Official Global Warming thread (merged)

[Sandvol]

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

Not hardly. Yo.

 

[Grand Vol]

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."


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

lol, your faith that the government will tax one particular group and turn around and return that money to the People is cute.

And entirely ignorant.

 

[govols/cc]

I'm sure consumers will see lower energy costs as well.

 

[Catbone]

Hot

 

[Rifleman]

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?

You are here telling me in a politics thread that the global warming debate is not politicized days after you posted a link to a politics-saturated comment in response to a peer-reviewed paper?

OK.

In addition, please let me know where I said "cover up"? If I said that I definitely got carried away and went too far, which would be hypocritical considering the argument I am trying to make.

Off topic - what's a good Dutch beer I am likely not familiar with? Is it pretty much just Heineken/Grolsch/Amstel (like them all) or can you get other stuff here in the states that I should keep an eye out for?

 

[Rifleman]

Just to clarify my position once more: yes I think that there are definite blind spots in the models, but I am not positing that as an argument against the facts of a long term global warming trend.

In fact, there are numerous good examples where models have underestimated the severity of climate feedbacks. The loss of Artic ice and the speed of Antartic glacial melt versus the models show that there is a significant lack of understanding of all the mechanisms at play in those very key areas.

Do we have less time than we thought to address these problems? Do we have more? Don't we all want convincing answers to those basic questions?

Further, it is known that predictive models which fail in one direction (underestimation) will often fail in another (overestimation), so it is not surprising to also see areas where climate models overestimate the effects of warming.

The stakes here require us to move forward without hubris or agenda and make sure we fully understand all possible mechanisms. In predictive models where you are dealing with probabilities over time, small mistakes magnify and add large biases to future predictions.

 

[Biopsyman]

Fraud

 

[BartW]

Also, this:
Is not proven by any of this:

How are these not examples of real impacts on the market? Take the reinsurance industry for example. Their business depends 100% on proper risk analysis. If they undercharge customers, they lose money; if they overcharge, they lose customers.

How is drought not an impact on the market? Supply chain breaks? War?

Not hardly. Yo.

You don’t like the speed of light?

 

[BartW]

lol, your faith that the government will tax one particular group and turn around and return that money to the People is cute.

And entirely ignorant.

Feeling defeatist? Or is that a defense mechanism to prevent conversation that might lead to a solution? As Senator Whitehouse said in the bill into, "We know it can be done, because it has been done." For example,

The shocking truth about B.C.’s carbon tax: It works

B.C.’s tax, implemented in 2008, covers most types of fuel use and carbon emissions. It started out low ($10 per tonne of carbon dioxide), then rose gradually to the current $30 per tonne, which works out to about 7 cents per litre of gas. “Revenue-neutral” by law, the policy requires equivalent cuts to other taxes. In practice, the province has cut $760-million more in income and other taxes than needed to offset carbon tax revenue.

The result is that taxpayers are coming out ahead. B.C. now has the lowest personal income tax rate in Canada (with additional cuts benefiting low-income and rural residents) and one of the lowest corporate rates in North America. You shouldn’t need an economist and a mining entrepreneur to tell you that’s good for business and jobs.

At the same time, it’s been extraordinarily effective in tackling the root cause of carbon pollution: the burning of fossil fuels. Since the tax came in, fuel use in B.C. has dropped by 16 per cent; in the rest of Canada, it’s risen by 3 per cent (counting all fuels covered by the tax). To put that accomplishment in perspective, Canada’s Kyoto target was a 6-per-cent reduction in 20 years. And the evidence points to the carbon tax as the major driver of these B.C. gains.

Further, while some had predicted that the tax shift would hurt the province’s economy, in fact, B.C.’s GDP has slightly outperformed the rest of Canada’s since 2008.

 

[BartW]

You are here telling me in a politics thread that the global warming debate is not politicized days after you posted a link to a politics-saturated comment in response to a peer-reviewed paper?

OK.

In addition, please let me know where I said "cover up"? If I said that I definitely got carried away and went too far, which would be hypocritical considering the argument I am trying to make.

Off topic - what's a good Dutch beer I am likely not familiar with? Is it pretty much just Heineken/Grolsch/Amstel (like them all) or can you get other stuff here in the states that I should keep an eye out for?

“Nobody wants to say this because of a politicization” implies cover-up imo. I’m just telling you there is nothing preventing anyone from speaking out about CFCs. There is plenty of funded, published research on CFCs and their impacts on climate and it’s all included in the IPCC. CFCs are no secret.

Obviously the larger global warming debate is extremely politicized, but that in and of itself does not validate Lu. That’s the Galileo gambit. It’s not politics; his paper just doesn’t withstand the scrutiny of the broader scientific community. Aside from the comments, Lu’s paper is only cited by one tangentially related (but climate unrelated) paper. Nobody, not even the climate contrarian, is citing or building on Lu’s work. Forgive my skepticism.

Talkin beers, the other big export is Bavaria. My favorite common Dutch beer is probably Hertog Jan or Grolsch. Sadly I don’t think Hertog Jan exports to the states. I'm not a huge pale lager guy but those are all good brews. It’s hard to boast though with Belgium and Germany next door...

Just to clarify my position once more: yes I think that there are definite blind spots in the models, but I am not positing that as an argument against the facts of a long term global warming trend.

In fact, there are numerous good examples where models have underestimated the severity of climate feedbacks. The loss of Artic ice and the speed of Antartic glacial melt versus the models show that there is a significant lack of understanding of all the mechanisms at play in those very key areas.

Do we have less time than we thought to address these problems? Do we have more? Don't we all want convincing answers to those basic questions?

Further, it is known that predictive models which fail in one direction (underestimation) will often fail in another (overestimation), so it is not surprising to also see areas where climate models overestimate the effects of warming.

The stakes here require us to move forward without hubris or agenda and make sure we fully understand all possible mechanisms. In predictive models where you are dealing with probabilities over time, small mistakes magnify and add large biases to future predictions.

I don’t disagree with any of this. It reminds me of a pair of interesting papers/articles from a while back:

Uncertainty isn’t cause for climate complacency – quite the opposite
The climate change uncertainty monster – more uncertainty means more urgency to tackle global warming

I think (hope) we do have time, but we need to be using it wisely. The longer we delay, the more expensive mitigation and adaptation become. There are many options on the table for how to proceed. It’s time for Republicans to come back to the table and take part in real discussion, instead of acting out this faux debate over whether global warming is even real.

Unfortunately Inhofe and pals look like they’ll be perpetuating that circus for the next few years. I wonder if we’ll hear more congressional testimony from *experts* like 'Lord' Monckton? Meanwhile, world leaders hammer out a new climate treaty and Obama goes balls to the wall in his final years. It’s sure to be quite the show.

 

[Sandvol]

How are these not examples of real impacts on the market? Take the reinsurance industry for example. Their business depends 100% on proper risk analysis. If they undercharge customers, they lose money; if they overcharge, they lose customers.

How is drought not an impact on the market? Supply chain breaks? War?

Yes, the reinsurance industry places a risk on potential weather events. They don't do if for free. Some idiot company might react to alarmism. That doesn't have anything to do with economic progress.

You don’t like the speed of light?

No, global warming and the speed of light are hardly related.

 

[MG1968]

Lima Climate Talks Set for Record Carbon Footprint - US News

At more than 50,000 metric tons of carfb/phbon dioxide, the negotiations' burden on global warming will be about 1 1/2 times the norm, said Jorge Alvarez, project coordinator for the U.N. Development Program.

The venue is one big reason. It had to be built.

Eleven football fields of temporary structures arose for the 13-day negotiations from what three months ago was an empty field behind Peru's army's headquarters. Concrete was laid, plumbing installed, components flown in from as far as France and Brazil.

Nothing says you care for the environment quite as much as destroying the environment to build a temporary facility to talk about how much you love the environment.

yay science!

 

[Rifleman]

Lima Climate Talks Set for Record Carbon Footprint - US News



Nothing says you care for the environment quite as much as destroying the environment to build a temporary facility to talk about how much you love the environment.

yay science!

Somebody ought to tell these folks about the internet.

Looking at you, Mr. Gore. :compute:

 

[VOLatile]

Mid-Decmber and I'm in shorts. I can play that game, too. Checkmate science deniers.

 

[Obsessed]

Mid-Decmber and I'm in shorts. I can play that game, too. Checkmate science deniers.

Location?

 

[Sandvol]

Location?

He's in Panama. Or is it Oz?

 

[PKT_VOL]

New Study: California's Epic Drought Probably Wasn't Caused by Climate Change | Mother Jones

 

[Sandvol]

New Study: California's Epic Drought Probably Wasn't Caused by Climate Change | Mother Jones

You better jump in the foxhole when Bart reads that.

 

[PKT_VOL]

You better jump in the foxhole when Bart reads that.

The most interesting thing about the link is the media source.

 

[Sandvol]

The most interesting thing about the link is the media source.

Staggers the imagination.

 

[BartW]

Yes, the reinsurance industry places a risk on potential weather events. They don't do if for free. Some idiot company might react to alarmism. That doesn't have anything to do with economic progress.

What? I gave you the re/insurance industry as an example of ‘real harm’ to the market. It’s not just rates either; why are insurance companies dropping coastal flood and wildfire policies in droves? Why do we need federal flood and crop insurance programs, and why are they increasingly expensive? Who funds those federal insurance policies?

No, global warming and the speed of light are hardly related.

They are inasmuch as you fail at causality.

New Study: California's Epic Drought Probably Wasn't Caused by Climate Change | Mother Jones

You better jump in the foxhole when Bart reads that.

Saw the story but not the report. As always, no one single weather event can be attributed solely to global warming. But superimposing the long-term warming trend on a‘natural cycle’ of drought will inevitably exacerbate times of drought. Here was Mann’s take on the report:

Climate Change and the Record 2014 California Drought

Again I have to agree that the record heat in California at least contributes to the record drought. I’ve also read and posted some of Francis’ work that Mann references here. Time will tell but it ain’t lookin great. Hopefully El Nino delivers some relief.

 

[BartW]

In other news...

November temperatures end record streak, world still on pace for hottest year

This year October, September, August, June and May -- five of the last seven months -- set global monthly heat records. April 2014 was the second hottest on record. January, March and July were fourth. February was the 21st warmest.

Scientists have blamed this year's heat on man-made global warming. The burning of coal, oil and gas traps heats, changing the climate.

This heat is being driven by incredible warmth in the world's oceans. For a seventh month, sea surface temperatures set a record. Because oceans are big and slow to change that makes it more likely the world will set a yearly temperature record.

The globe has broken 37 monthly high temperature records since January 1997, including five this year, according to NOAA. The last cold monthly temperature record broken was in December 1916.

Lima climate change talks end in agreement - but who won?

There was one thing above all others that wealthy countries wanted out of the Lima negotiations and that was a method of accounting for emissions cuts.

The issue that mattered above all to developing countries was deciding who should carry the burden of emissions cuts, and getting the money flowing for climate aid.

For small island states, acknowledgement of “loss and damage” due to climate change was critical. All three contingents got what they wanted – sort of. The deal reached on Saturday afternoon was critical in keeping the talks on track.

US and India to announce joint climate change action during Obama visit

America and India will unveil joint efforts to fight climate change when Barack Obama visits New Delhi next month, as the US tries to keep up the momentum of international negotiations.

Obama’s visit – on the back of the United Nations talks in Lima – is seen as a key moment to persuade one of the world’s biggest carbon polluters to step up its efforts to fight climate change.

After China and the US, India is the world’s third largest producer of the greenhouse gas emissions causing climate change – although it is responsible for only about 6% of such emissions globally.

China releases ground rules for carbon trading

China's top economic planning agency has released basic rules for a nationwide emissions trading scheme, expected to be launched in 2016.

The regulations published by the National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC) make formal China's plans to launch an emissions trading scheme, set to be the world's biggest.

China, the world's largest emitter of climate-changing greenhouse gases, aims to use the market as a key tool to halt the growth of its emissions by the end of next decade

 

[Rifleman]

In other news, models of Greenland's ice sheet melt rates have been disturbingly inept in their projections/ assumptions.

Laser altimetry reveals complex pattern of Greenland Ice Sheet dynamics

 

[Sandvol]

What? I gave you the re/insurance industry as an example of ‘real harm’ to the market. It’s not just rates either; why are insurance companies dropping coastal flood and wildfire policies in droves? Why do we need federal flood and crop insurance programs, and why are they increasingly expensive? Who funds those federal insurance policies?
They are inasmuch as you fail at causality.

What does that have to do with anything? That proves AGW? So, reinsurance against catastrophic climate events proves AGW? OK, now I understand causality.

 

[Obsessed]

The real bogey man.....



What is less known, is that there is a lot of greenhouse gas methane released from the seabed offshore the West Yamal Peninsula. Gas is released in an area of at least 7500 m2, with gas flares extending up to 25 meters in the water column. Anyhow, there is still a large amount of methane gas that is contained by an impermeable cap of permafrost. And this permafrost is thawing.
"The thawing of permafrost on the ocean floor is an ongoing process, likely to be exaggerated by the global warming of the world´s oceans." says PhD Alexey Portnov at Centre for Arctic Gas Hydrate, Climate and Environment (CAGE) at UiT, The Arctic University of Norway.

Phys.Org Mobile: Methane is leaking from permafrost offshore Siberia