Copenhagen and Canada - it'll Devastate us

[Riverwind]

All I'm saying is that we are in uncharted waters. If I was driving a boat into uncharted waters I can easily predict a disaster might happen. You on the other hand would appear we should wait until we hit a rock to concur.

I can predict that dinosaur killing meteor could strike the earth sometime in the next 100 years but does that mean we should spend trillions building some sort of space defense mechanism? Life is full of uncertainity. Sometimes it is possible to hedge against the risks but in many situations it is not possible to do so and one must simply accept the risks and move forward.

[bush_cheney2004]

All I'm saying is that we are in uncharted waters. If I was driving a boat into uncharted waters I can easily predict a disaster might happen. You on the other hand would appear we should wait until we hit a rock to concur.

If one finds him/herself in uncharted waters, reduce speed, post a fathometer watch, start a dead reckoning plot, and make the anchor ready for letting go...see...no big deal.

[eyeball]

If one finds him/herself in uncharted waters, reduce speed, post a fathometer watch, start a dead reckoning plot, and make the anchor ready for letting go...see...no big deal.

Quite correct, but if the guy behind the wheel is an AGW skeptic, its full speed ahead and damn the torpedoes. That's a big deal or should be.

[Oleg Bach]

If one finds him/herself in uncharted waters, reduce speed, post a fathometer watch, start a dead reckoning plot, and make the anchor ready for letting go...see...no big deal.

Hello Sailor. Looks like you have been touring about with your anchor dragging non stop. Take my advice.....when you are in uncharted waters...turn around or go full stop. Why explore if there is no profit or progress in the venture? Habital adventurists should curb their curiousity.....so how come we don't chat anymore? Is it because I am a lunitic?

[OddSox]

I've just read through most of this thread, and there seems to be a lot of comparing Denmark to Canada or the US, or China.

Let's not forget that Denmark is a small country with a relatively temperate climate. It's roughly the same size and population as southern Ontario (excluding most of Toronto), combined with the climate of Vancouver.

I fail to understand how any intelligent comparisons can be made at all.

Edited October 14, 2009 by OddSox

[waldo]

I believe your U.S. reduction number is too high (-3.2 versus -2.4)... suggesting the Danes, with policy, are approaching a 60% betterment over the U.S., without policy (as you suggest).

Calculating percentage differences of quantity relative to an arbitrary baseline is a meaningless exercise. For example, the statement that 2 degC is 100% hotter than 1 degC is true but meaningless. What we care about are the absolute differences and it is not possible to argue that a 2% difference is significant in a set of values which range from -200% to +200%.

You’re the one that first offered the statistics/method you’re now criticizing… the fact remains – by the statistics/method you offered, one can say that Denmark’s results are approximately 60% better than the U.S. results. Unfortunately you didn’t comment on my suggestions for the somewhat static U.S. consumption numbers… that in spite of the U.S. being the worlds highest consumer of manufactured goods, somehow… somehow… it managed a static energy consumption level over the period in question. You also failed to provide your own suggestions to account for the U.S. consumption numbers… that reflect on a country that offloads it’s energy consumption to other manufacturing countries (along with a corresponding shift in green house gases and pollution).

However, the somewhat 'static' U.S. number over the period is attributed to efficiencies, reduced industry usage... and... now we're getting there... to an offloading to other countries where the energy required to produce the obvious increase in US consumption of manufactured equipment, cars, and other goods has been shifted to other countries that produce and transport those goods to the US. Effectively, a corresponding shift of green house gases and pollution from the U.S. to actual manufacturing countries.

In the case of Denmark its performance can be traced back to the switch away from oil based heating in the 80s - a switch that was driven by economics and not by an government policy. Factor that out by starting the 1992 and Denmark's per capita energy consumption increased a whopping 15.5% but the US consumption was flat at 0%. Even Canada had a smaller increase (6.5%) over the 1992-2008 period which makes it painfully obvious that Denmark's recent policies had nothing to do with the small difference between the US and Danish numbers over the full 1981-2006 period.

The key point that can’t be disputed is that Denmark has been able to sustain economic growth while its energy consumption has remained almost unchanged and CO2 emissions have dropped. Again… without qualifying it, you reference a “flat U.S. consumption level”, and presume to add further comparison rationale in favour of that unqualified level. As you state, it’s painfully obvious… that your comparison is without merit/foundation.

[bush_cheney2004]

Hello Sailor. Looks like you have been touring about with your anchor dragging non stop. Take my advice.....when you are in uncharted waters...turn around or go full stop. Why explore if there is no profit or progress in the venture? Habital adventurists should curb their curiousity.....so how come we don't chat anymore? Is it because I am a lunitic?

Wanna date? Somebody has to find that sunken hazard to navigation so we can publish the Notice to Mariners.

We are all lunatics!

[Riverwind]

You’re the one that first offered the statistics/method you’re now criticizing… the fact remains – by the statistics/method you offered, one can say that Denmark’s results are approximately 60% better than the U.S. results.

Let me put the absurdity of your claim more clearly:

Take two temperatures: 2 degC and 4 degC. You can say that 4 degC is 100% hotter than 2 degC

If you convert the temps to Fahrenheit (35.6F and 39.2F) you will find that the same 4degC measurement is only 10% higher than the 2 degC. You can do the same with degrees Kelvin (275K and 277K) and find that 4degC is only 0.07% hotter than 2 degC.

Think about this: the same physical temperature measurements differ by 100%, 10% or 0.07% depending on what units you use. That should tell that calculating a percentage difference between temperatures is a waste of time because it means nothing. The same logic applies to numbers which are already a percentage.

IOW. your 60% 'better' claim is nonsense and only serves to demonstrate that you don't understand the data you are quoting.

Unfortunately you didn’t comment on my suggestions for the somewhat static U.S. consumption numbers… that in spite of the U.S.

I have got news for you - the migration of CO2 producing industries has happened in Europe too and there is no chance that the total CO2 produced to support the Danish lifestyle has gone down. All they have done is import the products of CO2 intensive production from elsewhere. If those imports were suddenly slapped with large tarriffs to offset their CO2 emissions the Danes would find that their lifestyle would tank as the prices of imported goods skyrocketed.

The key point that can’t be disputed is that Denmark has been able to sustain economic growth while its energy consumption has remained almost unchanged and CO2 emissions have dropped.

Of course they had economic growth - they did nothing more than other countries like the US did once you factor out population increases. Only thing the Danes have done is stop reproducing and to put up a bunch of uneconomic windmills which makes the darling of climate groupies.

You are also evading the most damning statistic wihch shows that Danish per capita energy consumption increased by 15.5% from 1992 which is the period when the 'enlightened' policies of the Danish govenment would have had supposedly an effect which, ironically is a much larger increase than in Canada or US over the same period (aside: if I use your creative math I could say that Danish increase in consumption was an "infinity"% higher than the US).

I am curious if you can come up with any justification for using 1980 as a start date for these comparisons other that 'it happens to the one that makes Danish policies look mor effective than they actually were'. Can you?

Edited October 15, 2009 by Riverwind

[Argus]

I've pointed out before how much skepticism it seems is required to make people question conventional economic theories and practice things differently. Compare that to how much a little bit of AGW skepticism has managed to derail attempts to do anything about it.

The only place I can see skepticism having derailed attempts is in the US, and perhaps now, Canada. Europe is all for it and has no doubts. The third world doesn't really care since they get free handouts and dont have to do anything.

[Pliny]

Don't worry no one is going to do anything at all.

...ribbet...croak...

So Copenhagen is history?

[Pliny]

A perfect example eh, did you remember to subtract the cost of environmental degradation before holding them up as such?

Environmental degradation - How much are you adding in?

I know the citizens of Beijing like the sky blue rather than the brown it was before the Olympics.

You know perfectly well you didn't.

Right.

Do you honestly believe you can sustain a human economy without natural ecosystems or the natural capital they provide?

Yes. We have the technology.

Do you honestly believe you can create capital out of nothing?

No. You must think this is so. How can we survive unless we create it out of something?

[eyeball]

So Copenhagen is history?

It well might be one day, but not for a lack of at least trying.

[Pliny]

It well might be one day, but not for a lack of at least trying.

So they are doing something even if it only amounts to trying.

[eyeball]

So they are doing something even if it only amounts to trying.

Which is a hell of lot more than we can say we're doing.

Judging by many posters around here even trying will be enough to devastate us.

[Moonlight Graham]

The only place I can see skepticism having derailed attempts is in the US, and perhaps now, Canada. Europe is all for it and has no doubts. The third world doesn't really care since they get free handouts and dont have to do anything.

Don't forget the third world has low education among populations, therefore they don't even know what the heck "global warming" is. Or know how to spell it.

[Pliny]

Let's assume that "global warming" is a natural event. There are undeniably natural cycles of warming and cooling. Are we going to do something about these events?

I would like to know how it is determined that a natural warming or cooling trend is differentiated from an anthropogenic warming or cooling trend. If we wind up doing something irrational like dusting the arctic with black soot, as politicians were eager to do in the seventies to reverse the coming ice age, what then?

I agree we can always look to minimizing our environmental impact but getting stupid about it and attempting to solve a problem politically by moving money around the globe and then thinking that is helping us is bizarre.

[Riverwind]

I would like to know how it is determined that a natural warming or cooling trend is differentiated from an anthropogenic warming or cooling trend.

The process was something like this:

1) Do simple tests with CO2 in a tube and hypothesize that CO2 causes the atomsphere to warm.

2) Take temperature/CO2 data from ice cores, assume that CO2 was a major driver the ice ages and 'validate' this assumption by making up values for a long list of parameters for which there is no data (i.e. cloud cover, aerosols). Naively assume that the back-of-envelope calculations have factored in everything that influences climate.

3) Develop computer models which replicate the trends in the temperature record. Reject any models which cannot produce the same CO2 response that was 'predicted' by the assumption that CO2 caused the ice ages. Make up data for various unknown parameters (cloud cover, aerosols) and be sure to pick values that provide the best match with the temperature record.

4) Run these carefully tuned models without CO2. Report the non-suprising result that the current temperature trends cannot be replicated unless CO2 is included. Claim that this means the models 'prove' that CO2 caused the warming.

5) Ignore critics who suggest that other factors are at work. In cases where the critics produce evidence that cannot be ignored go back and re-tune the models after incorporating the new factors. Reject any re-tuned models which cannot reproduce the assumed CO2 response as 'obviously wrong'. Tell the critics that the models now take the factors into account and they 'make no difference'.

6) Compare model protections to real data collected after the models were tuned. If there is a difference assume the data is wrong and spend time and money 'adjusting' the misbehaving data. When possible use a climate model to predict what the data should be and then use those predictions to calculate the adjustments. Claim that the models successfully predicted the temperature trends provided one uses the 'corrected' data.

Edited October 15, 2009 by Riverwind

[ToadBrother]

The process was something like this:

1) Do simple tests with CO2 in a tube and hypothesize that CO2 causes the atomsphere to warm.

2) Take temperature/CO2 data from ice cores, assume that CO2 was a major driver the ice ages and 'validate' this assumption by making up values for a long list of parameters for which there is no data (i.e. cloud cover, aerosols). Naively assume that the back-of-envelope calculations have factored in everything that influences climate.

3) Develop computer models which replicate the trends in the temperature record. Reject any models which cannot produce the same CO2 response that was 'predicted' by the assumption that CO2 caused the ice ages. Make up data for various unknown parameters (cloud cover, aerosols) and be sure to pick values that provide the best match with the temperature record.

4) Run these carefully tuned models without CO2. Report the non-suprising result that the current temperature trends cannot be replicated unless CO2 is included. Claim that this means the models 'prove' that CO2 caused the warming.

5) Ignore critics who suggest that other factors are at work. In cases where the critics produce evidence that cannot be ignored go back and re-tune the models after incorporating the new factors. Reject any re-tuned models which cannot reproduce the assumed CO2 response as 'obviously wrong'. Tell the critics that the models now take the factors into account and they 'make no difference'.

6) Compare model protections to real data collected after the models were tuned. If there is a difference assume the data is wrong and spend time and money 'adjusting' the misbehaving data. When possible use a climate model to predict what the data should be and then use those predictions to calculate the adjustments. Claim that the models successfully predicted the temperature trends provided one uses the 'corrected' data.

I don't know about anyone else, but I find this sort of straw man argument to be highly dishonest.

If you don't know how the science works, then don't pretend you do. If you do know, and you put up a load of B.S. like this, well, then you're just a liar.

[Riverwind]

If you don't know how the science works, then don't pretend you do. If you do know, and you put up a load of B.S. like this, well, then you're just a liar.

When it is impossible to conduct lab experiments or provide mathematical proofs science it reduced to nothing but assumptions and opinions. New researchers are forced to accept the existing assumptions and any research they produce is accepted/rejected based on how well it supports the existing paradigm. It is possible for the paradigm to shift but that takes a generation or more because without real experimental evidence it is impossible to prove the establish authorities wrong and science cannot progress until they die off.

This is exactly what has happened in climate science where the prevailing assumption is CO2 sensitivity is 3degC/doubling and alternative claims are rejected since they can't refute the previously unproven assumptions. I do realize that climate scientists claim that there are 'multiple lines of evidence' that support that number but when you look at the multiple lines you will find that they are all nothing but different runs of the same class of unvalidated and unverifiable computer models.

The bottom line is AGW is not even close to being a proven fact. The entire theory could be completely overturned if someone uncovers conclusive evidence that another factor like cosmic rays have a significant effect on climate. Scientific theroies that can be validated with real experiements (e.g. the Theory of Gravity) do not have this weakness. The only people who are liars are people who claim that AGW is a fact rather than a series of self-reenforcing assumptions that might happen to be correct.

Edited October 15, 2009 by Riverwind

[jdobbin]

The only people who are liars are people who claim that AGW is a fact rather than a series of self-reenforcing assumptions that might happen to be correct.

Seems you should be having this argument with Harper and his government because he continues to spend money on projects such as ethanol and carbon capture as if the facts are in evidence.

[ToadBrother]

When it is impossible to conduct lab experiments or provide mathematical proofs science it reduced to nothing but assumptions and opinions. New researchers are forced to accept the existing assumptions and any research they produce is accepted/rejected based on how well it supports the existing paradigm. It is possible for the paradigm to shift but that takes a generation or more because without real experimental evidence it is impossible to prove the establish authorities wrong and science cannot progress until they die off.

This is such a ludicrous strawman of how science works. You can't put a volcano or a black hole in a lab, and yet they can be studied. I have no idea where you learned how science works, but it doesn't work at all the way you think it does. Not everything in science takes place in a lab, and just about science of complex systems (stellar formation, plate tectonics, evolution, etc.) is going to use models and statistical analysis. What you're doing is special pleading here, and if we accept that, then vast swathes of science suddenly become invalid.

This is exactly what has happened in climate science where the prevailing assumption is CO2 sensitivity is 3degC/doubling and alternative claims are rejected since they can't refute the previously unproven assumptions. I do realize that climate scientists claim that there are 'multiple lines of evidence' that support that number but when you look at the multiple lines you will find that they are all nothing but different runs of the same class of unvalidated and unverifiable computer models.

It isn't simply an assumption. Perhaps it is wrong, but there are multiple lines of confirmational evidence, which makes that unlikely.

The bottom line is AGW is not even close to being a proven fact.

There's an old saying in science; proof is mathematics and liquor. Science doesn't prove things, it finds the best explanation that fits the current data.

The entire theory could be completely overturned if someone uncovers conclusive evidence that another factor like cosmic rays have a significant effect on climate.

And General Relativity could be disproven if you could provide an example of a particle accelerating from a fraction of the speed of light to the speed of light. Lots of theories have what you might call single points of failure. Does that mean those theories are wrong?

Scientific theroies that can be validated with real experiements (e.g. the Theory of Gravity) do not have this weakness.

Theories are confirmed by observation. Experiments are but one form of observation. As I said, you don't actually seem to know how science is done.

The only people who are liars are people who claim that AGW is a fact rather than a series of self-reenforcing assumptions that might happen to be correct.

Come back when you have the vaguest idea what you're talking about.

[Riverwind]

Seems you should be having this argument with Harper and his government because he continues to spend money on projects such as ethanol and carbon capture as if the facts are in evidence.

All politicians are driven by the polls. If Harper or Iggy made climate related promises it is because they believe it will get them votes. I doubt either cares about the science.

[eyeball]

All politicians are driven by the polls. If Harper or Iggy made climate related promises it is because they believe it will get them votes. I doubt either cares about the science.

$10 says you'll still happily vote for Harper even though you know he's a two-faced liar.

If a haywire climate doesn't do us in this type of venality certainly will. We're completely f^*ked. We couldn't pull our species out of a paper-bag to save it even if we wanted to.

[Riverwind]

You can't put a volcano or a black hole in a lab, and yet they can be studied.

Sure. And theories about volcanoes and black holes developed that way are very interesting but you don't invest trillions of dollars and try to radically re-engineer society based on such unverifiable claims.

Not everything in science takes place in a lab, and just about science of complex systems (stellar formation, plate tectonics, evolution, etc.) is going to use models and statistical analysis. What you're doing is special pleading here, and if we accept that, then vast swathes of science suddenly become invalid.

Are you familiar with the distinction between 'balance of probabilities' and 'proof beyond reasonable doubt'? They are standards of evidence used in courts to make decisions. The courts recognize that there is a need for difference standards depending on what you want to do with evidence. If all you want to do with a theory is have an academic discussion then the scientific process works very well and I have no problem treating AGW as a fact in the same why I accept stellar formation, plate tectonics and evolution as a fact. But no one is using their theory on stellar formation to demand a radical restructing of society that will inflict a lot of harm on billions of people. If a scientific theory is used for that purpose then the standard of evidence must be much much higher and AGW does not even come close to meeting it.

There's an old saying in science; proof is mathematics and liquor. Science doesn't prove things, it finds the best explanation that fits the current data.

Of course. But not all theories that are the 'best explaination for the current data' are equally strong. In the case of climate there are a huge number of unknowns that make it unlikely that the current explaination will remain intact as time moves forward. For that reason extreme caution is required when making economic decisions based on these theories - especially since the data collected over the last 10 years is already forcing some scientists to reconsider their claims. Edited October 15, 2009 by Riverwind

[ToadBrother]

Sure. And theories about volcanoes and black holes developed that way are very interesting but you don't invest trillions of dollars and try to radically re-engineer society based on such unverifiable claims.

If related methodologies are demonstrated to be reliable in one area, it's not unreasonable to expect them to be reliable in others.

Are you familiar with the distinction between 'balance of probabilities' and 'proof beyond reasonable doubt'? They are standards of evidence used in courts to make decisions. The courts recognize that there is a need for difference standards depending on what you want to do with evidence.

Scientific standards of evidence are far more rigorous than the judicial requirements. It's rather unfortunate that the courts don't hold more to a scientific notion of evidence. At any rate, your argument seems to boil down to "I'm incredulous, so let's keep moving goalposts".

If all you want to do with a theory is have an academic discussion then the scientific process works very well and I have no problem treating AGW as a fact in the same why I accept stellar formation, plate tectonics and evolution as a fact.

Evolution has many important connotations on real life. Again, you're invoking special pleading.

But no one is using their theory on stellar formation to demand a radical restructing of society that will inflict a lot of harm on billions of people. If a scientific theory is used for that purpose then the standard of evidence must be much much higher and AGW does not even come close to meeting it.

More special pleading.

Perhaps you can dredge up your source of 'multiple lines'. When I looked into it all I saw were computer models fed with a combination of real and estimated (a.k.a. made up) data.

I don't find your incredulity all that convincing. Thus far you've shown yourself quite capable of falling into fallacious arguments to back your views up, and you clearly have little knowledge of how real science is done.

Of course. But not all theories that are the 'best explaination for the current data' are equally strong.

I never said they were. But this demand for absolute proof is one that could never be provided to you for any theory.

In the case of climate there are a huge number of unknowns that make it unlikely that the current explaination will remain intact as time moves forward.

That is quite debatable. A theory does not have to explain every possible phenomenon within its area to be useful. Again, your invoking special pleading.

For that reason extreme caution is required when making economic decisions based on these theories.

Extreme caution, it would seem, to the point of doing nothing at all.