[Al_U_Card]

Happily, Al Gore is the most prominent and vocal of the alarmists. So many holes big enough to drive a truck through that anything he says can be held up to ridicule and easy correction. (Not to mention Cat 6 hurricanes, millions of degrees at the earth's center, backwards rotating cyclones etc. etc. etc.)

As for what to do about.....CO2 "spewing"?

Since the IPCC accepted (exaggerated) values can make no sensible difference, what should we do? Oh, right, just hand over our money and hope that the fear-mongers will fix whatever it is they are scaring us with at present.

Be it the bogey-man, Reds, "Terrorists", CO2 or any other perceived or imagined threat, we have only to analyze the data (wonky model runs do NOT count) and draw the appropriate conclusions. None of them involve depriving living organisms of a fundamental food or exhalation product.

[PassedOut]

Daniel1960, on 2013-August-23, 12:16, said:

Once we eliminate both extremes, and both extremes get most of the press, we have some valid talking points.

Because we're in uncharted territory, no one knows exactly what will happen because of the increasing concentrations of CO2 that we're forcing into the atmosphere. That's why we need the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to provide the best objective estimate of what we face. No individual can sift through all the information available, and the fact that hundreds of scientists work together on the report acts to minimize the effect of individual biases.

As an estimate, the report (when it is finished in September) won't be expected to predict the future with absolute precision. That's not possible. It will, however, be a lot more reliable than the rantings of individual pencil pushers who disagree one way or the other.

We do owe thanks to the scientists who donate many hours to make sure that we get accurate information on the issue. Here is a good piece in the Guardian about the forthcoming report: With the forthcoming IPCC report, the contrarians finally agree we are changing the climate

Quote

In the end, the contrarians will be in the "slow simmer" camp. So listen carefully to the Christopher Moncktons, James Inhofes, and Rush Limbaughs of this world. Wait for them to bring up the IPCC sensitivity and realize just how much they have conceded.

But back to the IPCC; in a certain sense, the IPCC has done its job. For this fifth report, they have synthesized the science and provided enough evidence that action is warranted. How many more reports of this type do we need? Will a sixth report that confirms what we already know make much of a difference? Will a seventh? Do these reports need to be written every 5-6 years? Perhaps one a decade would be sufficient? These reports require enormous amounts of time and energy. Scientists who take authorship roles put their own research on hold, sometimes for years.

Whatever the future holds for the IPCC, the history books will tell us we were warned. Time and time again, the world's best scientists have sent us clear messages.

And those messages are being received.

[billw55]

PassedOut, on 2013-August-26, 08:27, said:

As an estimate, the report (when it is finished in September) won't be expected to predict the future with absolute precision. That's not possible. It will, however, be a lot more reliable than the rantings of individual pencil pushers who disagree one way or the other.

Will it? I'm not sure. Averaging the opinions of many people who don't know the answer doesn't necessarily get us closer to the right answer. Is this an "emperor's nose" fallacy? Maybe not, since we do have a lot of measured data, but it is still a future prediction with highish uncertainty. Just a thought.

[PassedOut]

billw55, on 2013-August-26, 09:53, said:

Will it? I'm not sure. Averaging the opinions of many people who don't know the answer doesn't necessarily get us closer to the right answer.

Of course that is not what is being done.

There is no doubt that the problem is real. Mankind is increasing the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere and CO2 is a heat-trapping gas.

When looking at the effects of that upon climate from many different disciplines converges closely on an answer -- even though none of those disciplines arrives at that precise answer -- you are better off using that answer as your working hypothesis than you are using the findings of any individual outlier.

[billw55]

PassedOut, on 2013-August-26, 10:51, said:

Of course that is not what is being done.

There is no doubt that the problem is real. Mankind is increasing the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere and CO2 is a heat-trapping gas.

When looking at the effects of that upon climate from many different disciplines converges closely on an answer -- even though none of those disciplines arrives at that precise answer -- you are better off using that answer as your working hypothesis than you are using the findings of any individual outlier.

Perhaps. I have read warming predictions anywhere from 1-5 degree by 2100. There must be many publications making such predictions. Are the predictions distributed normally about 3 degrees (or some other mean)? Or is the distribution flatter? I don't deny that warming is the most likely outcome, I just wonder how accurately we really know the magnitude.

[PassedOut]

billw55, on 2013-August-26, 13:15, said:

Perhaps. I have read warming predictions anywhere from 1-5 degree by 2100. There must be many publications making such predictions. Are the predictions distributed normally about 3 degrees (or some other mean)? Or is the distribution flatter? I don't deny that warming is the most likely outcome, I just wonder how accurately we really know the magnitude.

We'll have to wait until September to see the actual IPCC report, which is not some random publication. Of course, a 95% confidence level is not certainty -- but surely certainty is not attainable in this matter.

It seems to me an unacceptable gamble that the IPCC report will be so far off that no action should be taken to reduce emissions. And I think others see it that way too, considering that the actions needed are pretty minor compared with the dangers of inaction.

As a conservative, I naturally favor market-based solutions of the sort now being tried in several places. Getting started sooner will (I hope) prevent the need for more draconian measures later.

[billw55]

PassedOut, on 2013-August-26, 14:13, said:

It seems to me an unacceptable gamble that the IPCC report will be so far off that no action should be taken to reduce emissions. And I think others see it that way too, considering that the actions needed are pretty minor compared with the dangers of inaction.

Action is already being taken. Since 2006, many nations have reduced their CO2 emissions, and the USA more than any other nation. Despite this, global emissions have gone up. At what point do we say: we have made a good start - it's time for others to get on board. Why should we make additional efforts that could harm our economy, when we are already leading the world in reductions, and other nations are ignoring the situation? Why should we think these further steps will work, when new emissions from other big polluters are overwhelming our efforts? Why should we have to carry our own weight and theirs too?

[PassedOut]

billw55, on 2013-August-26, 14:38, said:

Action is already being taken. Since 2006, many nations have reduced their CO2 emissions, and the USA more than any other nation. Despite this, global emissions have gone up. At what point do we say: we have made a good start - it's time for others to get on board. Why should we make additional efforts that could harm our economy, when we are already leading the world in reductions, and other nations are ignoring the situation? Why should we think these further steps will work, when new emissions from other big polluters are overwhelming our efforts? Why should we have to carry our own weight and theirs too?

I'm not sure why you opine that we in the US are carrying our own weight. The few countries with larger CO2 emissions per capita have much smaller populations than the US.



Other countries have made a start too, but the US has a long way to go before we can be said to be carrying our own weight in reducing CO2 emissions. And beyond that, much of the CO2 already in the atmosphere came from past US emissions.

[hrothgar]

billw55, on 2013-August-26, 14:38, said:

Action is already being taken. Since 2006, many nations have reduced their CO2 emissions, and the USA more than any other nation. Despite this, global emissions have gone up. At what point do we say: we have made a good start - it's time for others to get on board. Why should we make additional efforts that could harm our economy, when we are already leading the world in reductions, and other nations are ignoring the situation? Why should we think these further steps will work, when new emissions from other big polluters are overwhelming our efforts? Why should we have to carry our own weight and theirs too?

Funny how the year 2006 shows up... Wasn't that the last year before the great recession and the associated decrease in GDP?

The remainder of the reduction is explained by switching from coal over to natural gas. This is all well and good, if it weren't for the fact that all the methane leaks associated with fraking don't show up in C02 measurements.

As to why "we" need to take additional steps... You might want to look at US aggregate c02 emissions over time.
We're the ones who put most of the C02 into the atmosphere.

Moreover, out current per capita c02 emissions are 1.5 times that of Russia, close to double that of Germany and Japan, and more than 4 times that of China.

Oh yeah, we're also the richest country in the world...

[Daniel1960]

billw55, on 2013-August-26, 13:15, said:

Perhaps. I have read warming predictions anywhere from 1-5 degree by 2100. There must be many publications making such predictions. Are the predictions distributed normally about 3 degrees (or some other mean)? Or is the distribution flatter? I don't deny that warming is the most likely outcome, I just wonder how accurately we really know the magnitude.

MIT published a report on the distributions of global warming predicitons:

http://web.mit.edu/g...ww/rpt73fig.gif

Keep in mind that these are above 1990 levels, and that the temperature values should be adjusted downward 0.4C to account for the recent rise. The 95% bounds would be 0.5 - 5C, and the prediction are skewed towards the low end, with a median value of 1.8. The IPCC is higher than the predicted distribution by ~0.5C. Notice than neither very high, nor negative values have been eliminated.

[billw55]

PassedOut, on 2013-August-26, 18:02, said:

And beyond that, much of the CO2 already in the atmosphere came from past US emissions.

hrothgar, on 2013-August-26, 18:33, said:

We're the ones who put most of the C02 into the atmosphere.

Quite so. And, as I have stated before, I favor measures to reduce CO2 emissions which are not economically restrictive. There are many such things we can do. We can and should expand wind, hydro, solar, and nuclear power, while reducing coal. Natural gas may be better than coal, but isn't really a long term solution to CO2 emissions.

Still, I do resent the world knocking at our door for action while other big emitters go on their merry way, building dozens (hundreds?) of new coal plants per year. Furthermore, our reductions won't actually work, while total global emissions continue to increase.

[hrothgar]

billw55, on 2013-August-27, 06:31, said:

Still, I do resent the world knocking at our door for action while other big emitters go on their merry way, building dozens (hundreds?) of new coal plants per year. Furthermore, our reductions won't actually work, while total global emissions continue to increase.

Define "Won't actually work"...

Even if other countries are increasing C02 emissions, having the US decrease our own will mitigate the total amount of C02 in the atmosphere and mitigate the total damage.

I understand your frustration. At the same time, I have a lot of issues with the attitude that the US has a right to pollute at our current level, but its unacceptable for inhabitants of the third world to do the same. Long term, there need to be significant decreases in C02 production, but this may very well involve very sharp reductions by the worst polluters and some increases by developing nations.

[Al_U_Card]

One can only wonder at the "total damage" caused by...err... how many thousandths of a degree C per country and their [CO2] reductions?

Do tell.

[Al_U_Card]

Triplicate post

This post has been edited by Al_U_Card: 2013-August-30, 06:07

[Al_U_Card]

Duplicate post

This post has been edited by Al_U_Card: 2013-August-30, 06:05

[Daniel1960]

hrothgar, on 2013-August-27, 07:04, said:

Define "Won't actually work"...

Even if other countries are increasing C02 emissions, having the US decrease our own will mitigate the total amount of C02 in the atmosphere and mitigate the total damage.

I understand your frustration. At the same time, I have a lot of issues with the attitude that the US has a right to pollute at our current level, but its unacceptable for inhabitants of the third world to do the same. Long term, there need to be significant decreases in C02 production, but this may very well involve very sharp reductions by the worst polluters and some increases by developing nations.

If the US were to cease CO2 emissions altogether, the atmospheric rise would slow just slightly. IF the largest emitters were to slowly reduce emissions, then the atmospheric level would then stabilize at some higher value. This may be the best approach both enivironmentally and economically.
Pollution is a different issue entirely. Those countries emitting any levels of pollutants need to cease immediately, lest long lasting damage occurs.

[mike777]

Daniel1960, on 2013-August-28, 07:52, said:

If the US were to cease CO2 emissions altogether, the atmospheric rise would slow just slightly. IF the largest emitters were to slowly reduce emissions, then the atmospheric level would then stabilize at some higher value. This may be the best approach both enivironmentally and economically.
Pollution is a different issue entirely. Those countries emitting any levels of pollutants need to cease immediately, lest long lasting damage occurs.

I thought the issue was more about cloud formation but maybe not...vegetation and soil and dust

In any event I want to be first to go on record for clean air and water.....

I understand Al and many other p posters who hate clean air and water

too claim that man does nt make pollution silly, to claim pollution is ok..silly

btw I fully fully grant closing down a gross polluting plant will cost jobs and hurt...yes

Otoh I understand family lives on coal jobs...no

if that sounds conflicted/confusing ....ok

[Daniel1960]

mike777, on 2013-August-28, 21:46, said:

I thought the issue was more about cloud formation but maybe not...vegetation and soil and dust

In any event I want to be first to go on record for clean air and water.....

I understand Al and many other p posters who hate clean air and water

too claim that man does nt make pollution silly, to claim pollution is ok..silly

btw I fully fully grant closing down a gross polluting plant will cost jobs and hurt...yes

Otoh I understand family lives on coal jobs...no

if that sounds conflicted/confusing ....ok

No real complaints here. I just want to make sure we differentiate between pollution and CO2 emissions. The former had adverse effects throughtout nature, some potentially life-threatening. The latter is a fundamental requirement for life, with potential atmospheric effects.

[billw55]

mike777, on 2013-August-28, 21:46, said:

if that sounds conflicted/confusing ....ok

Honestly, you almost always sound confusing, regardless of topic.

[Al_U_Card]

Less confusing and worth a 1000 words (lower troposphere temperature anomaly values as measured by satellite).



(Recall that according to the (model) "projections" the poles will exhibit accelerated warming due to [CO2] increases.)