Official Global Warming thread (merged)

[LouderVol]

If anyone really cared for carbon reductions, wouldn't the new EPA rule just say (Carbon emissions in future)/(Carbon emissions now)-1 must equal -XX%, as opposed to some 100 page rule that credits some things, but not others? A rule that I believe will work the opposite of it's stated purpose.

its the government, they are not allowed to make sense.

 

[KentheOrange]

Case in point. Fred Singer is a proven science denier for hire. He started out shilling for big tobacco and has fought for corporate interests on everything from ETS to ozone to acid rain to global warming. Not an effective reference

He and Avery work together at the Heartland Institute, an ultra-conservative "thinktank" which also shilled for big tobacco and does fabulous advertising like this:

My suggestion to you is Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming by Harvard science historian Naomi Oreskes

I suggest you limit your criticisms to the work of the scientist in climate change (which I doubt you can do) and not for work in which one of his employers has been
involved in outside of this scope.

Note: You lose even more credibility.

 

[Sandvol]

I laughed.

You're not even trying anymore. NSIDC goes back to 1979.

A larger positive number plus a smaller negative number will still give you a positive number. See, I understand math.

 

[Orangeslice13]

This morning the weather report said 0% chance of rain tonight. It's raining as we speak. The weather men can't predict the weather 12 hours out and they want me to believe the can predict it 12 years out.

I'll pass.

 

[BartW]

I have given you a paper from one of Earth's most respected journals which could not be more convincing on this subject, but your response was:

1) neglect to read the paper before commenting
2) lie about the contents of said paper
3) to say that the paper's conclusions are irrelevant because, because . . . the ocean wasn't considered in prior surface-temperature models
4) and to then refer to a lengthy period of deviation from your preferred model as "short-term surface temperature fluctuations"

If you do not understand at this juncture that your political blinders are causing you to lie not only to me but to yourself, there is no way I can help you into the light. Enjoy your political debate.

So now are you talking about the Lu paper or the Estrada paper? You’re mistaken on all fronts either way. Current climate models do not predict short-term surface temperature fluctuations like those due to El Nino/La Nina or volcanic eruptions. The models only predict long-term temperature trends driven by the global energy imbalance which, I remind you, we can measure directly using spectroscopy.

You are at least admitting now that the current predictive atmospheric temperature models are insufficiently complex, and that is all I am arguing. The IPCC and NOAA seem to agree with me on that, so I do not know why that is so threatening or offensive to your political agenda.

That’s not what you were arguing at all; you were arguing that CFCs appear to be driving climate change via the greenhouse effect instead of CO2. The IPCC does not agree. Estrada does not agree.

And judging by your repeated empty insults, it appears you are the one who feels threatened. I’m comfortable in my skin as a libertarian who understands the reality of climate change. I wish more could be.

In January, when you gleefully point out that 2014 was the hottest year on record globally for surface temperatures (it will be), I'm sure you will characterize that fact similarly.

I won’t be doing a touchdown dance for every broken record (or I’d be doing nothing but). However, I will continue to shove it in the face of anyone howling that the cold January in Tennessee disproves global warming.

 

[BartW]

maybe you missed this article and the one i posted a while back, that says we have factored in wrong amounts of sea ice. so your charts are probably off.

post #3901 or so for reference.

I assume you’re referring to the robot sub ice thickness story? That graph was of sea ice extent, which is a 2-dimensional measurement and thus unaffected by ice thickness. You raise a fair point though, which is that we don’t have detailed knowledge of ice thicknesses. In the past we’ve relied on aerial remote sensing and coring. Even that robot sub only covered a very small area.

All that said, keep in mind sea ice is a relatively transient feature. The real threat is from the (incontrovertible) melting of continental ice.

 

[BartW]

If anyone really cared for carbon reductions, wouldn't the new EPA rule just say (Carbon emissions in future)/(Carbon emissions now)-1 must equal -XX%, as opposed to some 100 page rule that credits some things, but not others? A rule that I believe will work the opposite of it's stated purpose.

Simplicity is the main reason I’d prefer a revenue neutral carbon tax like the current bill.

I hope you too commented on the EPA’s rule regarding nuclear.

 

[Rifleman]

That’s not what you were arguing at all; you were arguing that CFCs appear to be driving climate change via the greenhouse effect instead of CO2.

I see that you have not been reading my posts either.

I know it is easy to see the word CFCs, go to this page on your favorite blog

It's CFCs

cut and paste some talking points and push the "Submit Reply" button . . .

but please read this post so you know what my thinking actually is first.

My argument is:

1) CFCs are and have been a larger contributor to warming than previously understood. Nobody wants to say this because of a politicization of the debate.

2) The Montreal Protocol's reductions in emissions of CFCs and other pollutants have had a cooling effect which explains the recent gap between climate models and observed temperatures.

3) There are numerous other blind spots in climate models due to a insufficient complexity in the current models which need to be addressed. I think some of these blind spots are being addressed, but . . .

4) politicization may endanger adding appropriate complexity to the models if new ideas are rejected out of hand instead of prompting new inquiry. In my opinion, your responses to the research I've posted typifies this attitude.

5) A CO2-only approach to these problems could lead to all the negative outcomes that you want to avoid if other dangerous emissions and feedback factors are not fully brought into the conversation. If I visited some climate sites or heard certain activists speak I would have the impression that CO2 was the only danger . . . and I find that irresponsible and dangerous.

6) The understanding of the impacts of CFC replacements is almost non-existant and there are other crucial areas where new investigation must begin immediately

7) Why is the above important? If climate models are insufficiently complex, it is because climate is not sufficiently understood at present even by scientists who spend their lives making these investigations. I do not mean this as an insult to those scientists. This is a difficult area of research and the number of acceptable lines of investigation have been winnowed by political orthodoxy.

Just as with neuroscience--where we have made amazing new breakthroughs due to technological advancement in the last 20 years because we can now "see" things we could only imagine before--I believe we are on the cusp of pulling back the curtains on our climate as we never have before.

We have learned from history that at these critical points we are almost always presented with information that radically realigns our thinking and causes those entrenched in the old thinking to try to discredit those making new observations they find dangerous to the status quo.

From Copernicus, to Newton, to Darwin, and even recently Barry Marshall, great scientific discovery has often been made by fighting against the current of scientific consensus.

This doesn't mean every contrarian is a Copernicus, but I think it very dangerous to make the assumption that new ideas hold no value without further investigation.

8) Finally, since this post is unimpeachable in its intelligence, magnanimity, wisdom, and TLDR-ness, I will hereby accept your surrender in the Great BartW/Rifleman Wars of 2014. The terms are simply these:

a) you will read posts and linked papers by others before you respond to them
b) you will respond using your own thoughts wherever possible and you will provide your source via link whenever you are pulling your thoughts primarily from another website
c) you will consider that views contrary to yours might have merit that need further inquiry
d) you will wear Vols gear so frequently that it makes those around you uncomfortable

If you can accept that I hereby cease all hostilities. I will also abide to the terms above, apologize for any insults hurled, and will do my absolute best to be civil going forward when and if I enter this thread.

If you can't accept that, you will get to meet my Appalachian-American side. You don't want that. He's one mean-azz hillbilly and his vicious wit is only outstripped by the relentlessness with which he pursues game.

 

[Sandvol]

Simplicity is the main reason I’d prefer a revenue neutral carbon tax like the current bill.

I hope you too commented on the EPA’s rule regarding nuclear.

Bart can you explain to us how a revenue neutral carbon tax is a free market solution?

 

[FLVOL_79]

1980's/90's
Too hot? Global Warming
Too cold? Global Warming
Average temps? Um....cars!!

2000's+
Too hot? Climate change
Too cold? Climate change
Average temps? Cow farts..

 

[LouderVol]

I assume you’re referring to the robot sub ice thickness story? That graph was of sea ice extent, which is a 2-dimensional measurement and thus unaffected by ice thickness. You raise a fair point though, which is that we don’t have detailed knowledge of ice thicknesses. In the past we’ve relied on aerial remote sensing and coring. Even that robot sub only covered a very small area.

All that said, keep in mind sea ice is a relatively transient feature. The real threat is from the (incontrovertible) melting of continental ice.

from the sources I have read the continental ice in Antarctica is melting in some places, growing in others.

imo, volume of sea ice would seem to be a more important number in climate studies than area. Yet I would say it is almost impossible to know volume at any given time. and therefore any studies based on area alone is incomplete and could be easily misleading. maybe its worse than we thought or maybe its better, we can't honestly say when it comes to sea ice.

 

[BartW]

My argument is:

1) CFCs are and have been a larger contributor to warming than previously understood. Nobody wants to say this because of a politicization of the debate.

Based on what? The IPCC is and has been aware of the warming contribution from CFCs. The Nature articles by Estrada and Pretis work on quantifying it, as do my papers on DLR and many others I’m sure. Where’s the cover up? Where’s the politicization?

2) The Montreal Protocol's reductions in emissions of CFCs and other pollutants have had a cooling effect which explains the recent gap between climate models and observed temperatures.

Estrada also cites the slowdown in methane emissions due to changes in agricultural practices. The decline in CFCs and methane were already known by the IPCC and are included in present climate models. But even through 2013 observed temperatures were still within the range of climate model projections, and with the record year in 2014 and a likely El Nino burping up more ocean heat well into 2015 the models may be looking better.

3) There are numerous other blind spots in climate models due to a insufficient complexity in the current models which need to be addressed. I think some of these blind spots are being addressed, but . . .

Yes, there are always be improvements to be made. At this point though climate scientists are really working on fine details. The fundamentals are robust and have only strengthened over the decades.

4) politicization may endanger adding appropriate complexity to the models if new ideas are rejected out of hand instead of prompting new inquiry. In my opinion, your responses to the research I've posted typifies this attitude.

See #1.

5) A CO2-only approach to these problems could lead to all the negative outcomes that you want to avoid if other dangerous emissions and feedback factors are not fully brought into the conversation. If I visited some climate sites or heard certain activists speak I would have the impression that CO2 was the only danger . . . and I find that irresponsible and dangerous.

I think most people are aware of other greenhouse gases, especially methane and CFCs. There is cause for concern especially over methane leaks from fracking and melting permafrost/clathrates imo.

6) The understanding of the impacts of CFC replacements is almost non-existant and there are other crucial areas where new investigation must begin immediately

That research started in the 90s. The EPA and other countries have also started regulating some HCFCs and HFCs and iirc there is a push to have them added to the Montreal Protocol.

7) Why is the above important? If climate models are insufficiently complex, it is because climate is not sufficiently understood at present even by scientists who spend their lives making these investigations. I do not mean this as an insult to those scientists. This is a difficult area of research and the number of acceptable lines of investigation have been winnowed by political orthodoxy.

Just as with neuroscience--where we have made amazing new breakthroughs due to technological advancement in the last 20 years because we can now "see" things we could only imagine before--I believe we are on the cusp of pulling back the curtains on our climate as we never have before.

We have learned from history that at these critical points we are almost always presented with information that radically realigns our thinking and causes those entrenched in the old thinking to try to discredit those making new observations they find dangerous to the status quo.

From Copernicus, to Newton, to Darwin, and even recently Barry Marshall, great scientific discovery has often been made by fighting against the current of scientific consensus.

This doesn't mean every contrarian is a Copernicus, but I think it very dangerous to make the assumption that new ideas hold no value without further investigation.

As Carl Sagan put it, “The fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.”

It’s important for contrarians to challenge and advance the science, but it’s also important to recognize when an idea is stale and move on. We don’t need to spend much time on Lamarckism or Aether theory anymore.

8) Finally, since this post is unimpeachable in its intelligence, magnanimity, wisdom, and TLDR-ness, I will hereby accept your surrender in the Great BartW/Rifleman Wars of 2014. The terms are simply these:

a) you will read posts and linked papers by others before you respond to them
b) you will respond using your own thoughts wherever possible and you will provide your source via link whenever you are pulling your thoughts primarily from another website
c) you will consider that views contrary to yours might have merit that need further inquiry
d) you will wear Vols gear so frequently that it makes those around you uncomfortable

If you can accept that I hereby cease all hostilities. I will also abide to the terms above, apologize for any insults hurled, and will do my absolute best to be civil going forward when and if I enter this thread.

If you can't accept that, you will get to meet my Appalachian-American side. You don't want that. He's one mean-azz hillbilly and his vicious wit is only outstripped by the relentlessness with which he pursues game.

Declaring victory again, eh Danth? I don’t care to invoke more hostilities so sure, truce. I meet your terms and exceed, especially, d. Together with my orange Holland garb I have quite the wardrobe! Like my frame wasn’t already turning enough heads…

 

[BartW]

Bart can you explain to us how a revenue neutral carbon tax is a free market solution?

In the same manner as cap-and-trade. Perhaps Reagan or Bush can remind you?

The reason carbon pricing is the market friendly solution is because the government does not get involved in instructing industry how to reduce their emissions (like the dems’ C&C regulation in the ‘70s). Simply put a price on carbon and let market forces drive emissions cuts. It’s a proven system.

Now can you explain to me how you manage pollution in your anarch-ish utopia?

 

[BartW]

from the sources I have read the continental ice in Antarctica is melting in some places, growing in others.

imo, volume of sea ice would seem to be a more important number in climate studies than area. Yet I would say it is almost impossible to know volume at any given time. and therefore any studies based on area alone is incomplete and could be easily misleading. maybe its worse than we thought or maybe its better, we can't honestly say when it comes to sea ice.

Yes, east Antarctica is gaining ice while west Antarctica is losing ice.

Ice surface area is physically relevant because it controls Earth’s reflectivity. Water absorbs more heat than ice – like wearing a black shirt (vs. wearing white) on a hot summer day.

 

[Rifleman]

from the sources I have read the continental ice in Antarctica is melting in some places, growing in others.

imo, volume of sea ice would seem to be a more important number in climate studies than area. Yet I would say it is almost impossible to know volume at any given time. and therefore any studies based on area alone is incomplete and could be easily misleading. maybe its worse than we thought or maybe its better, we can't honestly say when it comes to sea ice.

Yes, east Antarctica is gaining ice while west Antarctica is losing ice.

Ice surface area is physically relevant because it controls Earth’s reflectivity. Water absorbs more heat than ice – like wearing a black shirt (vs. wearing white) on a hot summer day.

Some good points here.

I'm sure there is some work on this somewhere, but to what degree if any could a decrease in ocean salinity due to glacial melt in Antartica, specifically, have on sea ice?

Normally, I would think minimal but the rate of melt is now something like a Mt Everest equivalent in volume every two years.

 

[LouderVol]

Some good points here.

I'm sure there is some work on this somewhere, but to what degree if any could a decrease in ocean salinity due to glacial melt in Antartica, specifically, have on sea ice?

Normally, I would think minimal but the rate of melt is now something like a Mt Everest equivalent in volume every two years.

something i have no clue about but wouldn't that less salty water freeze faster there where it is introduced around the Antartic? maybe that is part of the reason for the models problems?

 

[Rifleman]

something i have no clue about but wouldn't that less salty water freeze faster there where it is introduced around the Antartic? maybe that is part of the reason for the models problems?

Salt water has a greater density than fresh water so one would imagine that in certain areas affected by freshening from glacial melt the surface ice would contain some ice of lower salinity (which is quicker to freeze).

But there are so many complexities in Antartica, just off the top of my head:

*currents unlike anywhere else
*existing sea ice that may impede the progress of melt water to currently open areas
*Katabatic winds

I'd love to see some research on the composition of any new extents on the ice sheets down there.

Perhaps we could find something useful that would help us keep more sea ice in the Artic.

Edit: this new paper in Science by researchers from 4 countries talks about the Circumpolar Deep Water (CDW) phenomena that is melting the land ice on Antartica. A lot of stuff to absorb here--very fascinating work. Not sure if it answers the questions about sea ice but it shows the incredible complexity of this key area.

Multidecadal warming of Antarctic waters

Because ice shelf melting and ice sheet collapse depend on the delivery of warm water by ocean currents, ice sheet predictability requires accurate estimates of oceanic heat transport. Shoaling CDW has the potential to significantly increase this heat transport and must be represented in climate models for future ice shelf predictions. Current climate models still have limitations in Southern Ocean mixed layer processes and are thus unlikely to represent Winter Water (WW) and the underlying CDW shoaling correctly.

 

[Sandvol]

In the same manner as cap-and-trade. Perhaps Reagan or Bush can remind you?

The reason carbon pricing is the market friendly solution is because the government does not get involved in instructing industry how to reduce their emissions (like the dems’ C&C regulation in the ‘70s). Simply put a price on carbon and let market forces drive emissions cuts. It’s a proven system.

Now can you explain to me how you manage pollution in your anarch-ish utopia?

So, who is it who decides where the tax reductions that offset the carbon taxes come from?

 

[Sandvol]

In the same manner as cap-and-trade. Perhaps Reagan or Bush can remind you?

The reason carbon pricing is the market friendly solution is because the government does not get involved in instructing industry how to reduce their emissions (like the dems’ C&C regulation in the ‘70s). Simply put a price on carbon and let market forces drive emissions cuts. It’s a proven system.

Now can you explain to me how you manage pollution in your anarch-ish utopia?

If for a minute we assume your premise is correct and that AGW is occurring: Can you show me your comparative valuation assigned to keeping industrial civilization versus stopping global warming? I personally value the benefits of industrialization above avoiding some theoretical loss as a result of global warming. We supposedly warmed this much and I personally or the free market has seen no harm. Therefore I believe nothing should be done to stop global warming that would destroy industrial civilization. AGW should simply be accepted as a byproduct of economic progress and that life should go on as we adapt to climate change. But, if AGW does cause more harm than economic benefit the free market would respond to this harm by producing products that stop or curtail the harm. That's how free markets work.

 

[BartW]

So, who is it who decides where the tax reductions that offset the carbon taxes come from?

Congress. From the bill intro,

"...the carbon fee will generate significant new federal revenue. The technicians are still working on the official revenue estimate for the bill, but it should be at least $1.5 trillion, and perhaps more than $2 trillion, over the first decade. Whatever the exact number is, all of it should be returned to the American people.

The bill establishes an American Opportunity Trust Fund to return the revenue to the American people. This could include tax cuts, student loan debt relief, increased Social Security benefits for seniors, transition assistance to workers in fossil-fuel industries, or even direct dividends to American families. I look forward to deciding with my colleagues on the best way to return the revenue, but I believe that every dollar should go back to the American people in some form.

Here’s one example to consider: we could cut the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 30 percent. That’s estimated to cost about $600 billion.

Then we could give every single American worker an annual $500 payroll tax rebate for about $700 billion."

If for a minute we assume your premise is correct and that AGW is occurring: Can you show me your comparative valuation assigned to keeping industrial civilization versus stopping global warming? I personally value the benefits of industrialization above avoiding some theoretical loss as a result of global warming. We supposedly warmed this much and I personally or the free market has seen no harm. Therefore I believe nothing should be done to stop global warming that would destroy industrial civilization. AGW should simply be accepted as a byproduct of economic progress and that life should go on as we adapt to climate change. But, if AGW does cause more harm than economic benefit the free market would respond to this harm by producing products that stop or curtail the harm. That's how free markets work.

"Global warming hasn't boned us yet, but if/when it does we'll just invent cold fusion or carbon capture or something"

Solid :birgits_giggle:. The point you're missing is that there will be no economic progress if we don't simultaneously address climate change. And the market has already taken notice. For example,

No climate-change deniers to be found in the reinsurance business
Industry Awakens to Threat of Climate Change
Coca Cola, Heinz And Other Major Food Companies Warn Climate Change Threatens Business
Google cites climate change as tech titans quit ALEC
Not business as usual: 200 firms back EPA climate regs

Why are bread prices sky high? How does that relate to political instability in the middle east? Can it come back to bite us? Every branch of the US military thinks so.

Doing nothing and hoping (praying?) for the best is not prudent risk management.

 

[BartW]

More link dump - recent articles on recent topics

Small volcanic eruptions could be slowing global warming

West Antarctic melt rate has tripled

 

[govols/cc]

'Game we can

 

[Sandvol]

Congress. From the bill intro,

"...the carbon fee will generate significant new federal revenue. The technicians are still working on the official revenue estimate for the bill, but it should be at least $1.5 trillion, and perhaps more than $2 trillion, over the first decade. Whatever the exact number is, all of it should be returned to the American people.

The bill establishes an American Opportunity Trust Fund to return the revenue to the American people. This could include tax cuts, student loan debt relief, increased Social Security benefits for seniors, transition assistance to workers in fossil-fuel industries, or even direct dividends to American families. I look forward to deciding with my colleagues on the best way to return the revenue, but I believe that every dollar should go back to the American people in some form.

Here’s one example to consider: we could cut the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 30 percent. That’s estimated to cost about $600 billion.

Then we could give every single American worker an annual $500 payroll tax rebate for about $700 billion."

So, you are in favor of crony capitalism where political elites pick the winners and losers?

"Global warming hasn't boned us yet, but if/when it does we'll just invent cold fusion or carbon capture or something"

Solid :birgits_giggle:. The point you're missing is that there will be no economic progress if we don't simultaneously address climate change. And the market has already taken notice. For example,

No climate-change deniers to be found in the reinsurance business
Industry Awakens to Threat of Climate Change
Coca Cola, Heinz And Other Major Food Companies Warn Climate Change Threatens Business
Google cites climate change as tech titans quit ALEC
Not business as usual: 200 firms back EPA climate regs

Why are bread prices sky high? How does that relate to political instability in the middle east? Can it come back to bite us? Every branch of the US military thinks so.

Doing nothing and hoping (praying?) for the best is not prudent risk management.

You are proving my point. The market is sensing some potential harm and reacting to it. If some real harm were to eventually occur the markets would react to it long before any significant harm occurred and mitigate the harm. Without government.

 

[Sandvol]

Also, this:

Solid . The point you're missing is that there will be no economic progress if we don't simultaneously address climate change. And the market has already taken notice. For example,

Is not proven by any of this:

No climate-change deniers to be found in the reinsurance business
Industry Awakens to Threat of Climate Change
Coca Cola, Heinz And Other Major Food Companies Warn Climate Change Threatens Business
Google cites climate change as tech titans quit ALEC
Not business as usual: 200 firms back EPA climate regs

Why are bread prices sky high? How does that relate to political instability in the middle east? Can it come back to bite us? Every branch of the US military thinks so.

 

[BartW]

So, you are in favor of crony capitalism where political elites pick the winners and losers?

No, imo we should stop subsidizing all energy. Put a price on carbon. Let the market figure out how to reduce emissions most efficiently.

You are proving my point. The market is sensing some potential harm and reacting to it. If some real harm were to eventually occur the markets would react to it long before any significant harm occurred and mitigate the harm. Without government.