I made the comment below recently in the discussion following an essay:
If you put it to a popular vote, and people learned that GHG emissions could be arrested (hypothetically) if they were willing to pay $7/gallon of gasoline, what percentage would vote for that? My guess is that it would be well less than 20%, implying that GW concerns will give way to economic concerns.
At one time I was really worried about Global Warming. And at the risk of starting another Global Warming debate here (one that I don’t have time to participate in), my position is that the scientific consensus backs the hypothesis that human activity is contributing to Global Warming. I am not an atmospheric scientist, so in this case I rely on the scientific consensus of the experts. This is the same standard I apply to other fields in which I lack expertise.
I understand that the scientific consensus is sometimes wrong. But that is the exception rather than the rule. I am familiar with the arguments against Global Warming, and I certainly don’t want to see debate quashed. For instance, Heading Out, one of the editors at The Oil Drum, doesn’t accept that humans are having any sort of meaningful contribution to Global Warming. Unfortunately, every time he tries to discuss his position, he is shouted down. See this thread for an example. I think it is unfortunate that the topic is often treated as something that can’t be discussed rationally.
So, if I accept the scientific consensus, then why am I no longer seriously worried? Because I have come to the realization that we are never going to pay the price that it would take to halt – much less reverse – Global Warming. This article reiterates my opening comment:
To work, carbon tax must sting
Most Canadians tell pollsters they’re concerned about climate change. Many insist they’d like to do something about it, and would even pay for measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
But propose actual cash amounts – 25 cents a litre on gasoline, perhaps, or a $10 daily commuter toll – and support evaporates.
“Once you put a price on it, people tend to think twice about it and say, `Maybe not,'” says Mario Canseco of Angus Reid Strategies, which surveyed about 3,700 Canadians on the issue last March.
The basic idea: Boosting the cost of anything containing carbon – the main greenhouse gas – would compel industries and consumers to seek cheaper alternatives. They’d switch to cleaner fuels or consume less – either by adopting more efficient technologies or simply reducing their activity. Presumably, the alternatives would be better for the environment.
The problem: No government appears willing to impose a cost high enough to actually change behaviour. And while several industry groups argue pricing carbon is a good idea, their enthusiasm is less than it seems.
And those excerpts explain the problem in a nutshell. I know that people aren’t willing to pay the price, even though they “want” something to be done about Global Warming. If it means higher prices or inconvenience, the Western World will wring hands and wish for something to be done, but that’s as far as it is going to go. Yes, I consider Global Warming to be a problem. But we simply aren’t going to address it, hence I can’t continue to be seriously worried about the impact it’s going to have. I can only try to react and position myself to prepare for what I think the consequences may be.
Personally, I favor mitigation, because it would also be mitigation for peak oil. I want to see us greatly slow the rate at which we are using up our fossil fuels. Of course one can make the argument that higher gas taxes in the U.S. aren’t going to stretch our fossil fuel supplies. The reasoning is that this will reduce demand in the U.S., which will lower worldwide prices and spur demand everywhere else. There may be some truth to that argument, but given that the U.S. is the largest user of crude oil, I think we need to get our own house in order before worrying about what China or India is doing. Besides, if we make our economy less dependent on oil – and as a result China uses more oil – isn’t that going to be China’s problem as supplies deplete?
Do you think there’s any chance that a revenue-neutral carbon tax could fly?
I.e. collect some number of dollars per tonne of carbon emissions and turn around and disburse the revenue to the citizens on a per-head basis (not unlike the Alaska Permanent Fund).
It could be truthfully sold as “not affecting the average person’s pocket book by one cent,” and since poor people spend less on carbon-intensive activities, on average, it makes an otherwise regressive tax progressive.
I can see them doing a revenue-neutral carbon tax, but I am not sure it will have a sufficient impact on changing behaviors. If you apply a carbon tax on something and then turn around and give that money back to people, they’ll just continue to spend it on those carbon intensive products. While not everyone will do this, enough will to make this not all that effective IMHO. This is why I prefer a cap-and-trade scheme. Problem with that is we have to figure out how much to cap and how to allocate the credits which is not such an easy task.
Robert,
Here’s why you shouldn’t overly worry about global warming:
The earth and its atmosphere has been dynamic ever since the earth was created. The temperature of the earth has always been changing, and will always continue to change — regardless of what humans think is right or might want.
In the past four billion years, the earth’s temperature has been both colder and warmer than it is now. During the next five billion years (or at least until the Sun turns into a red giant), the earth’s temperature will be both colder and warmer than it is now.
The earth is a self-correcting system, and if it gets too hot, the earth will regulate itself by causing humans to die off.
Those who overly worry about global warming are short-sighted, and fail to think in astronomical and geological time. (The city where I sit writing this was under 1,500 meters of ice only 12,000 years ago.)
Who said that the temperature of the earth in the 1960s is what is “right?” Why does anyone think that humans will still be around 100,000 years, 500,000 years, or 10,000,000 years in the future?
I don’t want us to continue burning hydrocarbons unabated and dumping billions of tonnes of stuff into the atmosphere, but we are actually quite powerless to change the great geological and astronomical cycles of the earth, solar system, and universe.
What about the risk of catastrophic or runaway warming? If positive feedback loops kick in, we could see profound changes in the climate, leading to massive global biological changes. With a large enough increase in mean temperature (say, if most tropical forest burns or dies and lots of methane clathrates melt), it is plausible that conditions could become impossible for human civilization to survive within.
Personally, I favor mitigation, because it would also be mitigation for peak oil. I want to see us greatly slow the rate at which we are using up our fossil fuels.
You have an interesting definition of mitigation. Most often, I see that term used in this context alongside the word “adaptation”. That is, asserting that we should simply continue with business as usual, maybe conserving energy where it’s clearly a (short term) economic win, but otherwise not changing our energy consumption habits.
The assumption is that is costs more to reduce our energy consumption than it would cost to deal with the consequences of it. This position is goofy on both ends, IMO: reducing fossil energy use can be an engine for economic growth, whereas relocation a large fraction of both the world’s population and the world’s agriculture seems like one of the most expensive things we could do. But I digress…
Your use of “mitigation” sounds like a strategy to address/prevent/minimize global warming. That’s great, but it leaves me wondering: if you think that we won’t willingly pay more for energy, and that that is the only way to reduce consumption, how do you see the US reducing its energy use ahead of whatever conservation is enforced by shortages?
Within the Synthesis Report for the Fourth Assessement Report of the IPCC, the danger of catastrophic or runaway climate change is acknowledged:
“Unmitigated climate change would, in the long term, be likely to exceed the capacity of natural, managed and human systems to adapt.” (p.20)
“The earth is a self-correcting system, and if it gets too hot, the earth will regulate itself by causing humans to die off.”
There is no evidence that the Earth is a self-correcting system. It’s just a network, not even an example evolutionary formed life (which also is not universally “self-correcting”)
“The earth and its atmosphere has been dynamic ever since the earth was created. The temperature of the earth has always been changing, and will always continue to change — regardless of what humans think is right or might want.”
This is a non-sequitor. Are humans contributing to climate change? The consensus is yes. Does climate change have negative implications (economic) for a large portion of the world’s population. Yes. Is it incredibly expensive to reduce green house gas emissions? Not relative to first world incomes.
“Those who overly worry about global warming are short-sighted, and fail to think in astronomical and geological time. (The city where I sit writing this was under 1,500 meters of ice only 12,000 years ago.)”
The city where you are didn’t exist 12,000 years ago. Or if it did, it was something that could be rebuilt quickly. Do you have any idea how much capital stock is at risk due to global warming? It is not something you can just write off.
“Who said that the temperature of the earth in the 1960s is what is “right?” Why does anyone think that humans will still be around 100,000 years, 500,000 years, or 10,000,000 years in the future?”
It’s the “right” temperature because we developed are infrastructure around it. And the rest of course is non-sequitor.
“I don’t want us to continue burning hydrocarbons unabated and dumping billions of tonnes of stuff into the atmosphere, but we are actually quite powerless to change the great geological and astronomical cycles of the earth, solar system, and universe.”
While there is no certainty, it does seem as if we are already contributing to “the great geological and astronomical cycles of the Earth”.
if you think that we won’t willingly pay more for energy, and that that is the only way to reduce consumption, how do you see the US reducing its energy use ahead of whatever conservation is enforced by shortages?
I think we will conserve as prices continue to increase. But it is going to take a lot of conservation, plus a move to sustainable transportation sources. The first part is inevitable, I believe. The second part could be spurred on with specific energy policies.
“Unmitigated climate change would, in the long term, be likely to exceed the capacity of natural, managed and human systems to adapt.”
This also raises the question of what is considered successful adaptation.
Currently, we have something like 1/4 of the planet living in abject poverty and misery, and something like 1/4 living higher on the hog than human beings ever have historically.
Does successful adaptation require that we not allow these ratios to get any worse? Or is it measured by the level of affluence that the elite enjoy? Is adaptation successful if we manage to retain a high-tech infrastructure? What about democracy?
Many of the moderate GW scenarios involve things that will put a great deal of stress on civilization and culture, and force us to spend alot of time and energy running faster just to stay in place (e.g. building seawalls to protect our cities).
There’s an enormous range of possible human conditions. I have no doubt that some human beings will survive even the worst GW nightmare scenario. I have little doubt that, under merely moderate scenarios, we can at least retain high tech transportation, health care and communication for, say, 1% (or even 5%) of the global population.
The most important question, I think, when discussing adaptation vs. prevention is, “what kind of world do you want to live in?”
But it is going to take a lot of conservation, plus a move to sustainable transportation sources.
I would state this a little differently: I would say that we must fail to move to less sustainable transportation sources. In other words, we must avoid CTL, tar sands, and stupid (i.e. most) biofuels.
There isn’t enough oil left to take us to really high CO2 levels. It’s coal that will kill us, which is why Architecture 2030 is focusing on radically reducing building energy consumption. But if we start using coal in our cars, then we’re screwed that way too.
Looked at this way, the possibilities are somewhat more positive. We don’t have to voluntarily stop burning so much oil for transportation. That will happen anyway. We simply have to choose to NOT substitute higher carbon density sources for our declining oil supply. We just barely might be that smart as a species. Or at least I think so on a good day.
I’ve been sitting on a pretty good link and essay:
Uncertainty and Action on Climate Change
Beyond that though, I’d summarize Robert’s argument as “people are dumb” and continue with the standard rejoinder “but they aren’t that dumb.”
People will avoid thinking about AGW if it does not hit them on the head. If it hits them on the head, they’ll act.
So really this is about how apparent and emotionally powerful “first effects” prove to be. It is similar to Peak Oil in that regard.
Oh, and obviously “partial action” does make outcomes “less bad” than no action.
We are already seeing partial action, esp. in Europe and Japan.
We are already seeing partial action, esp. in Europe and Japan.
And despite years of fretting and the Kyoto Protocol and all of the words and effort that have gone into action, has there been any measurable tailing off of the rise in atmospheric CO2 concentrations?
It’s not that people are dumb. That’s not the point. The point is that they don’t see any immediate consequences, and they know that action is going to cost them money. So, they figure “Let’s just wait and see what happens.”
And by immediate consequences, what I really mean is “If I cut my CO2 emissions today, what impact will it have?” That’s the point I think people come to when they know that mitigation is going to cost them some money.
We are already seeing partial action, esp. in [Western] Europe and Japan.
Actions there are driven primarily by the fact they are major energy importers. Even without GW/PO they have incentives to reduce their energy usage.
Many Americans are still operating under the delusion that there are gobs of energy lurking just under the topsoil. (For Canadians this is actually the case – for now.) It’s hard for most people to make a sacrifice for non-tangible benefit that may not ever be realized. That’s why GW/PO mitigation probably won’t happen in time, despite the fact that it is technically possible.
I like to quote the stand-up economist, who condenses “people act at the margin” to mean “people are dumb, but not that dumb.”
On your first paragraph, I think we have talked before about what is necessary for “good news.” Is it sufficient that CO2 is not as bad as it might have been? Or is it necessary that by 2007 (oops!) I mean 2008 we have turned the corner?
Maybe it’s because I’m a cynic, or confused in my optimsim/pessimism, but I take this news as good:
59 Coal Plants Cancelled or Shelved in 2007
That’s evidence that we aren’t in a static world, or on a preordained trajectory.
Put another way, is there a better answer to those cancellations than “we arne’t that dumb?”
FWIW,
Mankiw’s Principles
#1. People face tradeoffs.
#2. The cost of something is what you give up to get it.
#3. Rational people think at the margin.
#4. People respond to incentives.
#5. Trade can make everyone better off.
#6. Markets are usually a good way to organize economic activity.
#7. Governments can sometimes improve market outcomes.
#8. A country’s standard of living depends on its ability to produce goods and services.
#9. Prices rise when the government prints too much money.
#10. Society faces a short-run tradeoff between inflation and unemployment.
Stand-up Economist’s Translations
#1. Choices are bad.
#2. Choices are really bad.
#3. People are stupid.
#4. People aren’t that stupid.
#5. Trade can make everyone worse off.
#6. Governments are stupid.
#7. Governments aren’t that stupid.
#8. Blah blah blah.
#9. Blah blah blah.
#10. Blah blah blah.
One of the problems, I think, with a carbon tax is that it is seen as an “artificial” price increase whereas if you have a price increase because of market forces (i.e. speculators), it somehow more acceptable. This leads me to a couple thoughts. First is figure out some way to take all of the external costs of carbon emissions and apply them to the businesses that emit carbon or encourage carbon emission. Yes, this would mean that automobiles would get a huge surcharge which may or may not be a better solution than a carbon reclamation tax on gasoline.
The second thought is that all of the green groups out there concerned about carbon emissions should start playing in the speculators market raising the price of oil. Probably wouldn’t happen because too many of the members count on their cars to get them from where they live to places where there aren’t many people and making that trip more expensive would not be welcome.
On the thought of carbon taxes being revenue neutral, I’m not sure that’s the way you want to go. You want to give people an incentive to purchase alternatives to carbon producing processes. You want the cost of carbon production visible. Sort of like the nutritional information labels on the side of a box of food. Maybe there should be an energy label stating average number of miles traveled between manufacture and delivery resulting in so many pounds of carbon produced etc. etc.. Probably have as much effect as the nutritional labels and the surgeons warning on cigarettes but, it would be interesting.
One more thought. If you want a really cheap hit on reducing energy use, turn off outdoor lighting and if you can’t turn it off, reduce the power used and limit the hours of operation (turn off parking lot lights one hour after store closes).
The last time I looked, we were wasting something on the order of like $15 or $20 billion worth of electricity a year with bad outdoor lighting. converting to fully shielded fixtures running at half the intensity would provide better quality lighting but also lower energy usage.
The psychological win for doing this is that it preps people to think about ways they can cut back energy use. Things like compact fluorescent light bulbs, better insulation etc.
Just a thought
Well, you could try telling them what it will cost to not fix it, in terms of remediation efforts for e.g. rising sea levels. The problem is, we’re all too good at ignoring costs that are “down the road” (just look at Social Security and Medicare). Or you can focus on the short term cost of resource depletion, e.g. we are paying beaucoup money to foreign oil states, we should pay ourselves via taxes instead.
You know, I probably sound like I’m not being serious with that “people are dumb” stuff, but consider.
The stand-up economist’s items 3 and 4:
#3. People are stupid.
#4. People aren’t that stupid.
Map into Mankiw’s items 3 and 4:
#3. Rational people think at the margin.
#4. People respond to incentives.
Those rules expand thus:
# Rational People Think at the Margin.
A rational decision-maker takes action if and only if the marginal benefit of the action exceeds the marginal cost.
# People Respond to Incentives.
Behavior changes when costs or benefits change.
Right there we are into GW decision-making. Robert worries that people will not see marginal benefits for marginal costs. And rightly so. There is little marginal affect apparent to the man in the street.
Which is why we rationally argue for incentives to drive the behavior home.
It is not a coincidence that Harvard economist Greg Mankiw, author of the Econ 101 text and that 10-item list, is also founder of “The Pigou Club.”
Check out his club manifesto there, and observe carbon dioxide on the list.
To be sure, concerns about Global Warming due to rising CO2 emission are serious. But, go to any Ice Age website, and check out the previous 400,000 years. We are on the cusp of another Ice Age, if past patterns prevail. Indeed, past pstterns indicate we are at an apex in temperatures right now.
An Ice Age would be a lot worse than Global Warming! And, we ran into Ice Ages, despite some previous epochs having far higher CO2 levels than now.
Those with children might want to assemble some land in cities just south of the equator. The southern half of the globe does not freeze up, and the equator is the warmest place.
Forget Canada.
In practice, however, I think we should radically curtail consumption of fossil oil, for environmental and political reasons. Pollution is bad, lowers the quality of life, hurts property values, shortens lives.
Buying trillions of dollars in oil from the most repressive brutal backward Thug States is not my idea of a foreign policy.
So, let’s go solar, geothermal, nukes, wind and PHEVs!
Carbon tax is as I see it a two way street. It gives large business concerns a way out and caoms there conscience, and number two It quells a lot of the fears of people whom want a cleaner future. Carbon tax also says “see we are doing somthing”. I wonder what would happen if the question was changed to read “How much money would you pay as a one time fee to stop glogal warming?” The human being is indeed a funny animal. If the refridgerator breaks down we grumble but we just go out and buy a new one (one time large expendature) however if the price of gasoline is to up by three dollars and I have to pay that increase each and every time I go in to buy gas, well that is just plain terrible even though it will take a very long time to equal the refriderator purchase.
Global warming can indeed be stopped and backed to 1960 averages. Just sell the people something that will fix global warming while at the same time save them future money.
Ice ages don’t happen over the course of 50-100 years — saying that human-induced global warming is just cancelling out an impending ice age is absurd. Its like putting spinach on your hamburger in hopes that the spinach will net out the fat.
Global warming is an engineering problem: We need to transfer more heat to outer space.
Eventually an engineer is going to figure it out.
First, the problem needs to get urgent enough so that somebody would pay up for a solution. Brace yourself!
We will never achieve zero net CO2 through voluntarily sacrifice. It can only happen through force (e.g. global dictatorship) or innovation.
Simple solution.
Frame Global Warming into a National Security context.
http://greyfalcon.net/iraqvsenergy.png
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1153513,00.html
Besides which, since when has not having the money to spend stopped Republicans from spending?
http://greyfalcon.net/debt2.png
http://greyfalcon.net/doonsbury.png
http://greyfalcon.net/canadadollar.png
How about we make it more undeniable.
When you add carbon to water. It turns into carbonic acid.
You make the ocean too acidic and you have a massive die-out of ocean species.
Much of which human society is utterly dependant on.
Well guess what, thats happening.
To the extent that it’s going to be more acidic than it’s been in a couple millinea.
Which certainly isn’t that long on a geologic/evolutionary timescale.
But for a historical timescale, we can’t wait a couple hundreds of thousands of years to recover from that.
http://royalsociety.org/document.asp?id=3249
==Unfortunately, every time he tries to discuss his position, he is shouted down. I think it is unfortunate that the topic is often treated as something that can’t be discussed rationally.==
You have to draw the line somewhere though.
Me I don’t think it’s asking too much for people to get their science out of, or cited from, peer-reviewed physical science journals.
And not from books, magazines, or random websites.
I don’t see how you can have a “rational” scientific discussion any other way. Regardless of the scientific topic.
Since otherwise it’s no longer a debate of science. It’s a debate about dogmas. And those never end well.
Let’s be serious. The so-called “consensus” on alleged anthropogenic global warming is merely a construct of fear-mongering alarmists with a political agenda.
But turning to direct carbon taxes and indirect taxes such as cap & trade, have we learned nothing from the last century’s worth of big government screwing up? The politicians always forget the unintended consequence.
Here is only one possible unintended consequence of carbon taxes — the higher economic rent would end up in the hands of the exporters, not in the hands of importing governments.
Exporting countries sell oil today for under $100, and out of that they have to meet all their present costs & future investments. The over-taxed European consumer buys diesel or gasoline at the equivalent of an oil price of $250 – 300. European governments are pocketing $150-200 per barrel — more than the producer gets! Is that fair?
The inequity has been difficult for the exporters to deal with because a lot of oil goes to the US which has only normal taxes on oil. If the US joins Europe and adopts a high tax (direct or indirect) on oil, we should not be surprised if the exporters then start demanding a more equitable share of the expanded economic rent.
If those crazy westerners really want to pay a high price for oil, why should oil exporters deny them that privilege?
Let’s be serious. The so-called “consensus” on alleged anthropogenic global warming is merely a construct of fear-mongering alarmists with a political agenda.
Right. So how come when a climatologist wanted to organize a public debate about global warming, he was unable to find any skeptics willing to face him?
The reality is that 99% of the scientific community that has any applicable background at all is united on the basic position: Climate change is real, and human industrial activity is either the primary cause or at the very least a major contributor. Whereas if you dig into the qualifications of the skeptical so-called experts, 99% of them aren’t any more qualified to have an opinion than you and I are. (Just as one example, Gristmill is doing an ongoing series checking out the people on Inhofe’s recently published list of 400 “skeptical scientists”.)
The only legitimate, qualified scientist of whom I’m aware who flatly denies AGW is Richard Lindzen. Now, granted, he’s a atmospheric physicist at MIT, so his credentials are excellent. But he’s ONE GUY.
In this context, your statement is nothing but an ad-hominem attack. So, hey, let’s be serious here: Cut it out.
Climate change is real, and human industrial activity is either the primary cause or at the very least a major contributor.
Climate change has been real for hundreds of millions of years, based on real scientific geological evidence.
The planet came out of the most recent Ice Age about 10,000 years ago, and — Surprise! — it has been gently warming ever since.
Observational data on recent global warming (however defined) is much less definitive than alarmists assume — very sparse, unrepresentative data. But let’s assume for now that there is a recent underlying global warming trend.
The simplest hypothesis to explain such recent warming is a continuation of the gentle global warming trend (with fluctuations around it) that the world has seen for the last 10,000 years.
Anthropogenic global warmers ask us to reject the simple obvious explanation of continued natural processes — instead, they insert a different hypothesis that it is all the fault of those damn Europeans and their industrial revolution. That is quite a difficult case to support, scientifically speaking.
I have noticed that almost none of the anthropgenic global warming crowd will even try to make a scientific case. They chant “consensus”; they say it is too difficult for mere taxpayers to understand; they point to primitive mathematical models which predict global warming (because that is the way their mathematics were set up); they put their fingers in their metaphorical ears. But they will not discuss the science!
I am open-minded; would not be surprised if there is some recent global warming (natural or otherwise); am prepared to listen to a genuine scientific case explaining why any such warming is anthropogenic. But why is it so difficult to find a True Believer who will actually present a rational scientific case?
“But they will not discuss the science!”
The science is pretty simple. Higher concentrations of greenhouse gases in an atmosphere lead to more light being reflected back to Earth rather than escaping the atmosphere. More reflection – > more energy transfer -> higher temperatures. Of course, no one claims to know all the mechanisms which determine climate. But this is certainly one of them. Since the increase in concentration of greenhouse gases is likely the result of human activity (because rate of increase in greenhouse gas concentrations in the 20th century has accelerated with levels of industrialization), humans are the cause of this warming mechanism. If you’re waiting for certainty, there is none and never will be. There is no such thing in science as certainty. Even for commonly accepted phenomenon like gravity. Anti-knowledge (relevant information that you are unaware of) is always a possibility.
“If you’re waiting for certainty, there is none and never will be. There is no such thing in science as certainty.”
They why is it always stated that the ‘Science is Settled?’
FWIW, I think you’re right. There’s just too much economic pressure. We can say that we have to conserve or we have to reduce carbon emissions, blah blah blah, but at the same time people are urged to consume. Eat until your stomach bursts, buy junk you don’t need, replace things that don’t need replacing, buy new fashion four times a year, etc. Really getting people to conserve (or reduce carbon emissions) would require a different economic system.
“They why is it always stated that the ‘Science is Settled?'”
It means that climate scientists are convinced. We accept concepts like peak oil occurring in the near future on this blog all the time because the current data points to it and the consequences are significant. Tomorrow, some new technology could come that increases the amount of oil that can be economically recovered from most reservoirs by 10%. Does that mean that conservation and developing alternatives is a waste?
You’re presenting a false dichotomy. There is a way to significantly cut prices and carbon pollution at the same time — energy recycling. That’s a process that takes energy that’s normally wasted — say, the heat that comes out of manufacturers’ smokestacks — and turns it back into usable energy, like electricity or steam. Estimates suggest global warming emissions could be cut by 20% if we recycled energy.
There are two reasons it’s not being done more. First, a lot of companies/institutions have no idea they can do it, and they’re focused on their core business. Second, a lot of regulations protect utilities, which don’t want recyclers getting in the way of their profits. But if we pushed to open the market, this could be a huge opportunity.
Robert – one can use your science and engineering skills to debate AGW theory without being a climate scientist.
I don’t want to get into a debate on AGW. But if the theory is that CO2 absorbs solar energy, then you would expect that the first few hundred ppm increase in CO2 would have the most effect. I compared it to putting solar film on a window. If each sheet blocks 50% of the available light, the first sheet you install reduces the light by 50%, the second sheed only 25%, the third 12.5%, the fourth 6.25% and so on. Since the beginning of the industrial age global CO2 has risen about 100 ppm and temperatures only about 2 F. (if you can believe the ground based stations, which is a whole other argument). If CO2 traps solar energy, wouldn’t we expect the NEXT 100 ppm to have less of an effect? At some point the CO2 traps all the energy and adding more CO2 makes no difference at all.
When I ask REAL climate modelers this question, they immediately go ad hominem. So much for science. I also ask them for the mathematical equation that relates CO2 concentration to solar radiation. What are the terms in the equation, what is the shape of the curve?
I’ve tried to get a straight answer out of climate modelers on the equations of state they use for modeling gases. How about those weather stations? How well maintained are they? Were stations that were once in the country now surrounded by city and suburbs? Could that be biasing your numbers?
When I ask these questions, I get back appeals to the authority of science. AGW theory is like the “Great and Powerful Oz”. Just don’t look behind the curtain you stupid, uninformed, science denier.
I’ve thought about making the trek up to Texas A&M to take on Andrew Dessler but it would be a waste of my time. He’d see that I work for an energy company and conclude that that disqualifies me from any debate. (As if that year he spent as a Clinton administration political appointee doesn’t influence his world view.)
I said I didn’t want to argue AGW, but then did. Nevermind.
On Robert’s main post he is correct. Look at electricity deregulation. People got very upset when prices went up. I would argue that under deregulation the marginal cost of power rose from historic (regulated models) to its cost of replacement (unregulated). Deregulated markets are bearing at least some of the barrier to entry costs thrown up by the environmentalists.
I remember reading that electric prices in Baltimore went from like $0.06 /kWh to $0.10 and people were screaming for re-regulation. Under CO2 cap and trade or direct tax you are likely to see power prices around $0.15 / kWh.
Anonymous wrote:
The science is pretty simple. Higher concentrations of greenhouse gases in an atmosphere lead to more light being reflected back to Earth rather than escaping the atmosphere.
First, so-called “greenhouse gases” have nothing to do with the greenhouse effect. Greenhouses work by stopping the convective escape of heat — the gases you are discussing work by interfering with radiative heat transfer (infra-red radiation, not “light”) . The scientific term is Radiatively Active Gas — but alarmists don’t like to use it (for obvious reasons).
That may seem like pedantic science — but there is history behind it. Callendar brought up the issue of CO2-induced global warming in the 1930s at a British scientific meeting, and was laughed off the stage; back in those days, most educated people knew that the troposphere is dominated by convective heat transfer, not by radiative heat transfer. Seems like educational standards have sunk since then.
But let’s look at CO2 as a Radiatively Active Gas. We know its presence in the atmosphere is (a) essential for the Carbon Cycle which supports life, and (b) it is present in trace quantities — a few hundred parts per million. We also know that there are other, much more important Radiatively Active Gases in the atmosphere, principally water vapor, which is present in variable amounts up to tens of thousands of parts per million.
That is why water vapor is principally responsible for natural global warming, which keeps the planet’s temperature about 60 F degrees above the expected temperature and makes life on this planet possible. And it brings in KingofKaty’s point — since there is so much Radiatively Active Gas already in the atmosphere, how could a minor increase in one of the less important trace gases have any substantial impact on global heat balance?
The science is very far from being “pretty simple”.
But congratulations, Anonymous, for even trying to explain the basis for your position — most of your fellow True Believers refuse to discuss the subject. Which makes open-minded skeptics even more dubious about the scientific basis for their True Belief.
Robert – one can use your science and engineering skills to debate AGW theory without being a climate scientist.
I agree with you on that. I debated with Creationists for years about evolution, but I am not a biologist. But, 1). I was on the same side as the biologists; and 2). It took hundreds of hours of debate and study before I really understood the complex issues.
To really be able to have a credible debate over Global Warming, I would need to devote a great deal of study to the issue. Those atmospheric scientists are specialists. They have spent a long time studying the issue. If I had to go and really flesh out the subtleties of the evidence myself, it would take a great deal of time (that I don’t currently have).
Cheers, RR
Here’s another reason why we won’t address it. Lawyers. Now that lawyers have figured out how to make big bucks off AGW there is no incentive for them to actually do anything – just endless litigation.
Lawyers Embrace Climate Action – at $700 per hour
@Kinuachdrach “The planet came out of the most recent Ice Age about 10,000 years ago, and — Surprise! — it has been gently warming ever since.”
Such confidence – it’s a pity that the evidence we have points to global mean temperatures trending down since the end of the most recent ice age (at least until human civilisation started to put it’s thumb on the scales). Something that could have been ascertained in about two minutes of googling – see here for instance.
I don’t want to Fisk the rest of your warmed-over talking points here because (i) I’ve got better things to do and (ii) it’s OT for the original blog post, so I’ll just refer interested readers to Coby Beck for the relevant clue-by-fours.
Regards
Luke
Robert – I was president of both my local engineering society and section chair for my technical society. I have personally judged hundreds of papers, posters, and science projects many outside of my areas of study.
The three most common problems I saw in judging student’s work were insufficient data to support their hypothesis, making numerical predictions outside the accurcy of their measuring instruments, and correlation does not imply causation. I see all three at work in AGW theory.
As chemical engineers we model systems that are vastly simpler and more well known than the climate. But our models aren’t accurate down to a few degrees fahrenheit. (Or did you believe every number that Aspen spit out?) How can we possibly know what will happen in a hundred years? I know the climate scientists say their models have been underpredicting lately but they have been paramaterizing variables – or trending. I can trend too. Patriots have won 18 NFL games in a row. Based on my parameterized model I predict they win 19. Debate over we don’t need to play the game now, my NFL model is perfect.
Look at this NOAA temperature monitoring station and tell me there might not be some bias in the readings: How not to measure temperature Part 25 It would be funny if this were an isolated station – but it isn’t there are hundreds like it, some much worse.
We are told that AGW theory is all about the science and that we should yield to the authority and purity of science. Ok, so explain this. UCAR (University Corporation for Atmospheric Research), supposedly a purely academic and research endeavour is one of the sponsors and promoters of “Focus the Nation” , clearly a political advocacy effort.
There are a lot of reasons to be skeptical about AGW theory. But I’ll happily admit that I could be wrong on the whole issue.
==Let’s be serious. The so-called “consensus” on alleged anthropogenic global warming is merely a construct of fear-mongering alarmists with a political agenda.==
Well then, lets be serious.
Virtually every major scientific organization in the world says manmade climate change is real.
Can you find even 1 that says it not?
One doesn’t have to believe in the scientific reality of AGW theory in order to believe in the political reality of it.
Getting back on topic. Americans keep electing politicians who promise more government programs racking up more debt. That doesn’t bother them why would we think global warming will be an issue.
I see things coming to a head pretty soon. There are NO rules, NONE governing CO2 in the US. Even if EPA were to implement rule-making it would take several years to go through the process. Then states would need to pass State Implementation Plans (SIPs) to control emissions. You are looking at 4 or 5 years minimum until something could get done. In the interim few new power plants will get permitted or proposed while the developers wait for the CO2 issue to sort out. As old power plants reach the end of their lifespans and regional power needs grow, no new plants get built and the electric reserve capacity shrinks. Brown outs and blackouts will focus the electorate on the problem.
Will they hold the greenies accountable?
Terry and Anonymous, I don’t think you’re thinking this revenue-neutral thing all the way through.
While everyone would have more money to spend on stuff, people would tend to move away from carbon-intensive choices. For example:
1. Wind-, solar-, and hydro-electricity would be much cheaper than coal. There would be zero incentive to build new coal plants, and the existing ones would quickly become unprofitable.
2. Gas might be $10/gallon, but a bus pass or train ticket would still be fairly cheap. So would a bicycle.
3. Building “up”, which is more expensive in the short run than building “out”, would become more affordable and desirable.
4. Loading up a data center with expensive high-efficiency hardware would pencil out on a cost basis.
Cap-and-trade can have the same effect, except that the public, rather than existing polluters, pay the costs. Cap-and-trade is also much more complex to enact as a treaty. With a carbon tax, signatories just have to pledge to tax carbon at some number of dollars/euros per tonne, and spend the revenue in whichever way is politically feasible in each country.
“Will they hold the greenies accountable?”
You try to divide us, but we are all greenies now!
(Didn’t actually read that story, just fished for one that looked good.)
“First, so-called “greenhouse gases” have nothing to do with the greenhouse effect. Greenhouses work by stopping the convective escape of heat — the gases you are discussing work by interfering with radiative heat transfer (infra-red radiation, not “light”) . The scientific term is Radiatively Active Gas — but alarmists don’t like to use it (for obvious reasons).”
Thank god you are here to defeat the anthropegenic global warming hypothesis with semantics.
“That may seem like pedantic science — but there is history behind it. Callendar brought up the issue of CO2-induced global warming in the 1930s at a British scientific meeting, and was laughed off the stage; back in those days, most educated people knew that the troposphere is dominated by convective heat transfer, not by radiative heat transfer. Seems like educational standards have sunk since then.”
They didn’t even know about phenomenom like El Nino back then. Believe it or not, climate science has advanced a long ways since 1930. Just like every other physical science. Your statement refutes nothing.
“But let’s look at CO2 as a Radiatively Active Gas. We know its presence in the atmosphere is (a) essential for the Carbon Cycle which supports life, and (b) it is present in trace quantities — a few hundred parts per million. We also know that there are other, much more important Radiatively Active Gases in the atmosphere, principally water vapor, which is present in variable amounts up to tens of thousands of parts per million.”
We also know that increased concentrations of CO2 lead to more radiation being trapped and more water evaporating. You are just trying to argue the effect is insignificant without providing any support.
“That is why water vapor is principally responsible for natural global warming, which keeps the planet’s temperature about 60 F degrees above the expected temperature and makes life on this planet possible. And it brings in KingofKaty’s point — since there is so much Radiatively Active Gas already in the atmosphere, how could a minor increase in one of the less important trace gases have any substantial impact on global heat balance?”
The effect of the radiative forcing of anthropogenic emissions is estimated at 1.5W/M^2 or approximately in increase of .4% in total radiation absorbed by the Earth. It is not that the .4% is a disaster, it’s that anthropogenic emissions are accelerating and this radiative forcing will only get worse unless you take into account it’s effect.
“The science is very far from being “pretty simple”. “
I never said that climate science was simple, just that the greenhouse gas mechanism (yes, I’m still going to call that because English is about communicating first and precision and haughtiness second) is well understood.
King, if you have done engineering & etc., I don’t think you should make the water vapor argument. It is for people who don’t understand multi-variable systems with feedback.
In other words, as others have said above, does CO2 not only increase energy capture, or does it also lead to more water vapor (or methane) and yet more energy capture?
There are no easy, blog-sized, arguments for that.
But certainly to reject feedback totally in a blog-sized argument is not right.
Yeah, but water vapor can’t accumulate in the greenhouse layer because it has a tropospheric residency time of a few hours to a couple weeks.
http://greyfalcon.net/watervapor.png
Usually the multivariable thing is for those who don’t understand that simply because changes in earth’s orbit relative to the sun caused previous iceages over tens of thousands of years, that we’ve pretty much ruled out the increased solar intensity as a primary cause of the warming experienced in the past 40 years.
But if you combine solar intensity, volcanic aerosols, el nino, and greenhouse gases, you get a much more coherient picture of whats going on.
http://greyfalcon.net/lean2005.png
Odo – I don’t make the water vapor argument, ever, the amount of water vapor in the air is a function of the temperature.
As for forcings, there must also be some negative feedbacks as well othewise the climate would have spun out of control in the past.
Coincidently, I was just at a meeting with a major research lab who will be doing some work for us on GHGs. On a national basis they are looking at scenarios where stablizing at 550 ppm would require CO2 taxes of around $100/ton. Wow. At 20 tons per person in the US I just don’t see people ponying up $2,000 each per year so the climate stabilizes at 170 ppm from where we are now.
Well, we got over 303 million people in the US
https://www.census.gov/popclock/
The cost of Iraq is over 1,200,000 million dollars.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/17/business/17leonhardt.html
Thats nearly $4000 per person.
Sorry King, I saw water vapor in someone else’s response and didn’t track it back upstream.
Grey, your rift on “multivariable equations” confuses me because I don’t think I was so far from RealClimate’s “Water vapour: feedback or forcing?” (Which I see was also the basis for your page.)
Now on this:
“On a national basis they are looking at scenarios where stablizing at 550 ppm would require CO2 taxes of around $100/ton. Wow. At 20 tons per person in the US I just don’t see people ponying up $2,000 each per year so the climate stabilizes at 170 ppm from where we are now.”
Is this $2K with or without changes to lifestyle and increased efficiency?
IOW I don’t think the bite for Robert or I would be quite that high.
Odo – If you divide the amount of CO2 by the 300 million Americans it works out to 20 tons each. But that includes businesses as well.
My share wouldn’t be as big as Al Gore’s since he flies around in a Gulfstream IV.
Certainly at those numbers it would change behavior and drive efficiencies up. Rich folks could afford it. Think of the sub-prime mortgage problem only multiplied. People are locked into big energy efficient homes which now cost a fortune to heat and cool. My entire mortgage payment is only slightly more than my annual CO2 bill at $100 per ton for my family of 4. (Gotta kick those kids out.)
Enough will the calculations, where is the empirical evidence? A little bird came to me in the night and told me that global temperatures have been dropping since 1999, if the Co2 has been skyrocketing and it’s the prime forcing agent, wtf is going on? Where’s the dice?
A little bird came to me in the night and told me that global temperatures have been dropping since 1999
Based entirely on empirical evidence (melting glaciers, heat related deaths in Europe in 2003, etc.) it seems that the bird was lying through its pecker.
How about you present some data for the comical comment first? Or did the bird not say?
==A little bird came to me in the night and told me that global temperatures have been dropping since 1999==
If a bird starts speaking to you, I suggest you don’t follow it’s advice.
Anyways, the bird is wrong.
http://greyfalcon.net/globaltemps.png
Also if you’re refering to 1998, that year was quite different in that it had a major el nino that year.
http://greyfalcon.net/elnino
2007 is also shaping up to be a particularly warm year.
Interesting how True Believers turn so quickly to Appeals to Authority and to Ad Hominems. Not the characteristics expected from people whose understanding is supposedly based on science.
Water vapor —
Yeah, but water vapor can’t accumulate in the greenhouse layer because it has a tropospheric residency time of a few hours to a couple weeks.
“Greenhouse layer” — Do you make this stuff up as you go along?
The concentration of radiatively active gases is the total concentration of water vapor (10,000 ppm order of magnitude), CO2 (300 ppm order of magnitude), methane & others. Yes, the individual molecule of water may have a residence time in the atmosphere that is rather short, but guess what? — as one molecule of water falls as rain, another evaporates from the oceans which cover 70% of the planet’s surface.
Alarmists like to emphasize that atmospheric CO2 concentrations have increased by about 30% since those damn Europeans started the Industrial Revolution. Accurate but incomplete. When we remember that the total concentration of radiatively active gases includes much larger concentrations of water vapor, the actual increase in radiatively active gases has been under 1% — maybe less, depending on what has been happening to water vapor.
And then we have to remember that water vapor in the atmosphere can condense into clouds, which tend to increase the planet’s albedo. Since about 30% of the sun’s energy reaching earth is immediately reflected back into space, any increase in cloud cover completely swamps the calculated “no cloud change” radiative forcing.
This is one of KingofKaty’s negative feedback loops — higher temperature -> more water evaporation -> more cloud cover -> higher albedo -> lower temperature.
The alarmists argue instead that water vapor is actually a positive feedback loop — but the argument is rather unconvincing.
If water vapor were a positive feedback, then since water vapor is also by far the most important radiatively active gas, global temperature would have been unstable. Natural fluctuations would long ago have knocked the planet into the high temperature hell that alarmists predict.
Bottom line — I am still waiting to hear some convincing science-based case for the “anthropogenic” part of anthropogenic global warming.
If the “science is settled” and “Virtually every major scientific organization in the world says manmade climate change is real”, why is it so difficult for anyone to present a credible case?
King, you can say you have to make up for Al Gore, but if they put a carbon tax on jet fuel it will be he (and Robert) who bear the brunt.
(I kid! I kid.)
And certainly when I only burn 700 gal in my Prius each year it’s kind of hard to rack up much there.
(Sorry, misread. Shift the emphasis then to those who are slow, or reluctant, to adapt.)
… Went for a nice walk in the rain to Starbucks just now … with an umbrella!
It was good for some energy after being cooped up at the office. So much so that I felt sorry for the people driving by.
==The alarmists argue instead that water vapor is actually a positive feedback loop — but the argument is rather unconvincing. If water vapor were a positive feedback, then since water vapor is also by far the most important radiatively active gas, global temperature would have been unstable. Natural fluctuations would long ago have knocked the planet into the high temperature hell that alarmists predict.
==
But nobody makes that argument.
It’s that the volume of water vapor in the troposphere is regulated by the temperature of the troposphere.
Excess water condenses. And liquid water no longer stays airborne.
If anything, it’s more so that watervapor is more of a megaphone for OTHER forcings within the troposphere that cause it’s temperature to change. And for the volume of water-vapor to fluctuate within the troposphere.
http://greyfalcon.net/watervapor.png
==”Greenhouse layer” — Do you make this stuff up as you go along?==
Would you prefer “The band of greenhouse gases which is located within the lower troposphere.”
The areas where greenhouse gases reside inside the troposphere is actually just a small portion of the total lower-troposphere.
And the troposphere is only a small portion of the total atmosphere.
==This is one of KingofKaty’s negative feedback loops — higher temperature -> more water evaporation -> more cloud cover -> higher albedo -> lower temperature.==
That depends.
Low Daytime Clouds cause cooling
High Nighttime Clouds cause warming
(And vice-versa)
==If the “science is settled” and “Virtually every major scientific organization in the world says manmade climate change is real”, why is it so difficult for anyone to present a credible case?==
Well, here’s some half decent starts at it.
http://gristmill.grist.org/skeptics
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RqEYLvPt0lA&feature=related
But in general, the reason it’s hard to answer is because
1. We aren’t climate scientists
2. It’s hard question since, rather than answering 1 thing, you have to disprove everything that says it’s wrong.
“If water vapor were a positive feedback, then since water vapor is also by far the most important radiatively active gas, global temperature would have been unstable.”
Remember that Lorentz discovered his butterfly in weather equations. Kind of changed the meaning of stability.
But in general, the reason it’s hard to answer is because
1. We aren’t climate scientists
2. It’s hard question since, rather than answering 1 thing, you have to disprove everything that says it’s wrong.
This gets us back to one of the standard True Believer non-answers — anthropogenic global warming is too difficult for mere taxpayers to understand.
Bollocks! Bollocks & Double-Bollocks!!
Proponents of alleged anthropogenic global warming are proposing policies which will condemn billions of human beings to remain in poverty and push another billion plus into something that looks dangerously close to poverty — based on a suppposedly “scientific” hypothesis. The least that any proponent of anthropogenic global warming owes himself (& others) is a clear-headed understanding of the scientific basis for those proposed policies.
Look at a previous scientific “Oops!” (because they have happened) — the age of the Earth.
Back in the 19th Century, one of the most emminent scientists of his times, Lord Kelvin, used the most advanced science of his day to calculate the age of the Earth — around 100 Million years. This became a scientific “consensus” — the only answer accepted in polite circles.
Today, we have good reasons for believing that the age of the Earth is closer to 4,500 Million years. Kelvin was wrong — way, way wrong. The arithmetic of his calculation was correct, but his physics (treating the Earth as a hot ball cooling down) was incomplete.
When it comes to anthropogenic global warming, could history be repeating itself? Damn right it could!
We already know that the “CO2 drives global temperature” hypothesis of Arrhenius is wrong — because geological evidence suggests that there has been a very poor correlation between CO2 and temperature over geological time.
I am genuinely & open-mindedly curious — True Believers keep telling us that alleged anthropogenic global warming is “settled science”. So where is it?
“Interesting how True Believers turn so quickly to Appeals to Authority and to Ad Hominems. Not the characteristics expected from people whose understanding is supposedly based on science.”
Please take your rhetoric and piss off. There is no one in the thread claiming that anthropogenic climate change is certain even within human knowledge (much less human knowledge and anti-knowledge [what you don’t know but is relevant]). I don’t see anyone attacking the source of your support(which would be ad hominem) (mainly because the source is nonexistent or irrelevant [an account of the response of an idea presented at a conference nearly 80 years ago?]), you only offer paralytic skepticism.
“True believers”, “alarmists”, “convincing science based-case”, “appeals to authority”, “credible”. All distinctions that have no relevance outside of your own mind. The fact is that the case for anthropogenic climate change has been made and you find it insufficient. How about you present an argument as to why carbon dioxide emissions have no impact on climate?
The rest of us have grown up and recognized that small changes in the climate can have big consequences for human life. Since we have a mechanism for anthropogenic warming, data supporting it (while that data could merely be the confirmation bias at work), scenarios where feedback can become enormous (such as the melting of the permafrost and release of methane), and the realization that fossil fuels are not likely to be an economical source of energy for even a hundred years (thus necessitating the switch to renewable energy anyway [not to mention all the externalities involved with environmental degradation due to fossil fuel extraction and use]) it takes someone quite selfish to argue that enjoying a 5-10% boost (but not sustainable) in standard of living is worth that risk.
==I am still waiting to hear some convincing science-based case for the “anthropogenic” part of anthropogenic global warming.==
Well, what specific elements of the scientific argument do you think need to be clarified.
_
The short of it being that we know it’s not increased solar intensity as the primary cause of it.
We know for certain we are the cause of the increase in carbon dioxide. (In a variety of ways, but the most compelling being the relative ratio of carbon isotopes marks it as fossil carbon)
And we know that carbon dioxide and other GHG can reirradiate heat.
We know that heating up of the troposphere reduces condensation, and increases the ammount of water vapor in the troposphere. This additional water vapor magnifies the warming effect.
There are also feedback cycles, like reducing the size of white reflective icesheets and glaciers. Which reduces albedo. Or melting of permafrost, which releases massive quantities of trapped carbon.
Is there anything specific which you think needs more clarification?
_
==This gets us back to one of the standard True Believer non-answers — anthropogenic global warming is too difficult for mere taxpayers to understand.==
Sadly, yes.
Obviously given your comments, you have some scientific background yourself. But the general public is missing a few capacities which you have.
In general, without training, people cannot comprehend beyond two-variable linear systems effectively.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Hayek#Social_and_political_philosophy
Additionally, dealing with global climate change goes against human instincts.
http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0702-26.htm
You can go even more simplistically, where most people cannot tell the difference in credibility between peer-review, and anything else thats published.
Without that, it’s almost impossible to carry on a scientific discussion. When “magic” is just as equal a valid explaination as real science.
Anonymous tells us:
There is no one in the thread claiming that anthropogenic climate change is certain …
So what happened to “settled science”?
If we all agree that we are not certain what is going on (and I certainly share that view), then where are all the daily reports of “climate scientists” telling Albert Gore to tone down his rhetoric and admit to uncertainty?
Greyfalcon wrote:
And we know that carbon dioxide and other GHG can reirradiate heat.
Indeed! We also know that water vapor is one of those “other GHG” and is present in the atmosphere in concentrations that are an order of magnitude LARGER than the concentrations of CO2. So we know that a 30% change in CO2 concentration is a trivial increase in total concentration of radiatively active gases. Does it pass the smell test that a trivial increase in total radiatively active gases wouls result in runaway global warming?
And we know that the correlation between CO2 concentration and temperature has been very poor, both over geological time and over the last century. Correlation does not prove correlation, but what does the absence of correlation prove?
None of this disproves the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis, of course. But it does suggest that the hypothesis has a large burden of proof still to meet, and is (at best) incomplete.
Seriously, all I would like to see is an end to the religious “blind faith” belief in anthropogenic global warming — and its replacement with genuine scientific enquiry. Let the facts lead wherever they take us. In the meantime, let’s stop building castles in the air that lack scientific foundations.
Here’s my stab at AGW 101:
1) We know that there is a greenhouse effect – Earth is about 30K warmer than it should be given it’s distance from the Sun.
2) We know that C02’s radiative properties make it a greenhouse gas and this is confirmed empirically when we observe the C02-dominated atmospheres of Venus and Mars (which have greenhouse effects of 480K and 6K respectively).
3) We know that CO2 concentrations have increased 35% (not 30%) over the pre-industrial baseline.
4) We know that the increase in C02 which has been observed derives from human activities.
5) All the estimates for CO2’s effect upon earth’s temperature (once feedbacks are accounted for) cluster around 3 degrees celcius per doubling in concentration.
Taking these points together gives us the key points at the heart of the AGW dispute:
(i) the earth’s temperature is increasing
(ii) the root cause is us
(iii) the probable end point if we don’t alter trajectory is a significant* warming.
Regards
Luke
[*]Where significant means ‘a large fraction of the last deglaciation’.
No doubt that global warming is very debated. I, however, have never heard that man is causing global cooling. For this – all I can say is that I hope that the people that believe this is natural are not wrong. But if man is causing at least part of the problem then why not do all we can.
Are you familiar with the ground floor movement to take solar to the masses by a company called Citizenre? They are trying market solar with an approach similar to satellite TV, cellular telephones, and alarm systems. That is to provide the customer a complete solar system with no upfront charges and make money from a service contract. In this case the service contract would be a rent agreement. They intend to put a complete solar system on clients home. When the system produces electricity, it will lower the bill from the current utility provider. In most cases the savings from the lower bill will more than cover the rent fee that the company intends to charge. The company currently has no product available but intends to deploy in the middle of 2008. They are currently taking reservations and have 27,000 takers so far. I have written several articles on this company in my blog and even have a couple of videos that I have recorded at http://www.solarjoules.com. Feel free to take a look. I welcome comments. As in any start up business, a chance exists that they may never get off the ground and fulfill any preorders, but if this is the case – the potential client has not lost anything. If you cannot afford the upfront cost of solar today, this may turn out to be a great alternative.
This solution would mean that we could produce at least a little less pollution and would be a great step “just in case”.
If anyone would like company information you can go to http://www.jointhesolution.com/razmataz.
==And we know that the correlation between CO2 concentration and temperature has been very poor, both over geological time and over the last century. Correlation does not prove causation, but what does the absence of correlation prove?==
This is of course where Gore makes the message TOO simple.
Carbon plays a major role, however you also have to factor in solar intensity, el nino, volcanic aerosols, and all the other long-lived greenhouse gases.
When you do that, the trend becomes very compelling.
http://greyfalcon.net/lean2005.png
Time to get disdainful again? I think “50,000 members, mostly scientists” trump the cranks:
The American Geophysical Union, a scientific organization with over 50,000 members, mostly earth scientists, just released a position statement on climate change.
It is a strong endorsement of the mainstream view of climate science, as articulated by the IPCC reports: the Earth is warming, humans are to blame for most of the recent warming, and future warming may be disastrous.
A true crank will never change … it’s just a question of how much energy we should waste with them.
Disappointingly, Odograph wrote:
Time to get disdainful again? I think “50,000 members, mostly scientists” trump the cranks:
Disappointing — because once again a proponent of alleged anthropogenic global warming goes straight to (a) appeals to authority, and (b) ad hominem attacks. Science is ignored.
Odograph, have you simply not been paying attention? This discussion has been about the SCIENTIFIC basis for the claims of alleged anthropogenic global warming.
The science shows:
1. global temperatures have been changing (up & down) for as long as we have data (without the possibility of anthropogenic influence).
2. carbon dioxide is a minor radiatively active gas, trivial compared to water vapor.
3. the correlation between CO2 concentration and global temperature has been poor, over geological time and over recent history.
Instead of dealing with those genuine scientific issues, it’s back to appeals to authority and ad hominems. Very disappointing!
Human beings (mainly people of color in Africa & Asia) are going to die if policies to stop alleged anthropogenic global warming are put into effect. Sad, but true. Their unwilling sacrifice might be justifiable if the science is rock-hard certain. But what if the hypothesis is wrong and their deaths are unnecessary?
Can you live with the thought, Odograph, that you personally may have contributed to their deaths (killed them) based on flawed science?
Anyone can make a stupid argument and then cry “ad hominem”
At some point also, it become dishonest to pretend otherwise.
Somewhat desperately, Odograph wrote:
Anyone can make a stupid argument and then cry “ad hominem”
That sentence does not even make sense, Odograph.
If proponents of alleged anthropogenic global warming hear a “stupid argument”, then surely their response ought to be to point out why the argument is “stupid”.
One of the themes of this discussion has been the repeated refual of those proponents to make a sensible scientific case, and instead to go immediately to ad hominem attacks.
A theme which you have just illustrated — again.
@kinuachdrach “Disappointing — because once again a proponent of alleged anthropogenic global warming goes straight to (a) appeals to authority, and (b) ad hominem attacks. Science is ignored.”
What? Am I invisible? Would you care to address my 5-step AGW primer four up from your post?
No appeals to authority or ad homs there, just what I understand to be the science laid out in bite-sized chunks.
Regards
Luke
‘If proponents of alleged anthropogenic global warming hear a “stupid argument”, then surely their response ought to be to point out why the argument is “stupid”.’
See, that is stupid.
You reject serious answers, demand stupid answers to match yours, and then revel in the lowered common denominator.
Go take on RealClimate if you’ve got the chops.
Or if you don’t, just play a game of high-five with the other cranks.
Luke, maybe you’ve got the patience to correct again and again and again … but I submit that at some point all you do is give credence to crankery.
You enbiggen the unsupportable.
1. global temperatures have been changing (up & down) for as long as we have data (without the possibility of anthropogenic influence).
Yes, thats mainly changes in the earth’s orbit. i.e. Milankovitch cycles.
2. carbon dioxide is a minor radiatively active gas, trivial compared to water vapor.
But as we keep mentioning, the ammount of water vapor in the troposphere is a function of the temperature of the troposphere. Not the other way around. As such, while water vapor is a greenhouse gas, it cannot cause increased warming beyond what other forcings cause on the troposphere’s temperature.
3. the correlation between CO2 concentration and global temperature has been poor, over geological time and over recent history.
But the correlation with both CO2, all the other GHGs, Solar Intensity, El Nino, and Volcanic Aerosols combined is a near perfect fit.
Wow, I hadn’t been to RealClimate myself in a little while. Look what they’ve got up:
Most of us who are involved in research related to climate change have been asked at one time or another to participate in public debates against skeptics of one sort or another. Some of us have even been cajoled into accepting. In the pre-YouTube days, I did one against the then-head of the American Petroleum institute at the U. of Chicago law school. Gavin did an infamous one against Crichton and company. People are always demanding that Al Gore debate somebody or other. Both Dave Archer and I have been asked to debate Dennis Avery (of “Unstoppable Global Warming” fame) on TV or radio more than once — and declined. It’s a no win situation. If you accept you give the appearance that these skeptics have something to say that’s actually worth debating about — and give their bogus ideas more publicity. If you decline there are all sorts of squawks that “X won’t debate!” or implications that scientists have declared “the debate” (whatever that is supposed to mean) prematurely closed when in fact it is “just beginning.”
Basically it’s the crank argument there as in here. “Debate us” … “give us respect!”
It’s a meta-level kabuki. They don’t have the science, and they might even be smart enough to know they don’t have the science. That doesn’t stop them from playing for the public ear though … with the only thing they’ve got … a demand for attention.
2. carbon dioxide is a minor radiatively active gas, trivial compared to water vapor.
But as we keep mentioning, the ammount of water vapor in the troposphere is a function of the temperature of the troposphere. Not the other way around. As such, while water vapor is a greenhouse gas, it cannot cause increased warming beyond what other forcings cause on the troposphere’s temperature.
OK, let’s follow in Einstein’s footsteps and do a thought experiment.
We have a planet identical to Earth, except no CO2 in the atmosphere. Planet still has about 60 F deg natural (i.e. water vapor induced) global warming. Planet has the same cycles and storms we see on Earth.
One day, one of those natural cycles puts a little extra water vapor into the atmosphere. But water vapor is a radiatively active gas (just like CO2). So the planet has to warm up a little — that response to radiatively active gases is the basis of the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis.
A warmer planet will result in more water evaporation from the plentiful supplies in the oceans.
More water vapor leads to higher temperatures, in a self-reinforcing positive feedback cycle. The planet’s temperature increases uncontrollably.
Since that does not describe the world we live in, the anthropogenic forcing hypothesis must be somewhere between incomplete & wrong.
More likely, water vapor is a negative feedback mechanism (due to cloud formation), which renders climate more stable than it would otherwise be.
And if water vapor is a negative feedback mechanism, concerns about anthropogenic global warming do not have a firm basis in science.
Realclimate debate
After Debate
These are links to the realclimate take on a debate between Gavin of RC and others against Lindzen and others.
As I recall, after the debate, most of the undecideds in the audience were more convinced by Linzen and Co. But you can get to the link to the transcript at RC.