Climate change

[blackshoe]

I knew there was a reason you don't work for the government http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/wink.gif

I spent 20 years in the military, seventeen of them as an officer. One of the lessons I remember very well from that time was "it is not enough that an officer refrain from impropriety; he must avoid even the appearance of impropriety." But perhaps that only applies outside the beltway. :(

[Al_U_Card]

Glad to see that the US is finally following the course set by your good ally Great Britain....they really are closing down those dirty old coal-fired power plants and replacing them with wind and solar. Erp, and they are expecting brown-outs and power shortages as well as rate increases you say? Hmmmnn, well at least the US still has fracked gas to fire their power plants. You still have that, don't you? Until that energy source is declared too carbony too, I suppose. Carbon, we have to get rid of it to keep our carbon-based life alive....right? Those 3 molecules per thou really do work overtime...just like more and more Americans.

[Al_U_Card]

Well worth the read Catastrophe averted...IPCC says so

 

I guess that some grandchildren may not even notice B-)

[y66]

From Henry Paulson's op-ed yesterday The Coming Climate Crash:

 

This problem can’t be solved without strong leadership from the developing world. The key is cooperation between the United States and China — the two biggest economies, the two biggest emitters of carbon dioxide and the two biggest consumers of energy.

 

When it comes to developing new technologies, no country can innovate like America. And no country can test new technologies and roll them out at scale quicker than China.

 

The two nations must come together on climate. The Paulson Institute at the University of Chicago, a “think-and-do tank” I founded to help strengthen the economic and environmental relationship between these two countries, is focused on bridging this gap.

 

We already have a head start on the technologies we need. The costs of the policies necessary to make the transition to an economy powered by clean energy are real, but modest relative to the risks.

 

A tax on carbon emissions will unleash a wave of innovation to develop technologies, lower the costs of clean energy and create jobs as we and other nations develop new energy products and infrastructure. This would strengthen national security by reducing the world’s dependence on governments like Russia and Iran.

 

Climate change is the challenge of our time. Each of us must recognize that the risks are personal. We’ve seen and felt the costs of underestimating the financial bubble. Let’s not ignore the climate bubble.

 

Amen TARP-man.

[Al_U_Card]

From Henry Paulson's op-ed yesterday The Coming Climate Crash:

 

 

 

Amen TARP-man.

Perhaps they should also tax financial transactions to reduce the chance of further financial finagles? :ph34r:

 

What will we do when they come for our breath? (Being carbon pollution-emitting creatures...)

 

Hopefully, science and reason will prevail before we go down the path of tilting at climate windmills as described by computer models that are at 97% agreement in being hotter than reality.

[hrothgar]

 

What will we do when they come for our breath? (Being carbon pollution-emitting creatures...)

 

 

Please show me a single example where anyone in favor of a carbon tax has ever suggested applying this to respiration.

[FM75]

Please show me a single example where anyone in favor of a carbon tax has ever suggested applying this to respiration.

 

You won't find a plausible suggestion about respiration. That said, the human population is an integral and driving part of every model. You also will likely have a hard time finding any "politically correct" suggestion for reducing the "driving part".

 

We must live longer (not die from preventable disease or bad nutritional and exercise regimens), use less energy, breathe less over our life times, and the world will be a happy place matching some 19th century ideal (one that we are comfortable with and are not willing to consider whether a change from it might be better).

 

OK "use less energy" is a simplification. It does not take into account the relative impacts of dramatically different forms and reliability of the sources available, nor the duration of them.

 

Sustainable

1) a term which universally is used to describe the energy requirements of the planet and its energy resources, without respect to the fact that our sun will eventually die.

2) a more local term used by "hippies" who espouse "buying" (growing) local, without any metrics demonstrating true understanding of the systemic costs. Simplistic example - n thousand people making trips to two sources of "produce" at distances x and y, versus n thousand people making 1 trip to one retailer and two sources making trips to one retailer, or n thousand consumers purchasing from a distributed retailer who delivers to all of them on a single trip (the milkman, BITD, Amazon, today).

 

Cheers. Think about it!

[mike777]

You won't find a plausible suggestion about respiration. That said, the human population is an integral and driving part of every model. You also will likely have a hard time finding any "politically correct" suggestion for reducing the "driving part".

 

We must live longer (not die from preventable disease or bad nutritional and exercise regimens), use less energy, breathe less over our life times, and the world will be a happy place matching some 19th century ideal (one that we are comfortable with and are not willing to consider whether a change from it might be better).

 

OK "use less energy" is a simplification. It does not take into account the relative impacts of dramatically different forms and reliability of the sources available, nor the duration of them.

 

Sustainable

1) a term which universally is used to describe the energy requirements of the planet and its energy resources, without respect to the fact that our sun will eventually die.

2) a more local term used by "hippies" who espouse "buying" (growing) local, without any metrics demonstrating true understanding of the systemic costs. Simplistic example - n thousand people making trips to two sources of "produce" at distances x and y, versus n thousand people making 1 trip to one retailer and two sources making trips to one retailer, or n thousand consumers purchasing from a distributed retailer who delivers to all of them on a single trip (the milkman, BITD, Amazon, today).

 

Cheers. Think about it!

 

sorry what is your main point?

 

 

please repeat

 

If your main point is fragile..ok I agree, but not sure what your main point is?

[blackshoe]

Is this not cool?

It depends on what and how bad the unintended consequences of this move turn out to be.

[Al_U_Card]

King Canute?.....King Canute...

 

Observational data...

 

Changes in global sea level is an issue of much controversy. In the Kattegatt Sea, the glacial isostatic component factor is well established and the axis of tilting has remained stable for the last 8,000 years. At the point of zero regional crustal movements, there are three tide gauges indicating a present rise in sea level of 0.8 to 0.9 mm/yr for the last 125 years. This value provides a firm record of the regional eustatic rise in sea level in this part of the globe.

 

http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/sea-level/axel-morner/kattegatt-sea-level-rise-morner-2014.gif

 

http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/sea-level/axel-morner/kattegatt-morner-fig5a.gif

[Al_U_Card]

Back in 2007, the previous, satellite-era, ANTARCTIC sea ice areal record, the ARCTIC sea ice was in a supposed "death-spiral"... the latest? ARCTIC sea ice has rebounded

 

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/iphone/images/iphone.anomaly.global.png

 

 

but ANTARCTIC sea ice just made another record.

 

http://talkingabouttheweather.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/screen-shot-2014-06-29-at-8-31-27-am.png?w=640

 

 

Aren't we glad that all those tax dollars spent on reducing CO2 are working? What's that you say? CO2 is higher than ever? Ohhh, and so are our taxes. Hopefully there will be some left over to subsidize our heating bills... :ph34r:

[Al_U_Card]

By the numbers...

 

http://bishophill.squarespace.com/storage/bonkers_renewables_scr.jpg?__SQUARESPACE_CACHEVERSION=1404112186967

[PassedOut]

The Guardian has a good article on the escalating effects of man-made climate change: Miami, the great world city, is drowning while the powers that be look away

 

"Climate change is no longer viewed as a future threat round here," says atmosphere expert Professor Ben Kirtman, of the University of Miami. "It is something that we are having to deal with today."

 

Every year, with the coming of high spring and autumn tides, the sea surges up the Florida coast and hits the west side of Miami Beach, which lies on a long, thin island that runs north and south across the water from the city of Miami. The problem is particularly severe in autumn when winds often reach hurricane levels. Tidal surges are turned into walls of seawater that batter Miami Beach's west coast and sweep into the resort's storm drains, reversing the flow of water that normally comes down from the streets above. Instead seawater floods up into the gutters of Alton Road, the first main thoroughfare on the western side of Miami Beach, and pours into the street. Then the water surges across the rest of the island.

 

The effect is calamitous. Shops and houses are inundated; city life is paralysed; cars are ruined by the corrosive seawater that immerses them. During one recent high spring tide, laundromat owner Eliseo Toussaint watched as slimy green saltwater bubbled up from the gutters. It rapidly filled the street and then blocked his front door. "This never used to happen," Toussaint told reporters. "I've owned this place eight years and now it's all the time."

 

Today, shop owners keep plastic bags and rubber bands handy to wrap around their feet when they have to get to their cars through rising waters, while householders have found that ground-floor spaces in garages are no longer safe to keep their cars. Only those on higher floors can hope to protect their cars from surging sea waters that corrode and rot the innards of their vehicles.

 

Although no serious person doubts climate change science these days, some Florida politicians still campaign for the head-in-the-sand votes, so can't do anything to mitigate the consequences.

 

Most of Florida's senior politicians in particular, Senator Marco Rubio, former governor Jeb Bush and current governor Rick Scott, all Republican climate-change deniers have refused to act or respond to warnings of people like Wanless or Harlem or to give media interviews to explain their stance, though Rubio, a Republican party star and a possible 2016 presidential contender, has made his views clear in speeches. "I do not believe that human activity is causing these dramatic changes to our climate the way these scientists are portraying it. I do not believe that the laws that they propose we pass will do anything about it, except it will destroy our economy," he said recently. Miami is in denial in every sense, it would seem. Or as Wanless puts it: "People are simply sticking their heads in the sand. It is mind-boggling."

 

Not surprisingly, Rubio's insistence that his state is no danger from climate change has brought him into conflict with local people. Philip Stoddard, the mayor of South Miami, has a particularly succinct view of the man and his stance. "Rubio is an idiot," says Stoddard. "He says he is not a scientist so he doesn't have a view about climate change and sea-level rise and so won't do anything about it. Yet Florida's other senator, Democrat Bill Nelson, is holding field hearings where scientists can tell people what the data means. Unfortunately, not enough people follow his example. And all the time, the waters are rising."

 

Philip Stoddard is particularly well-placed to judge what is happening to Miami. Tall, thin, with a dry sense of humour, he is a politician, having won two successive elections to be mayor of South Miami, and a scientist, a biology professor at Florida International University. The backyard of the home that he shares with his architect wife, Grey Reid, reflects his passion for the living world. While most other South Miami residences sport bright blue swimming pools and barbecues, Stoddard has created a small lake, fringed with palms and ferns, that would do justice to the swampy Everglades near his home. Bass, koi and mosquito fish swim here, while bright dragonflies and zebra lapwing butterflies flit overhead. It is a naturalists' haven but Stoddard is under no illusions about the risks facing his home. Although several miles inland, the house is certainly not immune to the changes that threaten to engulf south Florida.

 

"The thing about Miami is that when it goes, it will all be gone," says Stoddard. "I used to work at Cornell University and every morning, when I went to work, I climbed more elevation than exists in the entire state of Florida. Our living-room floor here in south Miami is at an elevation of 10 feet above sea level at present. There are significant parts of south Florida that are less than six feet above sea level and which are now under serious threat of inundation."

 

Nor will south Florida have to wait that long for the devastation to come. Long before the seas have risen a further three or four feet, there will be irreversible breakdowns in society, he says. "Another foot of sea-level rise will be enough to bring salt water into our fresh water supplies and our sewage system. Those services will be lost when that happens," says Stoddard.

 

"You won't be able to flush away your sewage and taps will no longer provide homes with fresh water. Then you will find you will no longer be able to get flood insurance for your home. Land and property values will plummet and people will start to leave. Places like South Miami will no longer be able to raise enough taxes to run our neighbourhoods. Where will we find the money to fund police to protect us or fire services to tackle house fires? Will there even be enough water pressure for their fire hoses? It takes us into all sorts of post-apocalyptic scenarios. And that is only with a one-foot sea-level rise. It makes one thing clear though: mayhem is coming."

Here's one thing that we can be sure of: The politicians who do nothing now to mitigate the consequences of man-made climate change will be the first to demand rescue from the rest of the US taxpayers as their problems escalate.

[WellSpyder]

The Guardian has a good article on the escalating effects of man-made climate change: Miami, the great world city, is drowning while the powers that be look away

How much of this do you think is really due to climate change? How much has the sea level risen in the 8 years that the shop-owner has been there? How long would it take to rise "another foot" at the same rate?

[PassedOut]

How much of this do you think is really due to climate change? How much has the sea level risen in the 8 years that the shop-owner has been there? How long would it take to rise "another foot" at the same rate?

While there is no serious dispute that sea levels are rising because of melting glaciers on land caused by the actions of mankind, I've seen quite a variation in the estimates of both the amount of increase that we are already locked into and the time over which it will happen. Obviously it will be easier to handle the increase if it is on the lower side of the estimates and over a longer time period. No doubt everyone hopes that will be the case, but reality doesn't always reflect our hopes.

 

Once science narrows the range of these estimates with greater confidence, we'll be in a better position to know the required scope of mankind's response to the rising seas. In the meantime, though, it is irresponsible to continue as if nothing is wrong. Personalizing the effects of the rising seas makes the problem less abstract to voters and helps to turn voters against the politicians who obstruct responsible action.

[WellSpyder]

Personalizing the effects of the rising seas makes the problem less abstract to voters and helps to turn voters against the politicians who obstruct responsible action.

While that is true, it also risks being completely misleading and directing attention against the wrong targets. If it is true that the frequency of serious flooding in Miami has increased dramatically over the past 8 years then this has absolutely nothing to do with whether the sea level has risen over that time by 0.01mm or 2mm or whatever the true figure happens to be.

[blackshoe]

Politicians have a need to be seen to "Do Something". This isn't good enough, particularly when you're talking about a global phenomenon. We want, or should want, our politicians to do the right thing. I submit that no one can be sure what the right thing is in this case.

 

Henry Hazlitt, years ago, wrote Economics in One Lesson. What's the lesson? Before you take action, consider not only the immediate effect for one small group (we politicians will be seen to "Do Something") but also the long term effects on everyone. What will be the long term effects of the sometimes drastic measures proposed to "fix" global warming on the world economy not just in the immediate future, but decades from now? I see a lot of hand waving that "it'll be all right, and besides, we need to Do Something". No one knows what the long term impact will be. Maybe it's not possible to know. But I think we need more than hand waving before we move ahead. If that makes me one who would "obstruct responsible action" then so be it.

[PassedOut]

Politicians have a need to be seen to "Do Something". This isn't good enough, particularly when you're talking about a global phenomenon. We want, or should want, our politicians to do the right thing. I submit that no one can be sure what the right thing is in this case.

I don't need to know exactly how much carbon monoxide my car emits to know that I should turn off the engine after I drive into the garage.

 

We know that greenhouse gases put into the atmosphere by mankind are warming the earth, resulting in rising sea levels. We don't need to know how high or how fast the seas will rise to know that the right thing is to reduce our emissions of greenhouse gases.

[PassedOut]

Personalizing the effects of the rising seas makes the problem less abstract to voters and helps to turn voters against the politicians who obstruct responsible action.

While that is true, it also risks being completely misleading and directing attention against the wrong targets.

In the US we face a massive, well-financed disinformation campaign to convince folks that nothing should be done to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Most folks here don't read scientific articles of any kind and have been subjected to years of anti-science and anti-academia propaganda. But folks do relate to images of regular people walking around with their shoes in plastic bags coupled with information that mankind's actions are causing the seas to rise.

 

And causing the seas to rise will create more flooding regardless of the time periods involved, and that flooding will cause problems far more serious than walking around in plastic bags. Directing attention against politicians who block the actions necessary to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is directing attention against the right targets.

[blackshoe]

I don't need to know exactly how much carbon monoxide my car emits to know that I should turn off the engine after I drive into the garage.

 

We know that greenhouse gases put into the atmosphere by mankind are warming the earth, resulting in rising sea levels. We don't need to know how high or how fast the seas will rise to know that the right thing is to reduce our emissions of greenhouse gases.

The question is not what, but how much, and at what cost? Also, as I said, what is the long-term cost? No hand-waving answers please, just the facts.

[PassedOut]

The question is not what, but how much, and at what cost? Also, as I said, what is the long-term cost?

The right question is, "What are the comparative long-term costs of action vs. inaction?" Because that has been a hot topic for years, lots of information can be found on the web by anyone truly interested. Paul Krugman laid out the economic basics of the issue in this 2010 article.

 

Over all, the Budget Office concludes, strong climate-change policy would leave the American economy between 1.1 percent and 3.4 percent smaller in 2050 than it would be otherwise.

 

And what about the world economy? In general, modelers tend to find that climate-change policies would lower global output by a somewhat smaller percentage than the comparable figures for the United States. The main reason is that emerging economies like China currently use energy fairly inefficiently, partly as a result of national policies that have kept the prices of fossil fuels very low, and could thus achieve large energy savings at a modest cost. One recent review of the available estimates put the costs of a very strong climate policy — substantially more aggressive than contemplated in current legislative proposals — at between 1 and 3 percent of gross world product.

 

...

 

But while it’s unlikely that these models get everything right, it’s a good bet that they overstate rather than understate the economic costs of climate-change action. That is what the experience from the cap-and-trade program for acid rain suggests: costs came in well below initial predictions. And in general, what the models do not and cannot take into account is creativity; surely, faced with an economy in which there are big monetary payoffs for reducing greenhouse-gas emissions, the private sector will come up with ways to limit emissions that are not yet in any model.

As a life-long businessman, I have a lot of confidence that market innovations will indeed find creative ways to reduce these costs. Still, I do acknowledge that many people lack confidence in the marketplace and therefore disagree with me on that.

 

The costs of inaction, of course, will depend upon the severity and speed of the consequences of global warming, and no one knows yet how that will play out. I've seen cost estimates of inaction that are double that of any proposed action, but I don't really trust those figures because of the uncertainies. The kicker, though, is that what we are doing might result in an environmental catastrophe. Until we know for sure that it won't, the only responsible position is to start reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

[Al_U_Card]

If there is no "acceleration" in SLR then the effect of additional CO2 cannot be a problem. No need to mitigate, just adapt. Better to look at the FACTS (NOAA is credible and hardly part of the "well-orchestrated" campaign I would expect... :ph34r:

 

http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/trends/8729840.png

 

http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/trends/8724580.png

[Al_U_Card]

But, just to be on the "safe" side, let's reduce our evil fossil-fuel carbon footprint completely....why not? Surely that will help reduce atmospheric CO2 to a "safe" level? Say what? Only 15 ppm out of 400?

ouch!

 

According to the authors,

 

We find that the average gradients of fossil fuel CO2 in the lower 1200 meters of the atmosphere are close to 15 ppm at a 12 km × 12 km horizontal resolution.

 

 

But those Green lobby groups ( a REAL well-orchestrated and lavishly-funded capmpaign of actual climate denial) will not rest until they have our ....

 

The Green Blob sprouts especially vigorously in Brussels. The European Commission website reveals that a staggering 150 million euros (£119  million) was paid to the top nine green NGOs from 2007-13.

European Union officials give generous grants to green groups so that they will lobby it for regulations that then require large budgets to enforce.

[PassedOut]

But, just to be on the "safe" side, let's reduce our evil fossil-fuel carbon footprint completely....why not?

Not a practical idea. If you stop to think about it, you should be able to come up with several reasons.

[Al_U_Card]

Not a practical idea. If you stop to think about it, you should be able to come up with several reasons.

 

Sorry that the hyperbole and sarcasm was too disguised...

 

The point is that no amount of [CO2] reduction would make the slightest difference to global temperatures except in the computer models and to their fans. A cursory examination of all of the real data puts the lie to every scenario and projection of doom. (A forecast is limited to systems that actually have skill in making sense of the current situation for the period in question. This is why the climastrologists use projections all of the time (among other things)).

 

Businesses that use faulty information for their planning tend to go belly-up. Just because a promoter touts their method as 97% guaranteed, looking under the hood reveals the scam.