Assuming AGW is real, what do we do about it ?

[waldo]

Yes like the "net benefit" Russia is getting in decreased wheat crop yields.

If they are in fact decreasing the suggestion that this can be linked to a 0.5 degC increase in average temps is absurd. The tendency to claim a link between pretty much anything bad and GW even when there is no rational reason to do is one of the reasons why AGW alarmism is just another religion.

It actually caused by the more extreme heat waves, which is caused by the increased water in the atmosphere screwing up the hydrological cycle, which is caused by a 0.5 increase in average global temp. It also causing droughts in Russia. In Russia the average temperature change is much higher than the global average. At about 1.19, (link) but hey rather than listening to climate scientists and agricultural scientists about the effect climate change is having on crop yields I should listen to you.

The "noise" in the system far exceeds .5 degC. Attributing any effects to this rise is an exercise in voodoo.

Droughts go in cycles - i.e. over a course of century different areas of the globe will go through cycles of drought. There is zero evidence of any change to the duration, size or severity of droughts over the last 100 years. http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2010/02/24/update-on-global-drought-patterns-ipcc-take-note/

Try this:

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2008JCLI2722.1

standard TimG parroting response from his linked denier blog site… nothing more than a complete distortion of that Sheffield paper – a paper focused on variability… not trends. You simply need to look at past work/papers involving the same scientist – Sheffield, to easily ascertain the absolute distortion/fabrication from TimG and his linked denier blog:

- a most recent paper from Sheffield et al:

Global Drought and Agricultural Water Productivity Monitoring: Transitioning Towards Application Scales

Drought is likely to increase in a global warming climate (Burke et al., 2006; Sheffield and Wood 2008)

- another paper from Sheffield et al:

Projected changes in drought occurrence under future global warming from multi-model, multi-scenario, IPCC AR4 simulations

Recent and potential future increases in global temperatures are likely to be associated with impacts on the hydrologic cycle, including changes to precipitation and increases in extreme events such as droughts.

- another paper from Sheffield et al:

Global Trends and Variability in Soil Moisture and Drought Characteristics, 1950–2000, from Observation-Driven Simulations of the Terrestrial Hydrologic Cycle

Within the long-term trends there are considerable interannual and decadal variations in soil moisture and drought characteristics for most regions, which impact the robustness of the trends. Analysis of detrended and smoothed soil moisture time series reveals that the leading modes of variability are associated with sea surface temperatures, primarily in the equatorial Pacific and secondarily in the North Atlantic. Despite the overall wetting trend there is a switch since the 1970s to a drying trend, globally and in many regions, especially in high northern latitudes. This is shown to be caused, in part, by concurrent increasing temperatures. Although drought is driven primarily by variability in precipitation, projected continuation of temperature increases during the twenty-first century indicate the potential for enhanced drought occurrence.

of course, there’s no shortage of work/papers from multitudes of other scientists; examples:

-

A Global Dataset of Palmer Drought Severity Index for 1870–2002: Relationship with Soil Moisture and Effects of Surface Warming

– NCAR (Aiguo Dai, Kevin E. Trenberth, AND Taotao Qian)

These results provide observational evidence for the increasing risk of droughts as anthropogenic global warming progresses and produces both increased temperatures and increased drying.

-

Detection of human influence on twentieth-century precipitation trends

(Zhang et al)

Here we compare observed changes in land precipitation during the twentieth century averaged over latitudinal bands with changes simulated by fourteen climate models. We show that anthropogenic forcing has had a detectable influence on observed changes in average precipitation within latitudinal bands, and that these changes cannot be explained by internal climate variability or natural forcing. We estimate that anthropogenic forcing contributed significantly to observed increases in precipitation in the Northern Hemisphere mid-latitudes, drying in the Northern Hemisphere subtropics and tropics, and moistening in the Southern Hemisphere subtropics and deep tropics. The observed changes, which are larger than estimated from model simulations, may have already had significant effects on ecosystems, agriculture and human health in regions that are sensitive to changes in precipitation, such as the Sahel

=> i.e. decreases in mean precipitation over land in some latitude bands… attributed to AGW climate change

etc., etc., etc…… quite literally, I could easily throw up linked reference to a dozen+ papers… and it wouldn’t matter to the TimGs of the world. The AGW caused intensification of the global hydrological cycle is clearly showing increases in precipitation extremes… both increases in very heavy precipitation in wet areas and increases in drought in dry areas. But don't let that stop the TimGs beaking-off about "zero evidence".

The "noise" in the system far exceeds .5 degC. Attributing any effects to this rise is an exercise in voodoo.

Droughts go in cycles - i.e. over a course of century different areas of the globe will go through cycles of drought. There is zero evidence of any change to the duration, size or severity of droughts over the last 100 years.

[waldo]

a consistent push-back from the denier camp, one echoed across several MLW climate change related threads (including this one), is that adaptation is the only recourse in dealing with climate change effects... a laissez faire, do-nothing, 'what will be, will be' approach that presumes to discount any considerations toward viable mitigation/prevention alternative scenarios.

typically, the standard denier talking point suggests scalable technology is just not up to the task/need, and will never be - just can't be done, case closed... move along now! Of course, when you challenge the suggestion (as has been done in other MLW climate change related threads - as was done in this thread), and request specifics detailing the so-called missing technologies, particularly against projected need time lines, you're simply ignored. Details, details...

I've previously offered up other IEA documents/info in this and other MLW climate change related threads (the roadmap, subsidy particulars, etc.). In a separate MLW thread, I've previously linked to this document - an IEA 2009 analysis paper intended to identify and address gaps in 'Clean Energy Research, Development, and Demonstration (RD&D).

- the analysis format follows a breakout identifying current RD&D expenditures, RD&D priorities, gaps between current RD&D spending and the IEA Roadmap's 2050 progressive climate goals and RD&D investment needs.

- areas of focus include, 1. Advanced Vehicle Technologies, 2. Bioenergy, 3. Carbon Capture, Use, and Storage, 4. Energy Efficiency In Buildings, 5. Energy Efficiency in Industry, 6. Higher Efficiency And Lower-Emissions Coal Technologies, 7. Smart Grids, 8. Solar Energy and 9. Wind Energy

this IEA paper's summary section, 'Findings and Conclusions: Assessing the Gap', with commitment from MEP & IEA member countries, addresses and challenges the inaction/delay positions of the denier camp.

Work on low-carbon energy technologies is ongoing in a number of international forums. In particular, development and deployment of low-carbon technologies is an important topic in the Major Economies Forum (MEF) and under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). At the request of the G8, the International Energy Agency (IEA) is also developing roadmaps for some of the most important low-carbon energy technologies, including information on how enhanced international collaboration can help advance individual technologies toward commercialization. However, there is a growing awareness of the urgent need to turn such political statements and analytical work into concrete action.

In July 2009, the MEF countries established a collective goal to expand international technology collaboration, with a focus on multiple specific energy technology areas MEF countries called for increased global research, development and demonstration (RD&D) with a view towards doubling expenditures for low-carbon technologies by 2015.

This paper seeks to inform decision making and prioritisation of RD&D investments and other policies to accelerate low-carbon energy technologies in the MEF and IEA member countries and others by providing three primary sets of information: (1)estimated current levels of public RD&D spending for the technology areas initially targeted by the MEF; (2) future RD&D priorities for these technologies, based on the IEA roadmaps and other efforts; and (3) an assessment of the gap between current levels of technology ambition and the levels that will be needed to achieve our shared climate change goals by 2050; concluding with suggestions for next steps that can be taken to advance the technologies.

It really does not make a difference how many times you post the document it does not change the fact that huge technology barriers exist are there is no way to know when or even if these barriers will be overcome. IOW, the document simply repeats the point I have been making all along and the only problem with the document is its rediculous claim that spending X dollars in R&D will actually overcome those barriers.

I am not saying we should not try and spend the money on R&D but if are making policy decisions today we must assume that no breakthough will be found and we have to work with what we have today.

... ya, ya, it's now the second time I've posted reference to that IEA 'gaps' document; once previously in another MLW climate change related thread and now here in this thread - you were as dismissive of it then as you are now. Wow - what a surprise.

the issue is one of scalability over timeline... from what I read and understand the only real uncertainties are tied to CCS given it's relative early stages of testing today. You keep making your unsubstantiated claims and each and every time you're challenged to speak to the gaps - identify them in association with constraining timelines, you simply shift into your baseless numbspeak. In this particular IEA example reference, we're talking about RD&D over a projected 40+ year roadmap (timeline)... the gap document lays it all out from identifying current expenditures, setting priorities, detailing gaps between current spending and the IEA Roadmap's 2050 progressive climate goals and identifying investment needs. And in your absolute dismissive best, you simply say, "nope, can't be done - don't even try!". Your consistent fall-back is a mind-numbing denialist squawk - "that's not how R&D is done... you can't just throw money at something and expect results - squawk!".

just imagine the IEA hearsay! Increase investments in renewables, nuclear power and a smart electric grid... perfect technologies like CCS. Ya, the TimGs say, "that makes no sense - why would anyone want to take a most reasoned and do-able approach to stabilize the Earth's temperature... to address severe climate change impacts". "That's just silliness", TimG says, as he shifts into his pirate voiced, "arrrr! adapt-R-Us! arrrr!"

[waldo]

betsy, jbg - are you now both content and willing to let the thread move forward, as intended/requested... or do you still have pent-up, denialist, climate change related frustrations driving you to continue to attempt to de-rail the thread?

Waldo: They ruined the sand castle.

Wyly: Yes they bad boys.

on edit: remove expletive deleted... additionally provide disclaimer advising that 'no joooos' were harmed in the throwing of the expletive deleted.

Edited October 7, 2010 by waldo

[bloodyminded]

In any case, I am sure the vast majority of scientists believe what they publish. The only issue hear is understanding the biases that might affect the interpretation of the data. Most people have no problems understanding that studies funded companies may be baised for the same reason. I don't understand why you refuse to accept the same problem exists for each individual.

Yes, and this is where I can start to have some sympathy for your view. However, what you're saying, analagously, is that all studies funded by business interests are likely biased, because the bottom line is paramount, the institutional paradigm is roughly the same in each case (profit), and so we shouldn't trust any of them.

And in fact, this analogy--this wild and unsupported claim--is in fact more likely (still a fallacy; but more likely) than your logically-identical biased scientists hypothesis.

Edited October 7, 2010 by bloodyminded

[Argus]

Are you kidding? YOURE the one who claims over and over and over again that CO2 alarmism is resulting in bad government policy that will damage the economy and so on. Its "REALLY BAD" you say. What is? Link me to some of this horrible legislation.

How about Ontario's energy policy? Designed by global warming adherents, it is set to double the price of electricity in Ontario in desperate pursuit of green energy. This is costing billions, will have a very detrimental effect to manufacturing which uses a lot of energy (and which is already in bad shape) and will make it difficult for poorer people or seniors on fixed income to heat their houses.

And whatever tiny fractional decrease in Co2 emissions all of that will result in will be instantly reversed by the next couple of coal fired power plants china builds over the coming weeks.

We spend years and billions and billions on a minor decrease in Co2 emissions, causing huge problems for our economy, and the result is instantly swamped by new Chinese power plants in a couple of weeks. THAT in a nutshell, is what's happening with these expensive schemes to reduce emissions in politically correct western countries.

[jbg]

We spend years and billions and billions on a minor decrease in Co2 emissions, causing huge problems for our economy, and the result is instantly swamped by new Chinese power plants in a couple of weeks. THAT in a nutshell, is what's happening with these expensive schemes to reduce emissions in politically correct western countries.

It sounds like a good Grade 4 science project.

[waldo]

And whatever tiny fractional decrease in Co2 emissions all of that will result in will be instantly reversed by the next couple of coal fired power plants china builds over the coming weeks.

oh really? U.S.A. - Old Time Coal

Since 2008, 16 large coal plants have been completed in the United States, and 16 more are under construction, according to AP's Matthew Brown. "Combined they will produce an estimated 17,900 megawatts of electricity, sufficient to power up to 15.6 million homes--roughly the number of homes in California and Arizona," writes Brown. "They also will generate about 125 million tons of greenhouse gases annually."

We spend years and billions and billions on a minor decrease in Co2 emissions, causing huge problems for our economy, and the result is instantly swamped by new Chinese power plants in a couple of weeks. THAT in a nutshell, is what's happening with these expensive schemes to reduce emissions in politically correct western countries.

there is more than enough criticism that can be leveled... at most any country; however, the days of singling out China needs a perspective - notwithstanding we've been over this 'China bashing' theme in other MLW threads:

Certain members of the U.S. Congress believe that America shouldn't do anything about climate change until China does. Putting aside the moral illogic of that position, let's focus on

something China is doing: shutting down old, dirty coal plants.....

at the rate of roughly 2 a month

.

Xue Jing, director of statistics and information at the China Electricity Council (CEC), said at an earlier conference that China will invest more in the power grid and clean energy, and gradually decrease the proportion of power plants that are coal-fired.

Statistics from the CEC report show that in 2008, China’s investment in nuclear power and wind power increased 72 percent and 88 percent year on year, respectively. At the same time, investment in coal-fired plants declined 22 percent

China Outpaces U.S. in Cleaner Coal-Fired Plants

China has emerged in the past two years as the world’s leading builder of more efficient, less polluting coal power plants, mastering the technology and driving down the cost.

While the United States is still debating whether to build a more efficient kind of coal-fired power plant that uses extremely hot steam, China has begun building such plants at a rate of one a month.

China is also leading the way investing $1 Billion in building a 250-megawatt, utility-scale and more efficient IGCC coal generating plant in Tianjin that will use CCS technology to control its emissions... to be completed in 2011 through a partnership that includes a U.S. coal company, a consortium of Chinese utilities and coal companies, and the Chinese government.