Climate change

[PassedOut]

Side note but since man is part of nature ...fully nature....is not man made stuff natural...just like bird or bees made stuff is natural?

Sure. So what? Lightning is natural too, but I don't stay out on the golf course during a thunderstorm.

[PassedOut]

While some scientific organization readily accept the IPCC-held belief in climate change, others do not. Most notably, the American Physics Society and Meteorology Society.

If there is really an "American Physics Society and Meteorology Society," it is so small that even Google can't find it.

 

But I found this using the search term as modified by Google (and I'm pretty sure that this is the organization you mean): American Physical Society Climate Change Commentary (adopted by Council on April 18, 2010)

 

Greenhouse gas emissions are changing the Earth's energy balance on a planetary scale in ways that affect the climate over long periods of time (~100 years). Historical records indicate that the Earth’s climate is sensitive to energy changes, both external (the sun’s radiative output, changes in Earth’s orbit, etc.) and internal. Internal to our global system, it is not just the atmosphere, but also the oceans and land that are involved in the complex dynamics that result in global climate. Aerosols and particulates resulting from human and natural sources also play roles that can either offset or reinforce greenhouse gas effects. While there are factors driving the natural variability of climate (e.g., volcanoes, solar variability, oceanic oscillations), no known natural mechanisms have been proposed that explain all of the observed warming in the past century. Warming is observed in land-surface temperatures, sea-surface temperatures, and for the last 30 years, lower-atmosphere temperatures measured by satellite.

And these are your most notable contrarians. Doesn't seem to me to be an argument for rolling the dice...

[mike777]

What do you think the question should be?

 

 

I think I posted what I thought the question should be in detail a number of posts ago. For the most part the question ought to be "how urgent is the problem of global warming?"

---

 

to put it another way...I paraphrase but I hope the point is clear.

 

.Fossil fuels are harmful in a nonlinear way. The harm is concave( if a little bit of it is devoid of harm, a lot can cause climatic disturbances.)

 

Due to opacity, we do not need to believe in anthropogenic climate change (caused by humans). in order to be ecologically conservative. We can put the convexity effects to use in producing a risk management rule for pollution. Simply, just as with size, split your sources of pollution among many natural sources. The harm from polluting with ten different sources is smaller than the equivalent pollution from a single source.*

*Volatility and uncertainty are equivalent.

[PassedOut]

For the most part the question ought to be "how urgent is the problem of global warming?"

Obviously the American Association for the Advancement of Science considers it urgent enough to devote a site to explain the risks in plain English. How urgent do you consider the problem?

[mike777]

Obviously the American Association for the Advancement of Science considers it urgent enough to devote a site to explain the risks in plain English. How urgent do you consider the problem?

 

Since you asked me..I don't know the answer to that question.

[PassedOut]

Since you asked me..I don't know the answer to that question.

Fair enough.

[blackshoe]

It seems your logic is that if human beings breathe out carbon dioxide, then it's also safe to emit billions of tons of carbon dioxide by burning carbon-based fuels. Interesting.

:P

My logic? Sorry bub, but no. Yours, maybe.

 

Maybe we can stop heating and cooling our houses, or running our sump pumps, or washing our clothes, or building cars, or all those horrible technology things that produce all this "excess" CO₂. I'm sure if we all went back to living in caves and hunting with rocks and sticks that would keep the emissions down. You go ahead. Me, I'm feeling kinda icky right now, so I'm gonna go take a shower. Using water from my CO₂ emitting natural gas water heater.41

[PassedOut]

Maybe we can stop heating and cooling our houses, or running our sump pumps, or washing our clothes, or building cars, or all those horrible technology things that produce all this "excess" CO₂. I'm sure if we all went back to living in caves and hunting with rocks and sticks that would keep the emissions down. You go ahead. Me, I'm feeling kinda icky right now, so I'm gonna go take a shower. Using water from my CO₂ emitting natural gas water heater.41

I don't mind your trolling for laughs by intentionally misrepresenting my position. It is kinda funny.

 

But how do you suggest that we deal with the actual problem?

[blackshoe]

I don't mind your trolling for laughs by intentionally misrepresenting my position. It is kinda funny.

 

But how do you suggest that we deal with the actual problem?

If I had the answer to that, I'd be richer than Bill Gates. B-)

[Al_U_Card]

First you need to identify the problem.

 

Are we "over"-heating the planet?

Are we "heating" the planet?

Are we able to control the heating of the planet?

Are we better able to adapt to changing conditions or to change the conditions?

 

What is the "correct" [CO2] in the atmosphere?

When does that [CO2] become deleterious?

How much can we affect that [CO2] relative to natural variation (past and present)?

Should we try to increase [CO2] or decrease it and by how much?

How much will that increase/decrease cost and what effect will it have on the various parameters of interest?

[Daniel1960]

If there is really an "American Physics Society and Meteorology Society," it is so small that even Google can't find it.

 

But I found this using the search term as modified by Google (and I'm pretty sure that this is the organization you mean): American Physical Society Climate Change Commentary (adopted by Council on April 18, 2010)

 

 

And these are your most notable contrarians. Doesn't seem to me to be an argument for rolling the dice...

The APS has amost 50,000 members, and is the most noted society of physicists in America. Technically, it is called the American Physical Society Physics. The members voted to change the name ten years ago, but due to some legal glitch, the old name remains. When you listen to many scientists, they refer to the "physics" of the issue. The APS has been critical of the IPCC in past years, and has questionaed the science behind their models. The statement you posted (which is scheduled to be revised later this year), says nothing about significant warming that is in any way harmful to this planet. The statement is quite generic, indicating that man and nature (due to numerous processes) have contributed to the recently observed warming. I find nothing in this statement that would indicate that we are on a path to destruction.

[PassedOut]

The statement you posted (which is scheduled to be revised later this year), says nothing about significant warming that is in any way harmful to this planet. The statement is quite generic, indicating that man and nature (due to numerous processes) have contributed to the recently observed warming. I find nothing in this statement that would indicate that we are on a path to destruction.

I would certainly hope that we are not going to find ourselves on "a path to destruction." The point is that our continuing to spew billions of tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere poses a completely unnecessary risk. That is why conservatives consider it irresponsible.

 

Here is another sentence from the same APS Policy statement that you endorsed:

 

Thus given the significant risks associated with global climate change, prudent steps should be taken to reduce greenhouse gas emissions now while continuing to improve the observational data and the model predictions.

Eminently sensible. I endorse it also.

 

By your own telling, the APS is the most notable scientific organization that takes a contrarian stance regarding global climate change, and even the APS considers it important to cut greenhouse gas emissions to reduce the risks. That settled, we should return to the original intent of this thread.

[hrothgar]

The statement you posted (which is scheduled to be revised later this year), says nothing about significant warming that is in any way harmful to this planet. The statement is quite generic, indicating that man and nature (due to numerous processes) have contributed to the recently observed warming. I find nothing in this statement that would indicate that we are on a path to destruction.

 

No one ever accused you of being particularly bright...

 

If you took the time to look at the APS page that contains the April 18th, 2010 statement, you'd also find the November 18th, 2007 statement

 

http://www.aps.org/policy/statements/07_1.cfm

 

Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth's climate. Greenhouse gases include carbon dioxide as well as methane, nitrous oxide and other gases. They are emitted from fossil fuel combustion and a range of industrial and agricultural processes.

 

The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring.

 

If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.

 

Because the complexity of the climate makes accurate prediction difficult, the APS urges an enhanced effort to understand the effects of human activity on the Earth’s climate, and to provide the technological options for meeting the climate challenge in the near and longer terms. The APS also urges governments, universities, national laboratories and its membership to support policies and actions that will reduce the emission of greenhouse gases.

[Daniel1960]

No one ever accused you of being particularly bright...

 

If you took the time to look at the APS page that contains the April 18th, 2010 statement, you'd also find the November 18th, 2007 statement

 

http://www.aps.org/policy/statements/07_1.cfm

Is it possible for you to post a response without badmouthing?

Sure, you can go back to earlier statements. I do not see why these would be preferable. Since the 2010 statement, many members complained (some even resigned in protest) that the statement did not adequately reflect the views of the physicists. Due to this disagreement among members, the APS is scheduled to release an updated statement later this year. I would think looking for a more recent statement this year would be more prudent than retreated to an outdated statement, even if it does not alligned with your beliefs.

[Daniel1960]

If there is really an "American Physics Society and Meteorology Society," it is so small that even Google can't find it.

 

But I found this using the search term as modified by Google (and I'm pretty sure that this is the organization you mean): American Physical Society Climate Change Commentary (adopted by Council on April 18, 2010)

 

 

And these are your most notable contrarians. Doesn't seem to me to be an argument for rolling the dice...

I now realize that you thought this was one professional society, instead of the two that I intended. In additional to the APS statement to which you referenced, the American Meteorological Society (AMS) sent a questional to all its members, and received 1821 responses. Of those 1821, 52% stated they were convinced that global warming was happening and that is was mostly human caused. Not exactly an overwhelming endorsement. Combined with the APS, these are two of the most involved scientific societies studying the climate.

 

Regarding the new APS cliamte change statement, early insight into the process can be found here by one of the contributors.

http://judithcurry.com/2014/02/19/aps-reviews-its-climate-change-statement/

[blackshoe]

The point is that our continuing to spew billions of tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere poses a completely unnecessary risk.

Suppose we were, by government fiat, to immediately stop this "spewing". How would that be implemented, and what would be the short and long term impacts of this implementation on the planet, humanity as a whole, individual groups of people (think the poor, or the rich, or the "first world" countries, or the third world), and the planet itself? As to the latter (the impacts) how do you know?

[PassedOut]

Suppose we were, by government fiat, to immediately stop this "spewing".

I totally disagree with you about that approach. You've already threatened to stop taking showers in that event, and none of us would want that to happen. B-)

 

The conservative solution, which I favor, requires that the cost of carbon fuels eventually reflect the associated externalities. We like it because the unfettered energy market could then address the problem on a level playing field with the entrenched gas, oil, and coal industries.

 

A good start would be the elimination of the special tax breaks enjoyed by the entrenched industries. The next step would be a small carbon tax to begin to offset the externalities, increasing in predictable steps to allow nuclear and other non-carbon energy sources to ramp up to power the warm showers we all agree that you should continue.

[Al_U_Card]

And the "cost" would be redistributed to additional subsidies to solar, wind, geothermal? Do subsidies encourage innovation and efficiency in the conservative approach? Or do they pander to existing paradigms and discourage improving on "qualifying" approaches? Just who gets the biggest subsidies for "green" energy creation? (That hasn't gone belly-up yet...) Might just be those friendly, neighbourhood fossil-fuel dealers. Or would it be better to reduce demand by restricting energy distribution for heating, lighting etc.? Or just have brown and black outs like in the U.K. since they are well on their way to being green....Or how about the need for back up when the sun is not shining or the wind is not blowing? Do we just wait for a gust of wind before typing the next word? Those fossil-fueled back-up sites become less efficient when they are running on/off depending on the weather... :P

[PassedOut]

And the "cost" would be redistributed to additional subsidies to solar, wind, geothermal? Do subsidies encourage innovation and efficiency in the conservative approach? Or do they pander to existing paradigms and discourage improving on "qualifying" approaches? Just who gets the biggest subsidies for "green" energy creation? (That hasn't gone belly-up yet...) Might just be those friendly, neighbourhood fossil-fuel dealers. Or would it be better to reduce demand by restricting energy distribution for heating, lighting etc.? Or just have brown and black outs like in the U.K. since they are well on their way to being green....Or how about the need for back up when the sun is not shining or the wind is not blowing? Do we just wait for a gust of wind before typing the next word? Those fossil-fueled back-up sites become less efficient when they are running on/off depending on the weather... :P

As a conservative who has been in business all of my life, I'm sick and tired of left-wing alarmist arguments like these from people who have no confidence in the resilience of a free market. Just level the playing field and let the market work.

 

If you care to investigate, you'll find that nuclear energy requires neither sunshine nor wind, so you can keep typing even at night on a calm day. The idea that you can only accomplish something by giving tax breaks to entrenched corporations or by "government fiat" is simply alarmist foolishness.

[Al_U_Card]

Couldn't agree more :) Thorium was and is our best hope.

 

As for the AAAS "statement", Judith Curry writes:

 

I am trying to understand the point of this document. The authors bypass any scientific explanations, and merely appeal to consensus. They then cite a bunch of catastrophic possibilities, many of which are very unlikely to occur on the timescale of the next century (as per the IPCC AR5), citing fat tail risks. Then they say that there is much that we can do to address the mitigation problem, without providing anything in the way of actual recommendations to accomplish this.

 

The members of the AAAS Climate Science Panel are a group of distinguished climate scientists, including one Nobel Laureate (Molina) and at least two members of the National Academy of Science. A hint to the rationale behind this document is this statement by co-chair James McCarthy:

 

“The real experts on this subject agree in a way that the public do not understand.”

 

Ok, I see, this committee somehow reflects the opinions of ‘real experts’? Well my main concern is that there are no experts represented on this committee related to risk management, economics and mitigation strategies, which is the topic of about 1/2 of the report. And these particular experts seem more alarmed than the expert authors of the IPCC report (well, the WG1 anyways), citing many very low probability events as something to be alarmed about.

 

Perhaps AAAS stands for Aligned American Alarmist Society? :blink:

[mike777]

so what is new on the Thorium front?

 

As a progressive can we at least get some small research grants from the taxpayers on thorium and on some of the well known problems regarding solar, storage issues, transmission issues, battery issues. Again I am just talking about small research grants spread out over many, not large govt development loans.

 

 

Per an article in the New Yorker( I think) the billions we spend on that fusion project seems to border on the criminal or the keystone cops for those old enough to remember them.

[Al_U_Card]

Start watching at 20 min. and see what waits for us if we adopt an "EU" approach to climatism...

 

http://www.rte.ie/player/ca/show/10264275/

[Al_U_Card]

Since the UK may be in trouble with Greens for cutting down Carolina hardwood forests to run their newly converted (from coal to "biomass" which the EU considers carbon neutral...) power stations, there is this report on how the state-run TV the BBC is concerned about any resistance to the alarmist agenda:

 

A BBC executive in charge of editorial standards has ordered programme editors not to broadcast debates between climate scientists and global warming sceptics.

Alasdair MacLeod claimed that such discussions amount to ‘false balance’ and breach an undertaking to the Corporation’s watchdog, the BBC Trust.

Mr MacLeod, head of editorial standards and compliance for BBC Scotland, sent an email on February 27 to 18 senior producers and editors, which has been obtained by The Mail on Sunday.

It reads: ‘When covering climate change stories, we should not run debates / discussions directly between scientists and sceptics.

Alasdair MacLeod, head of editorial standards at the BBC, has ordered programme editors not to broadcast debates between climate scientists and global warming sceptics +8

Alasdair MacLeod, head of editorial standards at the BBC, has ordered programme editors not to broadcast debates between climate scientists and global warming sceptics

If a programme does run such a discussion, it will... be in breach of the editorial guidelines on impartiality.’

Two weeks before the email was sent, Lord Lawson, chairman of the sceptic think-tank the GlobalWarming Policy Foundation, was invited on to Radio 4’s Today programme to debate with Sir Brian Hoskins, director of the Grantham Institute for Climate Change Research at Imperial College, whether this year’s storms were the result of climate change.

In fact, as Lord Lawson made clear, he is not a climate ‘denier’ and accepts that manmade emissions of greenhouse gases have warmed the planet – but he believes their effects will not be as serious as some people argue.

However, his appearance sparked protests from green groups, which said that such debates should not be broadcast.

 

'All viewpoints continue to be given due weight in our output'

- A BBC spokesman

Mr MacLeod wrote that the reason the Trust decided that there should be no attempt by the BBC to give equal weight to opposing sides on climate change was that sceptics’ views were ‘based on opinion rather than demonstrablescientific validity’.

Last night a Trust spokesman said: ‘We agreed that there should be no attempt to give equal weight to opinion and to evidence in science coverage, but we said specifically that this does not mean that critical opinion should be excluded.

‘We did not specify that the BBC should not broadcast debates / discussions between scientists and sceptics.’

A BBC spokesman added: ‘All viewpoints continue to be given due weight in our output.’

Asked whether the BBC was prepared explicitly to disavow Mr MacLeod’s email, both officials failed

to comment.

GWPF director Dr Benny Peiser said BBC coverage of climate change has been ‘far too biased for far too long’.

 

[Al_U_Card]

Since the UK may be in trouble with Greens for cutting down Carolina hardwood forests to run their newly converted (from coal to "biomass" which the EU considers carbon neutral...) power stations, there is this report on how the state-run TV (the BBC) is concerned about any resistance to the alarmist agenda:

 

A BBC executive in charge of editorial standards has ordered programme editors not to broadcast debates between climate scientists and global warming sceptics.

Alasdair MacLeod claimed that such discussions amount to ‘false balance’ and breach an undertaking to the Corporation’s watchdog, the BBC Trust.

Mr MacLeod, head of editorial standards and compliance for BBC Scotland, sent an email on February 27 to 18 senior producers and editors, which has been obtained by The Mail on Sunday.

It reads: ‘When covering climate change stories, we should not run debates / discussions directly between scientists and sceptics.

Alasdair MacLeod, head of editorial standards at the BBC, has ordered programme editors not to broadcast debates between climate scientists and global warming sceptics

 

If a programme does run such a discussion, it will... be in breach of the editorial guidelines on impartiality.’

Two weeks before the email was sent, Lord Lawson, chairman of the sceptic think-tank the GlobalWarming Policy Foundation, was invited on to Radio 4’s Today programme to debate with Sir Brian Hoskins, director of the Grantham Institute for Climate Change Research at Imperial College, whether this year’s storms were the result of climate change.

In fact, as Lord Lawson made clear, he is not a climate ‘denier’ and accepts that manmade emissions of greenhouse gases have warmed the planet – but he believes their effects will not be as serious as some people argue.

However, his appearance sparked protests from green groups, which said that such debates should not be broadcast.

 

'All viewpoints continue to be given due weight in our output'

- A BBC spokesman

Mr MacLeod wrote that the reason the Trust decided that there should be no attempt by the BBC to give equal weight to opposing sides on climate change was that sceptics’ views were ‘based on opinion rather than demonstrable scientific validity’.

Last night a Trust spokesman said: ‘We agreed that there should be no attempt to give equal weight to opinion and to evidence in science coverage, but we said specifically that this does not mean that critical opinion should be excluded.

‘We did not specify that the BBC should not broadcast debates / discussions between scientists and sceptics.’

A BBC spokesman added: ‘All viewpoints continue to be given due weight in our output.’

Asked whether the BBC was prepared explicitly to disavow Mr MacLeod’s email, both officials failed

to comment.

GWPF director Dr Benny Peiser said BBC coverage of climate change has been ‘far too biased for far too long’.

 

[hrothgar]

 

Alasdair MacLeod, head of editorial standards at the BBC, has ordered programme editors not to broadcast debates between climate scientists and global warming sceptics

 

If a programme does run such a discussion, it will... be in breach of the editorial guidelines on impartiality.’

 

 

Good for them. Looks like they're finally learning.

 

You don't talk to flat earthers when plotting a trip around the world

You don't consult homeopath's when you're looking for treatments to cancer

You don't ask Libertarians for advice about the economy

And you don't pretend that global warming skeptics have anything useful to say about anything...