Climate change: the longer we wait to act, the more severe the costs.

[Direckshun]

It's really time for the excuses to end. There are a hundred arguments you could make against climate change:

Originally Posted by Direckshun

There's no way human activity can alter the climate.

And even if it can, there's no way it can alter it by that much.

And even if it could, there's nothing alarming about it.

And even if there was, there's nothing we can do about it.

And even if there is, it wouldn't do much.

And even if it did, it would cause too much economic collateral damage / be ineffectually implemented / inexcusably rob us of freedom to pursue.

Therefore, I am opposed to climate change legislation.

The science has shot down every one of these arguments, save the last one which is a political argument.

To that political argument, ask yourself one question:

Do you think, in our current trajectory of global greenhouse gasses, that whether it be 10 years, 20 years, or 50 years, is unsustainable and damaging to our ability to exist on this planet as we currently do?

If you do, than you really have no choice. We must act now to stave off having to suffer drastic solutions later.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/...9010HU20130103

Cost of combating climate change surges as world delays: study
By Environment Correspondent Alister Doyle
OSLO | Thu Jan 3, 2013 7:15am EST

An agreement by almost 200 nations to curb rising greenhouse gas emissions from 2020 will be far more costly than taking action now to tackle climate change, according to research published on Wednesday.

Quick measures to cut emissions would give a far better chance of keeping global warming within an agreed U.N. limit of 2 degrees Celsius (3.6F) above pre-industrial times to avert more floods, heatwaves, droughts and rising sea levels.

"If you delay action by 10, 20 years you significantly reduce the chances of meeting the 2 degree target," said Keywan Riahi, one of the authors of the report at the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis in Austria.

"It was generally known that costs increase when you delay action. It was not clear how quickly they change," he told Reuters of the findings in the science journal Nature based on 500 computer-generated scenarios.

It said the timing of cuts in greenhouse gases was more important than other uncertainties - about things like how the climate system works, future energy demand, carbon prices or new energy technologies.

The study indicated that an immediate global price of $30 a metric ton on emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2), the main greenhouse gas, would give a roughly 60 percent chance of limiting warming to below 2C.

Wait until 2020 and the carbon price would have to be around $100 a metric ton to retain that 60 percent chance, Riahi told Reuters of the study made with other experts in Switzerland, New Zealand, Australia and Germany.

And a delay of action until 2030 might put the 2C limit - which some of the more pessimistic scientists say is already unattainable - completely out of reach, whatever the carbon price.

"The window for effective action on climate change is closing quickly," wrote Steve Hatfield-Dodds of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation in Australia in a separate commentary in Nature.

Governments agreed to the 2C limit in 2010, viewing it as a threshold to avert dangerous climate change. Temperatures have already risen by 0.8 degree C (1.4F) since wide use of fossil fuels began 200 years ago.

ECONOMIC SLOWDOWN

After the failure of a 2009 summit in Copenhagen to agree a worldwide accord, almost 200 nations have given themselves until 2015 to work out a global deal to cut greenhouse gas emissions that will enter into force in 2020.

Amid an economic slowdown, many countries at the last U.N. meeting on climate change in Qatar in December expressed reluctance to make quick shifts away from fossil fuels towards cleaner energies such as wind or solar power.

Each U.S. citizen, for instance, emits about 20 metric tons of carbon dioxide a year. There is no global price on carbon, only regional markets - in a European Union trading system, for instance, where industrial emitters must pay off they exceed their CO2 quotas, 2013 prices are about 6.7 euros ($8.83) a metric ton.

The report also showed that greener policies, such as more efficient public transport or better-insulated buildings, would raise the chances of meeting the 2C goal.

And fighting climate change would be easier with certain new technologies, such as capturing and burying carbon emissions from power plants and factories. In some scenarios, the 2C goal could not be met unless carbon capture was adopted.

($1 = 0.7585 euros)

(Scientist corrects carbon price to $30 a tonne from $20 in paragraph 6)

[CoMoChief]

nevermind that top scientists at NASA have said many times before that the world is actually in a cooling state.


But Al Gore will put up photos of Polar Bears stranded on a floating chunk of ice and try to convince people that they can't swim.

[Pin Head]

Non linear systems are much more difficult for obvious reasons. It's much harder to predict out put if it isn't a straight line. Now add in chaotic systems. Now add in multiple feed back mechanisms not fully understood and possibly interpreted wholly wrong. That gets you close to climate modeling.

As already noted, the problem with cd's graph is that the PPM is expressed in a way to make it look bigger than it really is as a percentage...parts per hundred.

That graph shows an increase of .00005% in atmospheric content of Co2 since 1750. While the actual concentration of the gas has risen from .000272% to .000338%. Very little.

It's not generally expressed in PPM. It's 0.10% not 0.0000382% It's off by a factor of ten thousand.

Theorizing is one thing, empirical facts are another. At this point, both sides are theorizing.

The Climate scientits circular logic is weird. "You can't prove us wrong so we must be right but you must prove us wrong even though we can't prove we're right."

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by mlyonsd

I already answered your question

Nope, you didn't.

Originally Posted by Direckshun

Really? Climatologists, scientists... have no idea?

Unless your argument literally is that climatologists and science has no idea.

If you want to talk about our debt, start a new thread and I'll be there.

This thread is specifically for climate change.

[KILLER_CLOWN]

This thread is going nowhere just like climatology, for the latest on nature change head over to WWW.WEATHER.COM

[tiptap]

Originally Posted by Narrow Head

Non linear systems are much more difficult for obvious reasons. It's much harder to predict out put if it isn't a straight line. Now add in chaotic systems. Now add in multiple feed back mechanisms not fully understood and possibly interpreted wholly wrong. That gets you close to climate modeling.

As already noted, the problem with cd's graph is that the PPM is expressed in a way to make it look bigger than it really is as a percentage...parts per hundred.

That graph shows an increase of .00005% in atmospheric content of Co2 since 1750. While the actual concentration of the gas has risen from .000272% to .000338%. Very little.

It's not generally expressed in PPM. It's 0.10% not 0.0000382% It's off by a factor of ten thousand.

Theorizing is one thing, empirical facts are another. At this point, both sides are theorizing.

The Climate scientits circular logic is weird. "You can't prove us wrong so we must be right but you must prove us wrong even though we can't prove we're right."

Could you put some dimensional analysis on those percentages. PPM or PPB is the usual method of talking about presence of materials in water or the air. Even commercial products that measure CO 2 use PPM. All reporting of elements and molecules to the EPA for air and water is given in PPM or PPB. Lead, Arsenic, Sulfates, Cyanide are all measured in PPM or PPB. I use to do Lead for air back before unleaded gas was dictated. Our analysis went from measured PPM to below detectable numbers at PPB in just over a year. So put some mass or count dimensional analysis on your numbers you would rather us use.

[tiptap]

So I am looking at the argument between cdcox and AustinChief. And here is my take. AustinChief thinks the old Henson notion is flat out wrong because from that 1988 date we see exponential growth in CO 2 but not the corresponding increase in temperature directly correspondingly. It should have been more. He calls the more recent paper cdcox quotes as revisionist. In that it has been jiggered to be more in line with data.

So my question is does AustinChief think the generated graphs are statistical in origin or are they physical representations? A statistical representation of the earth temperatures that set the beginning temperature for every site at the average temperature of 10 degrees C or 50 degrees F. would continue over a run on a computer to continue to show that the North or South Pole was around 10 degree C. give or take the error in measurements of instrumentation usually less than .5 degrees C. However even a simple physical representation of climate systems with the same starting points at every site of 10 degrees C. would start showing the poles cooling and the equator warming. The average would still be 10 but the temperatures at the poles would greatly decrease and the equator would rise.

Is Hansen's model physical or statistical in its origin?

[Pin Head]

Originally Posted by tiptap

Could you put some dimensional analysis on those percentages. PPM or PPB is the usual method of talking about presence of materials in water or the air. Even commercial products that measure CO 2 use PPM. All reporting of elements and molecules to the EPA for air and water is given in PPM or PPB. Lead, Arsenic, Sulfates, Cyanide are all measured in PPM or PPB. I use to do Lead for air back before unleaded gas was dictated. Our analysis went from measured PPM to below detectable numbers at PPB in just over a year. So put some mass or count dimensional analysis on your numbers you would rather us use.

It's not my math, the thermo retention properties of .000382 atmospheric concentration of CO2. That number does not exist. CO2 saturates at 10 meters.

The entire theory is dependent on the accuracy of the computer models ability to quantify spectral broadening that cannot be measured.

Any chemist with a baro chamber could put that theory to test...most don't need to, as they already know the results.

[tiptap]

Originally Posted by Narrow Head

It's not my math, the thermo retention properties of .000382 atmospheric concentration of CO2. That number does not exist. CO2 saturates at 10 meters.

The entire theory is dependent on the accuracy of the computer models ability to quantify spectral broadening that cannot be measured.

Any chemist with a baro chamber could put that theory to test...most don't need to, as they already know the results.

Thank you. You are quite correct that water vapor plays a dominant position as a Greenhouse Gas. That is what your "saturation" comment is leading to by dismissing CO 2 contribution. But you are focusing on the wrong end of the atmosphere there at the surface. The Sun is Millions of degrees in its center but the sun does not throw that temperature out into space at its surface (thank whatever). The Sun acts like a black body of about 6000 degrees C. radiated from the Photosphere. That is where radiation can escape the interaction with the diminishing plasma material. The same is true with the Earth. The energy balance is controlled at the top of startosphere. That is the radiating source out. Adding CO 2 even to Venus will add positive push to the atmosphere's below temperature.

[AustinChief]

Originally Posted by tiptap

So I am looking at the argument between cdcox and AustinChief. And here is my take. AustinChief thinks the old Henson notion is flat out wrong because from that 1988 date we see exponential growth in CO 2 but not the corresponding increase in temperature directly correspondingly. It should have been more. He calls the more recent paper cdcox quotes as revisionist. In that it has been jiggered to be more in line with data.

The recent paper IS revisionist. Hanson's model was wrong. It's predicted outcome does NOT match the measured reality. That doesn't mean it is worthless or all bad science. Far from it. BUT it sure as shit does mean that you shouldn't use it as an example of a model that has been predictive.

Originally Posted by tiptap

So my question is does AustinChief think the generated graphs are statistical in origin or are they physical representations? A statistical representation of the earth temperatures that set the beginning temperature for every site at the average temperature of 10 degrees C or 50 degrees F. would continue over a run on a computer to continue to show that the North or South Pole was around 10 degree C. give or take the error in measurements of instrumentation usually less than .5 degrees C. However even a simple physical representation of climate systems with the same starting points at every site of 10 degrees C. would start showing the poles cooling and the equator warming. The average would still be 10 but the temperatures at the poles would greatly decrease and the equator would rise.

Is Hansen's model physical or statistical in its origin?

I have almost no clue what you are trying to say with this part of your post. Obviously, the graphs(showing predicted outcomes) are statistical... but as I said, I don't think I know what you are asking.

[Pin Head]

Originally Posted by tiptap

Thank you. You are quite correct that water vapor plays a dominant position as a Greenhouse Gas. That is what your "saturation" comment is leading to by dismissing CO 2 contribution. But you are focusing on the wrong end of the atmosphere there at the surface. The Sun is Millions of degrees in its center but the sun does not throw that temperature out into space at its surface (thank whatever). The Sun acts like a black body of about 6000 degrees C. radiated from the Photosphere. That is where radiation can escape the interaction with the diminishing plasma material. The same is true with the Earth. The energy balance is controlled at the top of startosphere. That is the radiating source out. Adding CO 2 even to Venus will add positive push to the atmosphere's below temperature.

Its not my position that a trace gas plays a significant role, infact, I'm of the opposite opinion.

Perspective: CO2 comprises approx .04% of the total atmosphere (if you accept the claim)

C02 is a trace gas that's not even a 1% measurement of a fraction of it on a gobal scale falls within the margin of error and that's not counting different sampling techniques.

[Pin Head]

Originally Posted by tiptap

So I am looking at the argument between cdcox and AustinChief. And here is my take. AustinChief thinks the old Henson notion is flat out wrong because from that 1988 date we see exponential growth in CO 2 but not the corresponding increase in temperature directly correspondingly. It should have been more. He calls the more recent paper cdcox quotes as revisionist. In that it has been jiggered to be more in line with data.

So my question is does AustinChief think the generated graphs are statistical in origin or are they physical representations? A statistical representation of the earth temperatures that set the beginning temperature for every site at the average temperature of 10 degrees C or 50 degrees F. would continue over a run on a computer to continue to show that the North or South Pole was around 10 degree C. give or take the error in measurements of instrumentation usually less than .5 degrees C. However even a simple physical representation of climate systems with the same starting points at every site of 10 degrees C. would start showing the poles cooling and the equator warming. The average would still be 10 but the temperatures at the poles would greatly decrease and the equator would rise.

Is Hansen's model physical or statistical in its origin?

Regardess, the model makes an asssumtion that it actually knows the concentration of C02 in our atmosphere.

[cdcox]

Originally Posted by AustinChief

Hanson's model was wrong. It's predicted outcome does NOT match the measured reality.

You haven't gotten around to showing that in this thread. NOx, CFCs, and methane remain unaccounted for by you.

[Pin Head]

Originally Posted by cdcox

But rather than working toward a meaningful global solution over the next 5 to 10 years, we are letting politicians drive the agenda by casting illegitimate doubts on the science when there is plenty of evidence that human-caused climate change is real.

Cite an actual study for refrence before using words like ''illegitimate'' and
''plenty of''....

The onus and all that...

[cdcox]

Originally Posted by tiptap

So I am looking at the argument between cdcox and AustinChief. And here is my take. AustinChief thinks the old Henson notion is flat out wrong because from that 1988 date we see exponential growth in CO 2 but not the corresponding increase in temperature directly correspondingly. It should have been more. He calls the more recent paper cdcox quotes as revisionist. In that it has been jiggered to be more in line with data.

So my question is does AustinChief think the generated graphs are statistical in origin or are they physical representations? A statistical representation of the earth temperatures that set the beginning temperature for every site at the average temperature of 10 degrees C or 50 degrees F. would continue over a run on a computer to continue to show that the North or South Pole was around 10 degree C. give or take the error in measurements of instrumentation usually less than .5 degrees C. However even a simple physical representation of climate systems with the same starting points at every site of 10 degrees C. would start showing the poles cooling and the equator warming. The average would still be 10 but the temperatures at the poles would greatly decrease and the equator would rise.

Is Hansen's model physical or statistical in its origin?

The actual model is physical, but the inputs and outputs are statistical in nature.

Actual future CO2 emissions were unknown. So, three statistical representations of future emissions were made: scenarios A, B, and C. Hanson argues that scenario B most closely matched the actual forcing from 1981 to 2006. Austin Chief argues that emissions exceeded those of scenario A (the case where climate forcing was projected to be the greatest). If emissions match scenario B, the Hanson model is pretty reasonable. If emissions exceed scenario A, as Austin Chief is claiming, then the predictions are pretty poor.

One last point about the statistical nature of the output. If you run a climate model from two very similar initial conditions, you will get two different projections of future climate. This is due to the chaotic nature of the physics inside the model. This chaotic behavior is also present in real world climate systems. One can run several climate simulations and determine the ensemble average and variability of future conditions. For the actual measured climate, we can only have one realization. If the actual climate measurements fall within the bounds of the ensemble average and confidence intervals of many simulations, then it can be said that the model describes the climate.

It should be pointed out that in 1988, Hansen didn't have the computing power to make ensemble runs. He could only do one run, which won't necessarily match the earth's climate in an exact manner due to the inherent internal stochasticity of the climate system.

[cdcox]

Originally Posted by Narrow Head

Cite an actual study for refrence before using words like ''illegitimate'' and
''plenty of''....

The onus and all that...

I've done that in Post 42. Your turn to produce a peer reviewed reference that backs your case.