Twelve-month long drop in world temperatures wipes out a century of wa

[eyeball]

+1! Politicians are simply not qualified as a rule to mess with scientific matters! A poli-sci degree is not a science degree, even if it comes from Queens or Ryerson!

So who is qualified? Climate scientists?

[Wild Bill]

So who is qualified? Climate scientists?

At a nuts and bolts level, I'd agree that they would be more likely to eventually figure out how things work. However, the issues of what do we do as a society and what price would it cost us I agree are political. The problem is, for politicians to at least grasp the basics of the scientific argument is almost impossible these days. I doubt if very many of our MPs took hard sciences and maths even to the end of high school. You don't need to be a mechanic to drive a car but you should at least know it runs on gasoline!

Right now we have politicians meddling in the science, picking and choosing which scientists support a premise the pols have already decided is true. It's public record that being a "denier" is a career limiting move if you want any grant money so you can feed your kids.

Moreover, the idea of "pay anything, just in case" is not just foolish but downright dangerous! It's bad enough if we all become poor for no positive benefit but what happens if we eventually find out we should have taken another approach and we no longer have enough money or resources to make it happen? Tax money is not unlimited, after all.

[noahbody]

Russell Peters is hosting an event called Comedy for Climate Change Canada. Al Gore will be the special guest. It's happening in Montreal. Now that's funny.

[Riverwind]

Moreover, the idea of "pay anything, just in case" is not just foolish but downright dangerous! It's bad enough if we all become poor for no positive benefit but what happens if we eventually find out we should have taken another approach and we no longer have enough money or resources to make it happen? Tax money is not unlimited, after all.

People who advocate the precautionary principle are invariably people who think that any imposition of the principle will not affect them personally. They also tend to be people who do not understand the nature of energy of production and cannot comprehend how much their standard of living depends on cheap energy. I have a simple hypocrisy test for anyone who claims that AGW is a crisis: ask if they are an favour of strict limits on the number of children people are allowed to have. If the person answers no then they are a hypocrite because they do not really believe it is a crisis yet they are demanding that other people make sacrifices as if it is a crisis. Edited March 15, 2008 by Riverwind

[stevoh]

Right. Do you really believe that it would be possible to come to any conclusion about the effectiveness of the carbon tax in one year? That said, what you call 'excuses' are actually faslifiable hypotheses. If CO2 emissions go down even with economic and population growth then I would concede that the either the carbon tax or high energy prices were the likely cause. What would it take to convince you that CO2 will not go down as long as there is economic growth and a rising population?

Data that shows carbon emissions increasing at a comparable rate to other provinces with similar growth rates. The key is I haven't made that decision yet, you are already hedging your bets.

Same goes for the IPCC predictions - I will take their warnings seriously as soon as the actual data confirms their predictions. The trouble is the actual climate data has not been cooperating over the last 7 years.

Agreed. But neither you or I are climate scientists, and one you linked to espouses the cautionary approach. That should tell you something.

People who advocate the precautionary principle are invariably people who think that any imposition of the principle will not affect them personally. They also tend to be people who do not understand the nature of energy of production and cannot comprehend how much their standard of living depends on cheap energy. I have a simple hypocrisy test for anyone who claims that AGW is a crisis: ask if they are an favour of strict limits on the number of children people are allowed to have. If the person answers no then they are a hypocrite because they do not really believe it is a crisis yet they are demanding that other people make sacrifices as if it is a crisis.

There are two problems with this rediculous test.

1. An increase in population may result in an increase in demand for energy, but if that energy source does not produce carbon, then there is no net overall increase in carbon emissions.

2. Another focus of environmental awareness is decreasing the amount of energy we as individuals use, from turning of lights to walking to work. In other words, more people can use the same amount of energy.

Increase in energy demand does not necessarily mean increase of carbon producing energy sources.

Increase in population does not necessarily mean increase in energy consumption.

[Riverwind]

Data that shows carbon emissions increasing at a comparable rate to other provinces with similar growth rates.

The alarmists are demanding that we *reduce* CO2 emissions. The carbon tax will be a failure if all it does is slow down the *growth* of emissions. I realize that you seem to think that slowing down the growth of emission is progress, however, that does not mean the objective of reducing emissions is achievable without stopping economic or population growth.

Agreed. But neither you or I are climate scientists, and one you linked to espouses the cautionary approach. That should tell you something.

My reading of her statement is she feels the case is unproven yet policy makers are being forced to adopt policies based on unproven science. She wants to remedy that problem by collecting better data. If she was ok with the precautionary principle as you defined it she would not care about collecting more data.

1. An increase in population may result in an increase in demand for energy, but if that energy source does not produce carbon, then there is no net overall increase in carbon emissions.

Evasion. If AGW is a catastrophe that requires decisive action then you have no business being picky about what kind of action is taken. Halting population growth will do more for carbon emissions than any other public policy. Canadians seriously harm the planet every time we allow a person living a low carbon lifestyle in a 3rd world country to migrate here where they immediately demand a high carbon lifestyle. If you argue that the risk is not great enough to justify that kind of policy then you also admit that the risk is not great enough to justify other sorts of policies that impose economic hardship on people.

2. Another focus of environmental awareness is decreasing the amount of energy we as individuals use, from turning of lights to walking to work. In other words, more people can use the same amount of energy.

Worthwhile tokenism that will not achieve any meaningful reduction in CO2 production.

Increase in energy demand does not necessarily mean increase of carbon producing energy sources.

Actually eliminating carbon producing energy sources will increase the cost of energy which will slow the economy and reduce demand. IOW - I agree that it is possible to move to non-carbon energy sources but the social cost is higher than I think is worth paying given the risk.

Increase in population does not necessarily mean increase in energy consumption.

Do you have one example that can back up that assertion?

[stevoh]

Increase in population does not necessarily mean increase in energy consumption.

Do you have one example that can back up that assertion?

Yes. My hydro bill has gone down 20% over the same time last year (and it was colder this month) due to various measures, mostly related to not heating rooms that are not being used, etc. If this same change is made by 4 other houses, we can now add one house and one family to the population with no net increase in energy used.

Basically, the energy formerly needed by 4 houses is now enough to supply five.

Hardly a token effort.

[Riverwind]

Increase in population does not necessarily mean increase in energy consumption.

...

Basically, the energy formerly needed by 4 houses is now enough to supply five.

Hardly a token effort.

An effort that does nothing to reduce emissions if the population grows such that 6 houses are needed instead of 5.

The majority of emissions come from industry and cars.

Cars are essential in most parts of BC. Only few people living in very expensive parts of the Lower Mainland can live without a car.

More people means more cars no matter how many skytrains are built.

Industry will shutdown and move elsewhere if the cost reducing carbon cuts into their profits too much. Industry that cannot move will pass the cost on the the consumer.

Consumers with less disposable income stop spending and the economy slows down.

Edited March 19, 2008 by Riverwind

[jbg]

Russell Peters is hosting an event called Comedy for Climate Change Canada. Al Gore will be the special guest. It's happening in Montreal. Now that's funny.

Will he take questions?

[stevoh]

An effort that does nothing to reduce emissions if the population grows such that 6 houses are needed instead of 5.

The majority of emissions come from industry and cars.

Cars are essential in most parts of BC. Only few people living in very expensive parts of the Lower Mainland can live without a car.

More people means more cars no matter how many skytrains are built.

Industry will shutdown and move elsewhere if the cost reducing carbon cuts into their profits too much. Industry that cannot move will pass the cost on the the consumer.

Consumers with less disposable income stop spending and the economy slows down.

A 20% reduction in energy use from the existing population allows a 20% growth in population with no net increase in emissions. Doesn't matter if that reduction comes from household conservation, buying a hybrid car, walking or biking to work, buying local products, any of these areas of reduction allow a corresponding population growth without an increase in overall emissions.

[Riverwind]

A 20% reduction in energy use from the existing population allows a 20% growth in population with no net increase in emissions.

Population grows exponentially. So does the cost of energy efficiency improvements. i.e. 5% improvement in energy efficiency is easy. 10% is a little harder. greater than 20% is next to impossible. Emissions will start to grow once the population grows beyond the maximum possible efficiency improvements.

The basic math is unavoidable. Population growth means higher emissions. Total emissions in rich countries will always go up as long as the population grows unless there is a USSR style economic collapse.

If you care about Canada's GHGs emissions you should be calling for an end to population growth. If you think that kind of policy response is too extreme given the risks then you are accepting the argument that GHGs are the threat that the IPCC makes them out to be.

So which is it: Should we stop immigration and tax children or forget about meeting GHG reduction targets and focus on intensity targets?

It must be one or the other.

[stevoh]

The basic math is unavoidable. Population growth means higher emissions. Total emissions in rich countries will always go up as long as the population grows unless there is a USSR style economic collapse.

Wrong.

http://www.germany.info/relaunch/business/...ntion_2005.html

Germany continues to be the world leader in efforts undertaken to help prevent climate change. As of the end of 2003 greenhouse gas emissions were 18.5 percent less than the volume registered for 1990. The current reduction figure amounts to around 19 percent.

Emissions reduction, 19%

So we should see a reduction in population from 1990 of about 19% right? Using your logic?

1990 population: 79.4 million

2007 population: 82.4 million

Those who say it can't be done are usually interrupted by others doing it.

[Riverwind]

1990 population: 79.4 million

2007 population: 82.4 million

East Germany experienced a USSR style economic collapse after 1990 (economic collapse is one of things that will reduce emissions).

http://knowledge.allianz.com/nopi_download...s/Germany_1.pdf

"Declining emissions 1990 to 2000 partly due to economic downturn in

Eastern Germany but also due to national measures. Since then stable

emissions and likely gap to meet Kyoto target without further measures."

Also note: Germany's population grew 3% in 17 years. Canada's population grew by 17% over the same period. Basic energy efficiency measures were all that was needed to stabilize emissions over time when dealing with 3% population growth. However, the Germans will find that the cost of actual *reductions* in CO2 will increase exponentially as time goes on.

Canada and BC have zero chance of emulating the German example unless we adopt German style population growth rates.

If that is the only example you can come up with then you have simply proved my point.

Edited March 26, 2008 by Riverwind

[stevoh]

East Germany experienced a USSR style economic collapse after 1990 (economic collapse is one of things that will reduce emissions).

http://knowledge.allianz.com/nopi_download...s/Germany_1.pdf

"Declining emissions 1990 to 2000 partly due to economic downturn in

Eastern Germany but also due to national measures. Since then stable

emissions and likely gap to meet Kyoto target without further measures."

Also note: Germany's population grew 3% in 17 years. Canada's population grew by 17% over the same period. Basic energy efficiency measures were all that was needed to stabilize emissions over time when dealing with 3% population growth. However, the Germans will find that the cost of actual *reductions* in CO2 will increase exponentially as time goes on.

Canada and BC have zero chance of emulating the German example unless we adopt German style population growth rates.

If that is the only example you can come up with then you have simply proved my point.

Your point is a fallicy. You state that no emissions reduction can occur without population reduction. Germany's emissions reduced. The population increased. Your bias must be particularly strong not to see that.

[Riverwind]

Your point is a fallicy. You state that no emissions reduction can occur without population reduction. Germany's emissions reduced. The population increased. Your bias must be particularly strong not to see that.

You are misrepresenting what I said. I said emissions could not come down as long as population OR the economy was growing. The East German collapse and the subsequent stagnation of the German economy in the 90s allowed Germany to reduce its emissions.

I also conceded in a previous post that efficiency improvements could provide a small one-time improvement that would be swamped by further population rises. Germany has a miniscule population growth rate that allowed it keep emissions stable despite the small population growth (note that stable does not mean reduction). The next to zero population growth rate population growth rate in Germany means its example has no relevance to Canada.

There is another factor that distorts the picture: many polluting industries in western europe have been moved to eastern europe and china. This allows europeans to pretend that they have reduced CO2 when the CO2 required to support their lifestyle has actually gone up. For example, the CO2 produced by european car production has gone down yet the number of cars sold is europe has gone up. The difference can be entirely attributed to the shift in car production to countries with no CO2 caps.

The bottom line is absolute reductions in CO2 will not happen and the politicians know this. They are simply paying lip service to appease a public who has been duped by CO2 hysteria.

Fortunately, politicans in Europe and Japan are finally being forced to face their hypocracy and publically admit that radical GHGs reductions are simply not possible within the timeframes being discussed.

Edited March 26, 2008 by Riverwind

[stevoh]

Germany has a miniscule population growth rate that allowed it keep emissions stable despite the small population growth (note that stable does not mean reduction).

Germany's emissions REDUCTION was 19% from 1990 to today.

[Riverwind]

Germany's emissions REDUCTION was 19% from 1990 to today.

Read the link I provided:

"Declining emissions 1990 to 2000 partly due to economic downturn in

Eastern Germany but also due to national measures. Since then stable

emissions and likely gap to meet Kyoto target without further measures."

All of the reductions were prior to 2000 and most of those can be attributed to the shutdown of East German industries.

Since 2000 their emissions have been stable but they are starting to rise as German economic growth picks up.

Edited March 26, 2008 by Riverwind

[stevoh]

Read the link I provided:

"Declining emissions 1990 to 2000 partly due to economic downturn in

Eastern Germany but also due to national measures. Since then stable

emissions and likely gap to meet Kyoto target without further measures."

All of the reductions were prior to 2000 and most of those can be attributed to the shutdown of East German industries.

Since 2000 their emissions have been stable but they are starting to rise as German economic growth picks up.

Doesn't change the fact that the population grew when emissions didn't. Try and spin it any way you like, your original statement is incorrect.

Population growth means higher emissions.

Wrong.

[GostHacked]

I don't think scientific method has ever included defending research against random critisims from non-scientists.

Scientists/researchers have data to back up their claims. So they should be willing without hesitation to show th data to support their claims. If they do not, then I won't take anything they say at face value.

If you have a PHD in something and I ask for proof, saying you have one is not proof. Debating me about the PHD is not proof. Showing me the PHD proves that you have it.

And I really do not underdstand the Kyoto protocols. It seems that you can buy credits in order to pollute more. Buy credits from a nation that has little pollution, in order for you to pollute more here because you are over your quota. I see in no way how this reduces green house gasses or combats climate change. I could be wrong, but this is how I understand Kyoto.

[Riverwind]

Doesn't change the fact that the population grew when emissions didn't. Try and spin it any way you like, your original statement is incorrect.

Talk about pendantic.

Fine. I was wrong to say that *any* population growth will lead to more emissions. What I meant to say is population growth at rates typical to BC and Canada *will* lead to emission increases no matter what policies are introduced unless these policies cause the economy to shrink at the same time.

Which brings me back to my original point. If you really cared about CO2 then you should be demanding that Canada reduce its population growth rate to no more than places like Germany.

[stevoh]

Talk about pendantic.

Fine. I was wrong to say that *any* population growth will lead to more emissions. What I meant to say is population growth at rates typical to BC and Canada *will* lead to emission increases no matter what policies are introduced unless these policies cause the economy to shrink at the same time.

Which brings me back to my original point. If you really cared about CO2 then you should be demanding that Canada reduce its population growth rate to no more than places like Germany.

+1 for honesty

It's all a matter of scale. How do you measure "success" when it comes to emissions reduction? I will consider the BC carbon tax a success if our emissions grow at a slower rate than any of the other provinces, when population growth is taken into account. Say, 10% less or more, as compared to historical values. I would be ecstatic if emissions actually reduced while population growth occurs, but I don't see this as a short term realistic solution.

I see it more as an evolution, where, as renewable technology comes down in price, as awareness grows, use of non-renewable resources shrinks. Eventually (I hope), there will come a point where there is no increase in emissions as industry and population grows, then, finally, a reduction as our dependence is greatly reduced. But this will not happen this year or even in the next 5 years.

"Population Control" is merely a scare tactic designed to make us think that the situation is impossible. A closer examination of changes actually shows that real progress can be made, and has been made, without such drastic measures. I do care about emission control, but I also know this has to balance with human concerns. Its not a choice between one or the other, its gradual change on both.

[sunsettommy]

"Twelve-month long drop in world temperatures wipes out a century of warming"

No what it did was erase all of the warming anomoly as according to the 1961-1990 anomoly.

There is still about .15 degrees left to erase.

The La Ninya of 1999 was actually colder than this one.So was the 1996 La-ninya.

That quote is simply wrong.

[Riverwind]

It's all a matter of scale. How do you measure "success" when it comes to emissions reduction? I will consider the BC carbon tax a success if our emissions grow at a slower rate than any of the other provinces, when population growth is taken into account.

Would you still consider it a success if the BC economy grows a slower rate as well? I wouldn't. If that happened it would just demonstrate that CO2 reductions and economic growth are mutually exclusive.

"Population Control" is merely a scare tactic designed to make us think that the situation is impossible. A closer examination of changes actually shows that real progress can be made, and has been made, without such drastic measures. I do care about emission control, but I also know this has to balance with human concerns. Its not a choice between one or the other, its gradual change on both.

Fair enough. OTOH, you are implicitly acknowledging that most of the alarmist rhetoric is a gross exaggeration and that disaster is not imminent.

Some evidence that CO2 limits are a waste of time: http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2008/2007GL032388.shtml

Our results suggest that future anthropogenic emissions would need to be eliminated in order to stabilize global-mean temperatures. As a consequence, any future anthropogenic emissions will commit the climate system to warming that is essentially irreversible on centennial timescales.

Translation: if the alarmists are right then adaptation is the only path worth considering.

[jazzer]

More bad news for the naysayers: link

[sunsettommy]

The photos in the link Jazzer are very nice.

But the "bad" news it really is not.

Here is the more honest assessment of the ever changing ice shelf.

Mar 25, 2008

Misleading Reports About Antarctica

By Joseph D’Aleo, CCM

EXCERPT:

Last year when Antarctic set a new record for ice extent, it got no media attention. They focused on the north polar regions where the ice set record low levels. This summer when unprecedented anomalous cover continued in the Southern Hemisphere again no coverage. Then this report in the news today. You probably saw it on your favorite network or internet news site (pick one, anyone).

http://icecap.us/index.php/go/political-climate

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The media hardly peeps a word about the new record sea ice extent of last winter and the and currently well above sea ice average extent heading into winter.But when a tiny sliver beaks off.They go bananas.

Selective reporting bias is what I see.