper statistical reasoning to dispel myths and help people think about statistical problems a little more clearly. But man, the CAGW side went nuts. The comment section went ballistic. Michael Mann wrote a heated ‘rebuttal’ that didn’t even address the points made in the article but simply attacked the author. Other people piled on with editorials.
Silver was forced to genuflect before the mob and promise to do better in the future, and he found another scientist to ‘rebut’ the article, but the rebuttal actually didn’t deny any of the points the original article made, but simply said that we couldn’t wait for the data to come in before acting. In fact, the rebuttal had more errors than the original article.
The message sent was: “You’re either with us 100% in everything we say, or we will destroy you.” As Bjorn Lomborg discovered, you don’t have to be a ‘denier’ to get this treatment. You just have to deviate from the party line at any level, even in areas where there is absolutely no scientific consensus, such as how much we should actuarially discount future warming damage or whether the opportunity cost of carbon reduction is greater than the net present value of future damage.
I still have to wonder how much unbiased science can be done in such a toxic atmosphere.
Take this back to one of the several dozen “is AGW real?” threads.
This thread presumes a need to take action regarding the purported AGW and seeks a discussion of what action to take.
Stick to the topic.
[ /Moderating ]
Yeah, you keep claiming it’s a ‘relatively low cost’, but that doesn’t mean we have to believe you, no matter how many cites from environmental or ‘green’ groups you post. I also remember that Obama was going to usher in a ‘green’ economy, and that we could actually reduce CO2 emissions and increase GDP by developing all this new green technology to sell to the world. It was nonsense then, too, and I said so repeatedly.
I’ve done plenty of studying on the costs of alt-energy, and I’m a fan of lots of it. I know what it costs, and what’s feasible. Probably more so than you do since I actually work in engineering and for a company that makes some of this stuff. And the real truth is, we really don’t have alternatives today that can feasibly scale large enough to substantially replace our fossil fuels. We just don’t. Not unless the green movement suddenly starts demanding rapid development of nuclear power. Or, they could jump wholeheartedly on the fracking bandwagon and start pushing for natural gas conversions and such. But they seem to be against both of those reasonable alternatives that are the only feasible things that could substantially lower CO2 emissions today.
And the zero-carbon, non-nuclear alternatives we do have that are reasonably cost-effective are only cost-effective at low levels where the low-hanging fruit is. Wind power isn’t that far off grid parity when you can locate your turbine farms in regions of high, steady winds close to the consumers of the power. But there just aren’t that many sites like that left, and once you start moving to secondary sites the cost goes way up. Solar makes sense for distant off-grid usage and perhaps in areas that get large amounts of sunlight and have lots of open land for large solar installations. But once you get away from those areas, the cost again goes up dramatically.
And neither of those technologies scale well today. At best, we might get to 10% or 20% replacement of fossil fuels. But the thing is, natural gas already offers a greater reduction of CO2 than that, and you guys don’t want to touch it.
It almost makes you think that there’s another agenda wrapped around this - you don’t just want a solution - you want a solution that furthers your other goals. You want to increase taxes, punish oil companies, cut consumption and move to ‘sustainable’ living, have large NGO’s and the UN have controlling power over our economies, etc. Because other conclusions are hard to justify when your side claims that global warming is the biggest threat we face as a species, while adamantly refusing to consider the only feasible ways we have today of reducing CO2 in large quantities.
Piffle, the shell game is always coming from the contrarians.
You see, I did wanted to see how far that shell game goes, as usual the fact that scientists and experts are also consulted on what the IPCC was telling us is just dismissed as “just bloggers”. I do choose my sources carefully. I invite others to check who are the ones that report what the IPCC is saying:
As for the scientist that Sam is talking about from the 538 blog:
So no Sam, the message is that like Newt Gingrich you are moving too far from your days of calling the ones that ignore what we need to do as hot air makers.
You are also relying on solutions that are offered by the same ones that minimize the effects of what CO2 is doing and will most likely do in the future. Indeed, the same hot air makers and people that attempt to discredit the IPCC are telling other scientists and even insurers what to do.
Read it again, we are discussing the latest conclusions about the cost from the IPCC, costs that are indeed closer to what Richard Alley and Nordhaus reported early BTW. So I will listen to them rather than your opinion.
And I’m on the record of accepting the use of Natural Gas under some conditions and there are environmentalist groups that also agree with that. So one more data point to report that you also are not paying attention.