BBO Discussion Forums: Climate change - BBO Discussion Forums

Here's another reason that the US election is important: The world is racing to stop climate change. But the math still doesn’t add up

Quote

Clinton understands this, but Trump is clueless.

Sorry PassedOut but the sensitivity estimates are not nearly good enough to give such exact figures. For one thing, it depends on exactly when the emissions occur - 38.8 gigatons now might give 1.5 degrees of warming by 2030 but 38.8 gigatons in 2029 certainly would not. It is numbers like this that gives GW scientists a bad name.

Of course, reading more closely I note that the report does not say that the warming itself has to occur before 2030. If they merely mean the equilibrium sensitivity then the 2030 date is highly misleading due to the time lag from the oceans. Either way, not exactly a stellar example to give to the forums, more of an AIU-style piece from the opposite side.

Whether either of them understand that much of what is written on the subject is not worth the paper it is written on (or the cost of the data bandwidth since much goes through the internet) I could not say. But I daresay both have advisors on the subject that come at it from a partisan and highly biased viewpoint.

World on track for 3C of warming under current global climate pledges, warns UN

Quote

Of course the predictions are not exact, and no one has that expectation. But the trend -- and the risk -- is clear. I have three sons and a granddaughter. I want the US to work with the rest of the world to reduce these emissions.

You would leave your children destitute to try and control the weather?

With observational climate sensitivities in the 1.1 C / doubling range and cloud effects being ignored by all the lovely (read inaccurate) GCMs used for these "projections", save your money to help those kids pay all the taxes that you are signing them up to pay for your commitments.

Al_U_Card, on 2016-November-03, 15:05, said:

That's the sort of alarmist nonsense believed only by pants-pissers with no head for business.

If you'll notice, Trump is campaigning on a massive return to fiscal irresponsibility -- catering to the same free-lunch crowd who voted for G. W. Bush. Should Trump win (and he might) our kids and grandkids will have carry the burden for both his fiscal irresponsibility and environmental irresponsibility.

PassedOut, on 2016-November-03, 16:53, said:

How many trillions of dollars are needed to mitigate all of the immediate (oh noes!, we are approaching global temperatures not seen since Roman times...) sequestration/decarbonization pipe dreams? TOO MANY! And that is at present value, impoverishing future generations with debt burdens that only a plutocrat could appreciate.
Geological forces play the major role in CO2 generation/sequestration and current warming is no exception. During the little ice age, the oceans sucked up CO2 and they are gradually releasing it except during La Nina cooling phases. Let's get going on real problems like hunger and disease (reduced during benevolent warmer climes) and put those climate science grants to work in something other than wonky computer models and the ever-strident studies that they invent to try to make you piss your pants.

hrothgar, on 2010-November-12, 13:54, said:

A less than prophetic statement - this thread is now 142 pages

Kaitlyn S, on 2016-November-04, 09:11, said:

You were not around back then and are missing about 2 years worth of context that preceded Richard's post. Not everything is as black and white as you seem to think.

Political climate change?

Al_U_Card, on 2016-November-08, 22:41, said:

Some people lived through it in the 30s. I doubt there are many that share your desire for a repeat.

Al_U_Card, on 2016-November-04, 07:26, said:

Well you should consider that whatever the climate, water is needed to grow anything and presently we are desertifying the world at an alarming rate, thanks to deforestation and monocropping chem/industrial ag, neither of which was occurring in previous history. For the last 20 or so years at least, the US is depending on aquifers which are holding water from possibly thousands of years ago and they are not being replenished.

What is happening is not "computer models" wonky or not, this is people having to change because the water simply isn't there anymore. We are largely stripping the earths' ability to cycle it properly. Rain which hits the ground and immediately evaporates because it is landing on bare hard dirt is of no use to plant or animal. This is what is happening. Or floods because the rain can't be absorbed fast enough by compacted soil so it just runs off into storm sewers or wherever instead of being soaked deep into the ground to recharge the aquifers.

The push to have pipelines running all over the place also doesn't help because sooner or later they WILL leak and then even the water you DO have isn't useful anymore.

The knowledge of how to "fix" all of this is available and it's both relatively simple and cheap, but it doesn't cater to the business model of the chem companies. And it certainly doesn't involve clearcutting forests to grow palm oil, which is of questionable health benefit in any case, especially when refined. But the longer we resist making those changes, the harder and more expensive it will be.

I concur. Dealing with real problems is a start. Water availability and utility is a need that the human race cannot do without. Being able to assess the actual situations as opposed to simulated ones can steer us in the right direction. Most of the projections of imminent and long-term doom come from those same computer models that predict...errr project...much warmer conditions. They fail to consider the greening of the biosphere by the increase in CO2 which also makes plants more drought tolerant. Are we doing that (even inadvertently)? Or is nature releasing more CO2 because we are in a slight warming trend over the last couple of centuries? The last 5000 years or so have been a slow descent back towards an ice age. Paleohistory indicates that within a dozen or so lifetimes, we may be living in a much colder, ice-covered world. Making it there to see that involves fixing our current problems and every cent that we waste on fruitless endeavors (COP 1-20 anyone???) impedes our progress.
Economic prosperity reduces our need to survive adversity and allows us to concentrate on improving our situation. Whether we do that or not depends on our political will to make the hard choices and then constantly check that they are leading us in the right direction.

From the Rockerfeller Family Fund vs Exxon in the New York review of Books:

Quote

Double post deleted

Trump may or may not believe in climate change but apparently he ( or at least his lawyers) is using climate change as a reason why he ought to be allowed to build a wall across the beach at his golf course in Ireland, or so I read in an Irish newspaper article the other day. Like everywhere else he goes, he has divided the village between those who want the work and those who are dismayed not only because it will spoil a beach known as a tourist attraction but also because if other engineers are right, the effects of any large storm will then get diverted onto the village. Lovely man.

From Judith Curry's take on John Tierney has written a stunningly insightful piece in the City Journal Magazine:


Scientists try to avoid confirmation bias by exposing their work to peer review by critics with different views, but it’s increasingly difficult for liberals to find such critics. Academics have traditionally leaned left politically, and many fields have essentially become monocultures, especially in the social sciences, where Democrats now outnumber Republicans by at least 8 to 1. The lopsided ratio has led to another well-documented phenomenon: people’s beliefs become more extreme when they’re surrounded by like-minded colleagues. They come to assume that their opinions are not only the norm but also the truth, . . creating what Jonathan Haidt calls a “tribal-moral community” with its own “sacred values” about what’s worth studying and what’s taboo.

Conservatives have been variously pathologized as unethical, antisocial, and irrational simply because they don’t share beliefs that seem self-evident to liberals.

The combination of all these pressures from the Left has repeatedly skewed science over the past half-century.

And that brings us to the second great threat from the Left: its long tradition of mixing science and politics. To conservatives, the fundamental problem with the Left is what Friedrich Hayek called the fatal conceit: the delusion that experts are wise enough to redesign society. Conservatives distrust central planners, preferring to rely on traditional institutions that protect individuals’ “natural rights” against the power of the state. Leftists have much more confidence in experts and the state.

For his part, Holdren has served for the past eight years as the science advisor to President Obama, a position from which he laments that Americans don’t take his warnings on climate change seriously. He doesn’t seem to realize that public skepticism has a lot to do with the dismal track record of himself and his fellow environmentalists. There’s always an apocalypse requiring the expansion of state power.

President Obama promotes his green agenda by announcing that “the debate is settled,” and he denounces “climate deniers” by claiming that 97 percent of scientists believe that global warming is dangerous. His statements are false. While the greenhouse effect is undeniably real, and while most scientists agree that there has been a rise in global temperatures caused in some part by human emissions of carbon dioxide, no one knows how much more warming will occur this century or whether it will be dangerous.

The long-term risks are certainly worth studying, but no matter whose predictions you trust, climate science provides no justification for Obama’s green agenda—or anyone else’s agenda. Even if it were somehow proved that high-end estimates for future global warming are accurate, that wouldn’t imply that Greens have the right practical solution for reducing carbon emissions—or that we even need to reduce those emissions. Policies for dealing with global warming vary according to political beliefs, economic assumptions, social priorities, and moral principles. Would regulating carbon dioxide stifle economic growth and give too much power to the state? Is it moral to impose sacrifices on poor people to keep temperatures a little cooler for their descendants, who will presumably be many times richer? Are there more important problems to address first? These aren’t questions with scientifically correct answers.

Yet many climate researchers are passing off their political opinions as science, just as Obama does, and they’re even using that absurdly unscientific term “denier” as if they were priests guarding some eternal truth. Science advances by continually challenging and testing hypotheses, but the modern Left has become obsessed with silencing heretics. In a letter to Attorney General Loretta Lynch last year, 20 climate scientists urged her to use federal racketeering laws to prosecute corporations and think tanks that have “deceived the American people about the risks of climate change.” Similar assaults on free speech are endorsed in the Democratic Party’s 2016 platform, which calls for prosecution of companies that make “misleading” statements about “the scientific reality of climate change.”

The most vocal critics of climate dogma are a half-dozen think tanks that together spend less than $15 million annually on environmental issues. The half-dozen major green groups spend more than $500 million, and the federal government spends $10 billion on climate research and technology to reduce emissions. Add it up, and it’s clear that scientists face tremendous pressure to support the “consensus” on reducing carbon emissions, as Judith Curry, a climatologist at Georgia Tech, testified last year at a Senate hearing.

“This pressure comes not only from politicians but also from federal funding agencies, universities and professional societies, and scientists themselves who are green activists,” Curry said. “This advocacy extends to the professional societies that publish journals and organize conferences. Policy advocacy, combined with understating the uncertainties, risks destroying science’s reputation for honesty and objectivity—without which scientists become regarded as merely another lobbyist group.”

To preserve their integrity, scientists should avoid politics and embrace the skeptical rigor that their profession requires. They need to start welcoming conservatives and others who will spot their biases and violate their taboos. Making these changes won’t be easy, but the first step is simple: stop pretending that the threats to science are coming from the Right. Look in the other direction—or in the mirror.

Continuing the discussion from the Trumpenthread:

Why did the environmental movement drop the issue of overpopulation?

"“First, governments must acknowledge the problem and declare their commitment to ending population growth; this commitment should also include an end to immigration.”"

"The Sierra Club, for example, in 1969 urged “the people of the United States to abandon population growth as a pattern and goal; to commit themselves to limit the total population of the United States in order to achieve a balance between population and resources; and to achieve a stable population no later than the year 1990.”"

So PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE do me a favor and STOP PRETENDING TO CARE ABOUT CLIMATE CHANGE or the ENVIRONMENT if you're not addressing 3rd world overpopulation! Don't be this guy:



https://en.wikipedia...eetlight_effect

TIA

While pollution issues are serious and need to be addressed adequately (remember the Cayuga river fires in Ohio or Love canal etc.?) the enviro-scare movement has a horrible track record for predicting imminent doom. From Ehrlich to Holdren (one of Ehrlich's students IIRC) DDT, the Ozone problem, famine and even over-population and resource depletion have never amounted to serious issues. Demographic and regional population issues are, however, in need of attention. Climate change (ugh! is anything less scientific than that particular moniker?) is just the latest boy (activist) crying (pay me to keep you safe from the) wolf.

I'm not sure if the people who are claiming that 3rd world overpopulation is a trivial problem (or not a problem at all) are just being politically correct, or deliberately obtuse, or what. But anyway, let's do a hypothetical:

In Year 1, there are 2 countries A & B. They are identical. They both have 10M people and same resources/area etc. They contribute equally to global warming & environmental damage.

Country A promotes a sustainable economy & sets ~zero population growth as one of its goals.

Country B has the cancer cell (or Ponzi scheme, if you prefer) growth model.

In Year 50, Country A now has 10M people. They (overwhelmingly) are prosperous & happy. The government consistently balances the budget. There is high social trust. There is almost no crime. The mainstream media is honest, fairly presents both sides of contentious issues, & acts as a valuable independent check on the government. Each generation feels that they are slightly better off than their parents were. Jobs, housing, access to medical care & resources are plentiful. Post-secondary education is inexpensive & spots are awarded based on MERIT. Their air and waterways are clean. And those who don't or can't work are well taken care of because they are SO FEW IN NUMBER. If lack of work becomes an issue (unlikely as the population ages,) the hours in a workweek for government employees can always be reduced (say from 40 to 35.) There is a generous (scaled) EITC for low-wage jobs so that people WANT TO DO many of the necessary jobs that 'nobody wants to do' & to provide a strong incentive for people to work (a full-time worker always outearns a non-worker.) They don't obsess about their carbon footprints because they've done the RESPONSIBLE thing by limiting their population growth. Their per capita carbon usage is 50% higher than country B's. So they do 15M carbonks to the Earth's climate change model. By not artificially capping carbon output per capita, their industries are more competitive, helping to offset the disadvantage that their lack of child or slave labor creates.

In Year 50, Country B has 60M people. They (mostly) aren't so prosperous or happy. The government permanently runs large deficits. Special interests from various factions perpetually squabble over government largesse. Crime is a serious problem. The mainstream media is a (almost completely) one-sided propaganda arm of corporate and partisan interests. Each generation sees a little bit less opportunity and prosperity than their parents had. Jobs, housing, medical care & resources are scarce. There's a lot of pollution & poverty. The infrastructure (roads, bridges, etc.) is crumbling under the weight of the population & the lack of resources for maintenance. Most jobs that are available pay poverty wages & are unpleasant. The government of Country B imports scads of immigrants from 3rd world countries to do many of those jobs (and turns a blind eye to the hordes of non citizens entering the country illegally, willing to work in the black market for even less than minimum wage,) banking on the votes those people will give them in the future. This drives down wages for those jobs even further & leads many 'working class' citizens of Country B to turn to drugs (both illegal & legally prescribed,) hopelessness & despair, forever leaving the workforce & becoming dependent on the social safety net (itself crumbling under the unsustainable weight.)

The greedy corporations in Country B are happy because they get to privatize the profits that plentiful cheap labor provides and socialize the huge costs of these immigrants & non-citizens living in the country illegally. The few good jobs are allocated primarily based on gender/race/sexual orientation & on a willingness to unquestioningly parrot Big Brother's overriding narrative: “Multiculturalism is our strength.” Any deviation from the party line is met with social ostracism & is often career-ending. Country B does 60M carbonks to the Earth's climate change model, 4 times as much as Country A. But they look down their nose at & try to Climate-shame Country A, whose citizens have a 50% higher carbon footprint per capita.

Now you can argue until you're blue in the face that Country B is the optimal approach or that Country A's residents should feel guilty for using 50% more carbon per capita than Country B. Or that Country A is racist. Or that societies where 'values' like illegitimacy, hedonism, equality of outcome & lawlessness are promoted turn out better than societies where they value marriage, family, equality of opportunity & respect for the law. Or that you don't recognize (a close facsimile of) Country B in the world you see out your window. Or that Western countries didn't look a LOT like Country A (perhaps absent a few easily managed 'tweaks') 50 or 60 years ago. But I'm not buying.

(Speaking of not buying, I'm not materialistic. Unlike some in this forum, I don't see buying cheap junk made by child labor in a toxic cloud of pollution in China that will end up in a landfill in <5 years as a desirable social good. I have never owned a smartphone (unlike most of these 'refugees') or a flat-screen TV. My one computer is a 3.5 year old laptop.)

As for Green technology, my understanding (please correct me if I'm wrong) is that most (the vast majority?) of the 'Green' 'businesses' that received subsidies from the Obama administration (presumably as a reward for campaign donations in most cases?) have (predictably) gone bankrupt. Many of the so-called 'Green' technologies are themselves TERRIBLE for the environment (toxic batteries, etc.)

YOU can have faith that there will be a super-Green breakthrough (like cold fusion or something) where electricity will be free, plentiful & cause no environmental harm, but until that breakthrough happens, let's do the responsible thing & plan for it NOT happening. Let's stop being Country B. Let's emulate Country A. And let's help 3rd world countries eventually (but ASAP) become Country A too, not by poaching from their (often incredibly shallow) talent pool (making it harder for them to advance,) or, conversely, by taking their poorest & least skilled into our own populations (dramatically increasing our OWN national carbon footprints, rewarding bad behavior, & creating a de facto lottery system where a few souls reap unearned windfalls while the vast majority get nothing) but by rewarding them for making good decisions (and withholding those rewards if they make bad ones.)

jonottawa, on 2016-November-26, 10:49, said:

That's fake information.

Obama Has Done More for Clean Energy Than You Think

Quote