Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

[Delfin]

You've forgotten the first rule of holes again...

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

(i) the 97% natural vs. 3% anthropogenic CO2 emission ratio;
A factlet intended to mislead. The concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere has gone up 40% over the industrial age.

Yet, the fact remains that only 3% of annual carbon emissions are anthropogenic. My statement stands as a matter of empirical fact.

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

(ii) the long-term sat-based temp data disparities with the surface data;
Two of many available data sets, neither take in ocean temp.

Pretty incoherent, but I guess what you are saying here is that I have pointed out that satellite data shows no statistically relevant warming for going on 20 years and you think this is refuted. It isn't of course, just based on the data. In fact, excluding the naturally caused impacts of El Nino years there has been no warming at all. Again, another empirical fact that stands on its own.

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

(iii) the negative feedback/carbon sink issues;
see (i). Despite the sink responses increasing in step, CO2 concentration is still up 40%, and there's warming in step with that increase. The ability of current sinks to keep up indefinitely is not a given, and it's possible that certain outcomes (eg methane release from Arctic tundra thaw) would at some point provide positive feedback that swamps the increased sink. Deforestation and ocean temp rise are attacks on the earth's carbon sinks.

I guess you've given up on listing something I have written that is easily dismissed with 3 minutes worth of Googling. Not sure what you are going on about here, although you have your opinion on whether natural sinks can keep up with increasing CO2 (your opinion is no), and you have another opinion that terrible things are going to happen with methane releases. Thanks for your opinions.

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

(iv) the recent inaccuracies in the modeling;
There's good and there's perfect. Given the complexity of the problem, the models have been pretty good, and are getting better. Most of the experts say they are good enough. A few disagree.

I guess you're saying that the fact the models are perfectly wrong doesn't mean they aren't worth spending a few trillion over. But again, I keep looking for something you can point to that I have written that is wrong. I guess I'll keep looking.

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

(v) all the alarmist predictions that failed to come true.
I thought we were talking about science.

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Define "failed".

I'll rely on Hans von Storch's definition, which is to say, none of the models have predicted what has happened for two decades. Sounds like failed models to me.

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

I doubt that you actually give a **** about the poor, except as a 'shock' talking point in your denier arsenal.

Again, thank you for your opinion.

I think I'm going to have to put this down as a non-response to my request for you to identify something I've written that you can refute. Clearly you can't, so you should have stopped with "Go fish."

[SV THIRD DAY]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

I doubt that you actually give a **** about the poor, except as a 'shock' talking point in your denier arsenal.

Wow...the assumptions and hate, pretty sad LE.
Why...all because someone won't swallow the MMGW party line?

That's disappointing...darn disappointing.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Delfin

Yet, the fact remains that only 3% of annual carbon emissions are anthropogenic. My statement stands as a matter of empirical fact that is presented free of context, so as to mislead. The context is that this 3% is still sufficient to cause rising CO2 concentrations.

I guess what you are saying here is that I have pointed out that satellite data shows no statistically relevant warming for going on 20 years and you think this is refuted.

No single reading set is sufficient to tell the whole story of the extent to which the planet is warming up. Harping on ONE set that plausibly supports less than predicted warming, and ignoring everything else... cherry-picking.

you have your opinion on whether natural sinks can keep up with increasing CO2 (your opinion is no), and you have another opinion that terrible things are going to happen with methane releases. Thanks for your opinions.

More than just my opinion. What gives you such confidence that the sinks will protect from continued fossil fuel CO2 emissions? One hell of an experiment you're running here...

I guess you're saying that the fact the models are perfectly wrong doesn't mean they aren't worth spending a few trillion over.

You'll need to define perfectly wrong.

I'll rely on Hans von Storch's definition, which is to say, none of the models have predicted what has happened for two decades. Sounds like failed models to me.

So let the man speak:

Storch: Among other things, there is evidence that the oceans have absorbed more heat than we initially calculated. Temperatures at depths greater than 700 meters (2,300 feet) appear to have increased more than ever before. The only unfortunate thing is that our simulations failed to predict this effect

...

SPIEGEL: Despite all these problem areas, do you still believe global warming will continue?
Storch: Yes, we are certainly going to see an increase of 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) or more -- and by the end of this century, mind you. That's what my instinct tells me, since I don't know exactly how emission levels will develop. Other climate researchers might have a different instinct. Our models certainly include a great number of highly subjective assumptions. Natural science is also a social process, and one far more influenced by the spirit of the times than non-scientists can imagine. You can expect many more surprises.
SPIEGEL: What exactly are politicians supposed to do with such vague predictions?
Storch: Whether it ends up being one, two or three degrees, the exact figure is ultimately not the important thing. Quite apart from our climate simulations, there is a general societal consensus that we should be more conservative with fossil fuels. Also, the more serious effects of climate change won't affect us for at least 30 years. We have enough time to prepare ourselves.

...I'm not seeing "perfectly wrong" in there.

If you've got a cohesive case against the finding of AGW, let's hear it. This dessert-bowl of intentionally isolated factlets may make Exile swoon, but it's not scientifically compelling.

[SV THIRD DAY]

Politics in the MMGW Cult...who would have thought.

Obama White House showed 'bad faith' in global-warming case, judge rules - Washington Times

[transmitterdan]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

If you've got a cohesive case against the finding of AGW, let's hear it. This dessert-bowl of intentionally isolated factlets may make Exile swoon, but it's not scientifically compelling.

Actually your quotes are even more compelling. It's "unfortunate" the model was wrong. His "instinct" is that temps will rise 2C anyway. Other scientists may have a different "instinct". So we should reduce fossil fuel use because it's a good idea anyway. That kind of non-scientific babble is what makes some people's heads explode.

The ocean acting as a heat sink is not that complex and it should be quantifiable. They simply didn't get it right for some reason. And one has to wonder how any "scientist" could fail to accurately model 75% of the world's surface which has a heat storage capacity 4,000 times that of air at sea level. That's a massive miscalculation.

I am concerned about climate change. But the scientists and politicians that are managing the science and the messaging have convinced 75% of the US population that it's mostly about a political agenda. Telling people to shut up and just believe the climate scientists reinforces that notion. Scientific theories and findings should be be questioned and refined until they are proved right. It's not the skeptic's job to prove them wrong. That's a fundamental precept of science.

Have any climate models been able to accurately predict global temperatures at least 10 years into the future? 20 years? And I have to add, without going back and changing the model parameters after the fact.

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

If you've got a cohesive case against the finding of AGW, let's hear it. This dessert-bowl of intentionally isolated factlets may make Exile swoon, but it's not scientifically compelling.

You asked for a definition of "fail" when it comes to climate models. I referred you to von Storch, but apparently you weren't able to find the relevant quote, so here it is again:

"Storch: So far, no one has been able to provide a compelling answer to why climate change seems to be taking a break. We're facing a puzzle. Recent CO2 emissions have actually risen even more steeply than we feared. As a result, according to most climate models, we should have seen temperatures rise by around 0.25 degrees Celsius (0.45 degrees Fahrenheit) over the past 10 years. That hasn't happened. In fact, the increase over the last 15 years was just 0.06 degrees Celsius (0.11 degrees Fahrenheit) -- a value very close to zero. This is a serious scientific problem that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) will have to confront when it presents its next Assessment Report late next year."

And I'm glad you're against unrelated factlet spewing, as it means we won't be getting posts like the one I answered from you any more. However, if you can bring up connected factlets that are relevant to understanding the climate change issue, then you might be able to provide a coherent argument. There is nothing wrong with facts in and of themselves, unless you're a warmist and then there are facts to be considered and facts to be ignored because you have no answer for them. In the latter category would be the ones that are central to pretty much the only comprehensive argument I have made on this thread, and that argument has been carefully avoided by Jack, you, SO - and for obvious reasons. It destroys the basis for the entire scam. So, in case you would like to break the mold and provide a counter argument here it is again, in brief:

1. Warmists the world over have hailed the Paris Accords. Mr. Obama called them "the best chance we have of saving the planet."
2. While the is little agreement on the exact cost of implementing the Paris Accords, everyone acknowledges it will be in the trillions, even if gussied up as "investments", like investments in failing wind farms.
3. The UN Climate Chief, Christina Figueres, says that the Paris Accord agreements will reduce total human emissions by 2100 of 31 gigatonnes of CO2.
4. If you assume such a reduction in emissions and input that into the best IPCC model (Magicc), you get a reduction in global temps by .05 degrees C - if every nation does exactly what they say they will do, and they are already not doing that.
5. Therefore, in the best case scenario, doing nothing about emissions will produce the same effective result as spending trillions.
6. Since all carbon sequestrations schemes increase the cost of energy, and since that increases the cost of food for the poor, the choice we have is really whether we will do nothing about carbon sequestration and reduce death among the poorest, or spend trillions and kill more poor people with nothing else to show for it.

Simple argument, really. And I wait a factual rebuttal, which really wouldn't be that tough. Just show that Paris will reduce carbon by more than the IPCC says; show that making energy more expensive doesn't make food more expensive for poor people, show that the IPCC Magicc model is a failed model (might create some other problems for you, but that's not my fault...); show that taxing carbon doesn't make energy more expensive, etc. You know, argue rationally to make your case.

[SailOar]

Originally Posted by transmitterdan

His "instinct" is that temps will rise 2C anyway. Other scientists may have a different "instinct". So we should reduce fossil fuel use because it's a good idea anyway. That kind of non-scientific babble is what makes some people's heads explode...

I believe Storch was saying that the amount temperatures will rise can only be guessed at because its hard to predict to what extent humans will cut back on carbon emissions.

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by SailOar

I believe Storch was saying that the amount temperatures will rise can only be guessed at because its hard to predict to what extent humans will cut back on carbon emissions.

According to the IPCC, the targeted amount of CO2 reduction if everyone does their part is quantifiable, both in the amount of CO2 and its effect on climate, so if that is what he is saying, he is off the IPCC reservation. But perhaps that makes sense given that he also says the IPCC models have all failed to predict what has been happening over the last 18 + years.

[GordMay]

According to a study, published in the Environmental Research Letter, five reef islands with size ranging from one to five hectares in the remote Solomon Islands were swallowed by the rising sea-level.

“... Using time series aerial and satellite imagery from 1947 to 2014 of 33 islands, along with historical insight from local knowledge, we have identified five vegetated reef islands that have vanished over this time period and a further six islands experiencing severe shoreline recession. Shoreline recession at two sites has destroyed villages that have existed since at least 1935, leading to community relocations ...”
➥ http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10...1/5/054011/pdf

[SailOar]

Youth win the right to sue the federal government over climate change | PRI

A federal judge in Oregon ruled that 21 young people have the right to sue the federal government for failing to properly protect future generations from the dangers of climate change.

In this landmark decision, Magistrate Judge Thomas Coffin took his cue, in part, from a lower court in the Netherlands that said the Dutch government must act on climate change because of its existential threat to its citizens.

The case now goes to US District Court Judge Ann Aiken, who will determine if and when there would be a trial. According to Pat Parenteau, a law professor at Vermont Law School, if the case did go to trial, it would be “the trial of the century.”

“It'll outdo the Scopes trial,” Parenteau say, “because you’re going to have all kinds of climate scientists coming in saying how grave the threat is and how little time we have to address it, and that would be a very interesting spectacle, frankly.” But Parenteau believes a trial is a remote possibility. Aiken may even reject the recommendation of the magistrate judge...

The plaintiffs are claiming their rights are being violated under the ninth amendment to the US Constitution, Parenteau explains. “This is the same amendment that has given rise to the right to privacy, to marriage equality and to a variety of individual rights not spelled out in the constitution, but contained within what's called the penumbra of the ninth amendment. ... The judge is relying on case law from the Supreme Court that recognizes there are certain unwritten rights in the Constitution that come to light, if you will, as judges evaluate threats to American citizens.”

In this case, the youth are saying they face threats from the effects of climate change that older generations of Americans will not face, because they won’t live long enough to see the consequences. “The children are saying, ‘We're a special class when it comes to climate change, because the only way for us to avoid the effects ... is if efforts are stepped up now to reduce carbon pollution,’” Parenteau says. “That's what makes this both a fascinating case and a really difficult case for the courts to deal with.”...

[Kenomac]

Originally Posted by GordMay

According to a study, published in the Environmental Research Letter, five reef islands with size ranging from one to five hectares in the remote Solomon Islands were swallowed by the rising sea-level.

“... Using time series aerial and satellite imagery from 1947 to 2014 of 33 islands, along with historical insight from local knowledge, we have identified five vegetated reef islands that have vanished over this time period and a further six islands experiencing severe shoreline recession. Shoreline recession at two sites has destroyed villages that have existed since at least 1935, leading to community relocations ...”
➥ http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10...1/5/054011/pdf

Oh my God! A few villages were relocated to higher ground!

Question: Why did the sea level rise only in the area of those islands? Maybe tectonic plate movement had more to do with the islands sinking and not the water rising?

[Simonsays]

Originally Posted by GordMay

According to a study, published in the Environmental Research Letter, five reef islands with size ranging from one to five hectares in the remote Solomon Islands were swallowed by the rising sea-level.

“... Using time series aerial and satellite imagery from 1947 to 2014 of 33 islands, along with historical insight from local knowledge, we have identified five vegetated reef islands that have vanished over this time period and a further six islands experiencing severe shoreline recession. Shoreline recession at two sites has destroyed villages that have existed since at least 1935, leading to community relocations ...”
➥ http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10...1/5/054011/pdf

i've read this headline on several sites today and it is not supported by the article.
from the first paragraph of the cited research letter:

However, the limited research on reef islands in the western Pacific indicates the majority of shoreline changes and inundation to date result from extreme events, seawalls and inappropriate development rather than sea-level rise alone.

[fryewe]

Originally Posted by GordMay

According to a study, published in the Environmental Research Letter, five reef islands with size ranging from one to five hectares in the remote Solomon Islands were swallowed by the rising sea-level.

“... Using time series aerial and satellite imagery from 1947 to 2014 of 33 islands, along with historical insight from local knowledge, we have identified five vegetated reef islands that have vanished over this time period and a further six islands experiencing severe shoreline recession. Shoreline recession at two sites has destroyed villages that have existed since at least 1935, leading to community relocations ...”
➥ http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10...1/5/054011/pdf

Your post is a bit misleading, Gord. The report doesn't ascribe the loss of the islands to rising sea level, but to a variety of factors.

The large range of erosion severity on the islands in this study highlights the critical need to understand the complex interplay between the projected accelerating sea-level rise, other changes in global climate such as winds and waves, and local tectonics, to guide future adaptation planning and minimise social impacts.

It's an attempt to understand the ocean science so the impact of anticipated sea level rise can be modeled and predicted.

The same report notes that there was an increase in island size for 6 islands within the Roviana group in the same area.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Delfin

You asked for a definition of "fail" when it comes to climate models. I referred you to von Storch, but apparently you weren't able to find the relevant quote, so here it is again:

"Storch: So far, no one has been able to provide a compelling answer to why climate change seems to be taking a break. We're facing a puzzle. Recent CO2 emissions have actually risen even more steeply than we feared. As a result, according to most climate models, we should have seen temperatures rise by around 0.25 degrees Celsius (0.45 degrees Fahrenheit) over the past 10 years. That hasn't happened. In fact, the increase over the last 15 years was just 0.06 degrees Celsius (0.11 degrees Fahrenheit) -- a value very close to zero. This is a serious scientific problem that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) will have to confront when it presents its next Assessment Report late next year."

... and von Storch went on to point to the temp increase in the ocean that wasn't part of the model, but will likely account for the "missing" heat. Did you miss that?

However, if you can bring up connected factlets that are relevant to understanding the climate change issue, then you might be able to provide a coherent argument. There is nothing wrong with facts in and of themselves, unless you're a warmist and then there are facts to be considered and facts to be ignored because you have no answer for them.

Har har har. Thing is - climate science has provided a pretty coherent case for AGW. If you think the case is wrong, it's up to you to disprove it. If the skeptic/denier mob really want credibility on this, you need to do more than collect or construct little negatives, you need to provide better science - like a climate model that does a better job, for instance.

In the latter category would be the ones that are central to pretty much the only comprehensive argument I have made on this thread, and that argument has been carefully avoided by Jack, you, SO - and for obvious reasons. It destroys the basis for the entire scam. So, in case you would like to break the mold and provide a counter argument here it is again, in brief:

1. Warmists the world over have hailed the Paris Accords. Mr. Obama called them "the best chance we have of saving the planet."
2. While the is little agreement on the exact cost of implementing the Paris Accords, everyone acknowledges it will be in the trillions, even if gussied up as "investments", like investments in failing wind farms.
3. The UN Climate Chief, Christina Figueres, says that the Paris Accord agreements will reduce total human emissions by 2100 of 31 gigatonnes of CO2.
4. If you assume such a reduction in emissions and input that into the best IPCC model (Magicc), you get a reduction in global temps by .05 degrees C - if every nation does exactly what they say they will do, and they are already not doing that.
5. Therefore, in the best case scenario, doing nothing about emissions will produce the same effective result as spending trillions.
6. Since all carbon sequestrations schemes increase the cost of energy, and since that increases the cost of food for the poor, the choice we have is really whether we will do nothing about carbon sequestration and reduce death among the poorest, or spend trillions and kill more poor people with nothing else to show for it.

Simple argument, really. And I wait a factual rebuttal, which really wouldn't be that tough. Just show that Paris will reduce carbon by more than the IPCC says; show that making energy more expensive doesn't make food more expensive for poor people, show that the IPCC Magicc model is a failed model (might create some other problems for you, but that's not my fault...); show that taxing carbon doesn't make energy more expensive, etc. You know, argue rationally to make your case.

It is a simple argument, really. You could have saved yourself alot of typing by just saying straight up "I don't like the costs of the proposed solutions". Was that so hard? Try it sometime.

A little honesty cuts through alot of BS. The above argument has nothing to do with science, so we don't need to expend megabytes bickering about stuff that neither of us are experts on.

Here's why you shouldn't fear that "trillions" will be wasted:

1. The proposals are non-binding. You already know this. Countries won't stick to the script.
2. All the estimated funds aren't committed and tied up now, just the funding for the first year or so (or no commitment is being made, depending where you live)
3. The timeframe is huge. So much will change, and continue to change within this timeframe:
   • Climate models will improve, way more data will be amassed, and plans will change accordingly. If AGW truly isn't a thing to worry about, this will become apparent. Ditto if it is. Look for revised findings every few years.
   • New and better technologies will provide more tools and alternatives: game-changers like fusion, better solar and wind, cheaper energy storage, who knows what else
   • New governments will or will not follow the guidelines. The whole voting thing? Elect the government that best expresses your wishes.
4. New, renewable and alternative energy is the growth sector of the future. Anything that nurtures the growth of this field will pay off down the road. Or you can continue to dig in your heels, and China will eat our lunch. They are going full-steam ahead with developing these technologies... because they have to, given their current mess.
5. Reducing dependence on fossil-fuels is something that will need to be done sooner or later. Right now we have sputtering economies, increasing unemployment, yet still tons of capital, most of it piled up on the sidelines. Economies still need stimulus, work needs to be done, labour and capital are available... when would be a better time than now to tackle some problems?
6. Effects on the poor - as societies, we haven't been truly paying the bill for our use of fossil fuel and resources. The final bill is now coming due. Time to pay up, in the form of cleaning up, transitioning to better solutions, and bearing the costs of that transition. This includes making sure the poor aren't unduly burdened. If we do it right, the economic stimulus of the mitigation efforts will lift more people out of poverty.

You can drop the "killing the poor" schtick anytime. Poverty kills. Poverty could be wiped out if we were willing. But for the moment, we're not. Poor people still die when energy is cheap. If you're genuinely concerned for the plight of poor old pensioners, you know what to do. Wielding it like a plastic sword in your denial blitz is cheap, cowardly and dishonest.


So, relax.Trillions are not about to be pissed away. On this anyways.

[SV THIRD DAY]

When did you Stop Beating your Wife?

Now come on...it is up to you to prove the negative...or you infact beat your wife.

That is the Argument of the MMGW Cultists Like L-E.
Sorry...that is not how Science works. If you want to change the energy source for the world the burden is on YOU to prove it to US...not the other way around.

So stop beating your wife and get busy...because most people agree with ME that MMGW isn't a concern.