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

[dre]

No I don't. I think scientists are human and greatly influenced by their peer group and funding bodies. I think the political dimensions of this field have encourage scientists to seek research areas which support the consensus while avoiding those that might undermine it. It is better called 'group think' and is a real phenomena that has occurred in the past. You use the 'conspiracy' label because you are looking for excuses to avoid looking at flaws in out scientific institutions.

I said this before: you worries about energy volatility have not credibility as long as you support policies that outlaw the use of coal and increase the price of electricity. If energy supply is a concern we should focus on oil. CO2 is a distraction that is actually hurting our ability to deal with oil price shocks.

because you are looking for excuses to avoid looking at flaws in out scientific institutions

Nope, I acknowledge the flaws in the scientific process, and theres literally ALWAYS political pressure on scientists in all fields of study not just climate. But for its flaws its still by far our best method of understanding the world around us. BTW... the sam allegations were made when the scientific community began to coalesce around the conclusion that smoking was a health risk. Puts you in some interesting company.

as you support policies that outlaw the use of coal and increase the price of electricity.

So now youre just going to flat out invent positions and attribute them to me? What horse shit. I dont think coal should be outlawed... We have lots of it and I imagine we will be using it for a long time to come. I would just like to use it smarter.

Go ahead... show me where I said coal should be outlawed...

CO2 is a distraction that is actually hurting our ability to deal with oil price shocks.

Evidence?

Edited October 1, 2010 by dre

[TimG]

Nope, I acknowledge the flaws in the scientific process, and theres literally ALWAYS political pressure on scientists in all fields of study not just climate. But for its flaws its still by far our best method of understanding the world around us.

Sure. An sometimes the jail house snitch is the only evidence available to convict a murderer. That does not mean one blindly accepts everything the snitch claims.

Go ahead... show me where I said coal should be outlawed.

As long as you give support to the anti-CO2 activists you are supporting the call for coal to be outlawed. If you do not want that outcome you must reject the notion that CO2 should be the primary focus of energy policy.

Evidence?

If oil prices rise we need low cost electricity as an alternative. The CO2 obsession is leading to much more expensive electricity and if it continues it will undermine the viability of EVs and prolong our dependency on oil. Edited October 1, 2010 by TimG

[dre]

Sure. An sometimes the jail house snitch is the only evidence available to convict a murderer. That does not mean one blindly accepts everything the snitch claims.

As long as you give support to the anti-CO2 activists you are supporting the call for coal to be outlawed. If you do not want that outcome you must reject the notion that CO2 should be the primary focus of energy policy.

If oil prices rise we need low cost electricity as an alternative. The CO2 obsession is leading to much more expensive electricity and if it continues it will undermine the viability of EVs and prolong our dependency on oil.

As long as you give support to the anti-CO2 activists you are supporting the call for coal to be outlawed.

Exactly wrong. The coal industry has responded to the AGW phenomenon and has come up with a whole new generation of plants with much lower emissions... we have the technology to build a coal plant now that is extremely clean, and those plants will start to come online in the next 25 years. These advances will keep coal viable for a long time to come.

Your problem is that youre so politicized over this issue you think everyone on the other side of the debate is a hardcore left wing environmentalist. Thats why you fabricated that position for me.

Sure. An sometimes the jail house snitch is the only evidence available to convict a murderer. That does not mean one blindly accepts everything the snitch claims.

Another fabricated position and strawman. I dont blindly accept anything so far and scientists are still working on understand the phenomenon. Youre the one issuing blanket dismissals and alledging conspiracies.

If oil prices rise we need low cost electricity as an alternative. The CO2 obsession is leading to much more expensive electricity and if it continues it will undermine the viability of EVs and prolong our dependency on oil.

No the CO2 obsession is leading us to invest heavily in energy R&D, and take another look at alternatives such as nuclear energy, which now is armed with a powerfull new sellign point: "low co2 emissions" and has sold its first plants in North America in the last 35 years. Eventually what will happen is the exact opposite of what you claim. In fact... if it wasnt for AGW nobody would be even taking our dependance on oil seriously.

[TimG]

Exactly wrong. The coal industry has responded to the AGW phenomenon and has come up with a whole new generation of plants with much lower emissions.

AGW has absolutely nothing to do with this. The only way to reduce emissions in a coal plant is to increase effciency and increasing efficiency saves money. So these developement would have happened no matter what.

Your problem is that youre so politicized over this issue you think everyone on the other side of the debate is a hardcore left wing environmentalist. Thats why you fabricated that position for me.

What I am saying is anyone who supports CO2 reductions as a goal automatically gives the hardcore environmentalists control over policy. It really does not make a difference what your personal opinion is because that is politics. If you think a middle ground policy is required then you need to reject the notion CO2 should be the primary goal of energy policy. I think you will find that most CO2 sceptics are fully supportive of polcies designed to find alternative energy sources and reducing our dependence on oil.

No the CO2 obsession is leading us to invest heavily in energy R&D, and take another look at alternatives such as nuclear energy, which now is armed with a powerfull new sellign point: "low co2 emissions" and has sold its first plants in North America in the last 35 years.

At the same time politicians are increasing electricity prices with "renewable mandates" and blocking development of new coal plants. The 'nuclear revival' is also a joke. Two plants when 100s are needed. You also forget the Yucca mountain storage facility was finally axed without any plausible alternative for dealing with waste. The CO2 scare did nothing to help that problem. In fact, it was one of the biggests proponents of the CO2 scare that killed Yucca mountain. Edited October 1, 2010 by TimG

[betsy]

Because that worked so well for the people who found themselves in the way of the Mongols and Turks.

What do you mean?

[ToadBrother]

What do you mean?

I mean that if you get enough people coming at you, no matter how hard you try to defend against it, you're doomed. Ask the folks of Baghdad who saw one of the great cities of the Medieval world, one of the great centers of learning, utterly wiped out by the Mongols. The same thing happened all over the place. Constantinople fell to the Turks, whose ancestors also came from the Asian steppe (and, in fact, spoke languages related to their Mongol cousins). China tried to stop the Asian barbarians with the Great Wall, but it too fell to the Mongols. Russia was ruled by the Tatars for generations. The Mongols and Turks both were enormous threats to Eastern Europe, and for those in Western Europe it was a terrifying prospect.

[Michael Hardner]

Still, it would be nice to think that we would handle things slightly better than the Hun invasions...

[ToadBrother]

Still, it would be nice to think that we would handle things slightly better than the Hun invasions...

Rome handled that one best. They gave Attila lots of gold to not burn everything to the ground.

The later Mongol-Turkic invasions were considerably different, and not a quick flareout like the Huns. I'm thinking more the latter than the former.

[Bonam]

In rich nations, adaptation will be easier by far than people realize, except those where huge chunks of the country are at/below sea level. In poor nations, the misery of the past century will continue unabated.

As for waves of climate migrants... we don't have to worry about that here too much. Canada has only one land neighbor, to the South, and they are a rich nation and will adapt. The US will probably get migrants from Mexico, but the US is already dealing with millions of migrants from Mexico anyway. Maybe the wall will be finished by then? And Europe... well Europe will be Muslim by then anyway.

[TimG]

In poor nations, the misery of the past century will continue unabated.

Why do you assume the poor with still be poor in 100 years?

[betsy]

As for waves of climate migrants... we don't have to worry about that here too much. Canada has only one land neighbor, to the South, and they are a rich nation and will adapt.

And I would think that Canada and USA will work together and become allies on this since it is to the best interest of both parties. Two rich countries ....sharing the same values...and are both financially able to adapt.

Edited October 2, 2010 by betsy

[ToadBrother]

Why do you assume the poor with still be poor in 100 years?

Probably because he's not an idiot.

[TimG]

Probably because he's not an idiot.

Well, I guess that means you think the people at the IPCC are idiots because the SRES scenarios used in the IPCC climate models assume that developing nations will be muche wealthy than we are today by 2100.

Here is the data based on the SRES and and the worst case estimates of climate damage from the Stern report:

http://goklany.org/library/Goklany%20Discounting%20the%20future%20Regulation%202009%20v32n1-5.pdf

Note that the average per capita income in developing countries will be twice that of Canada today (61,500) if we do nothing. If we actually try to limit CO2 the income will be equal to Canada today (39,400).

IOW - attempting to reduce emissions will leave the developing world much poorer than it would otherwise be even after accounting for climate change.

Edited October 2, 2010 by TimG

[Bonam]

Why do you assume the poor with still be poor in 100 years?

Umm, I'm not talking about 100 years from now. My statement was in reference to the past 100 years. The "adapting to AGW" timeframe is over the next 2-4 decades, and most of the poorest nations will still be poor in that timeframe. It is pointless to consider how we will adapt to climate change more than ~40 years from now, since the available technologies will have evolved unfathomably by that time.

As for 100 years from now... I'll be an immortal software algorithm existing in an interstellar array of faster-than-light communicating quantum computers manifesting myself physically anywhere I want in any form I choose, and not giving a damn about the climate on some stuffy old planet.

Edited October 2, 2010 by Bonam

[Slim]

So that linked article assumes that no matter what we do, everyone is going to be better off in 100 years everywhere, regardless? That's... an optimistic view, at the very least.

Although I have a tough time believing that the damage to food production and rising sea levels (on top of all the other bad stuff) due to AGW will be unable to hinder global growth.

Is that a widely held belief amongst economists, then?

[TimG]

The "adapting to AGW" timeframe is over the next 2-4 decades, and most of the poorest nations will still be poor in that timeframe.

But the IPCC projections make it clear the temp will not rise much more than 1-1.5 degC in the next 2-4 decades. That would mean we would still be well under the "safe" maximum of 2 degC above pre industrial levels. The claim that we are facing major adaptation issues in the next 2-4 decades does not have any supporting evidence.

[TimG]

So that linked article assumes that no matter what we do, everyone is going to be better off in 100 years everywhere, regardless? That's... an optimistic view, at the very least.

Well that is what the economic models used by the IPCC say. Feel free to question the models but if you do you are also questioning the IPCC predictions of future temperature rise because those predictions depend on the economic models. If reality does not match the IPCC predictions (i.e. Africa stays poor) then there will be a lot less CO2 in the air and a lot less climate change to deal with.

Although I have a tough time believing that the damage to food production and rising sea levels (on top of all the other bad stuff) due to AGW will be unable to hinder global growth.

There is a bit of a slight of hand going on when the alarmists quote the costs of climate change. One hand they argue that not doing anything could reduce pe capita wealth by 10%. They then argue that doing something will reduce that cost to 5% which makes it sound like reducing emissions makes a lot of sense. What they forget to mention is limiting CO2 emissions will actually reduce wealth by nearly 30% so limiting emissions is a strategy that leaves every one poorer even after taking into account climate change damage.

Is that a widely held belief amongst economists, then?

Yes it is if you look at the numbers instead of reading the press releases that tend to put a lot of emphasis on extreme outcomes which are not included in their economic models. The Stern report which was used in the paper I linked is actually the most pessimistic. Edited October 2, 2010 by TimG

[Slim]

Well that is what the economic models used by the IPCC say. Feel free to question the models but if you do you are also questioning the IPCC predictions of future temperature rise because those predictions depend on the economic models. If reality does not match the IPCC predictions (i.e. Africa stays poor) then there will be a lot less CO2 in the air and a lot less climate change to deal with.

I've skimmed the Stern report a bit (as well as another study by Arnell cited by your link's author) and I haven't found where these numbers are coming from that he claims. But its a big document, so maybe I'll find it at some point. The Arnell study is actually a study on water resources and how they will be affected due to climate change, and I'm not sure what he uses from that study to help build his tables (or his conclusions).

Anyway, arguing that it's better to NOT do anything about CO2 emissions now and leave it for future generations seems absurd, unless you don't believe CO2 has an effect on CC.

There is a bit of a slight of hand going on when the alarmists quote the costs of climate change. One hand they argue that not doing anything could reduce pe capita wealth by 10%. They then argue that doing something will reduce that cost to 5% which makes it sound like reducing emissions makes a lot of sense. What they forget to mention is limiting CO2 emissions will actually reduce wealth by nearly 30% so limiting emissions is a strategy that leaves every one poorer even after taking into account climate change damage

30%???? Where does that number come from? I really, REALLY doubt that someone is seriously calling for such drastic measures that amount to essentially killing the economy. And regardless, that will never happen. No one is going to knowingly reduce the GDP that much.

[waldo]

Well, I guess that means you think the people at the IPCC are idiots because the SRES scenarios used in the IPCC climate models assume that developing nations will be muche wealthy than we are today by 2100.

Here is the data based on the SRES and and the worst case estimates of climate damage from the Stern report:

http://goklany.org/library/Goklany%20Discounting%20the%20future%20Regulation%202009%20v32n1-5.pdf

Note that the average per capita income in developing countries will be twice that of Canada today (61,500) if we do nothing. If we actually try to limit CO2 the income will be equal to Canada today (39,400).

IOW - attempting to reduce emissions will leave the developing world much poorer than it would otherwise be even after accounting for climate change.

clearly, specificity remains your continued shortcoming. One has a little difficulty in reading you attempting to leverage the IPCC SRES scenarios, when I'm still waiting for you to clarify and contextually apply your designated 'business as usual' position to a particular SRES scenario... still waiting.....

and really... couldn't you find anything from your favoured Richard Tol... certainly, in seeing you spread your reach with a link to a politically appointed AGW denier like Goklany, a politically inspired response is due - although the following really does belong in the parallel running MLW thread that gives testimony to anti-science Conservatives/Republicans.

A nice rant from our good friends at DailyK -

Why is a Bush mole running the key Interior policy unit?

There's been much recent discussion of the need -- and Ken Salazar's failure so far -- to clean Bush appointees out of the Interior Department. Things are famously very bad at the Minerals Management Service (MMS), but a former Cato Institute "scholar" laboring in obscurity high up in the central administration is in a position to do similar damage.

The mole is Indur Goklany and, as his personal publications page shows, his views are no secret. While at Interior he's continued to publish extensively through various wingnut outlets, and just last week was a prominent participant in the Heartland Institute's climate conference (aka Denial-a-palooza 2010).

Climate change denial seems to be Goklany's specialty, and given the vast scope of his duties (see below) it seems inescapable that he would have major input into every significant climate policy decision made by Interior. (He takes the common "respectable" wingnut thinktank view of climate change, which is to agree it's happening but then to come up with various reasons why nothing should be done about it.)

Goklany appears to have been hired at Interior in 2003, following a two-year stint at the American Enterprise Institute (the Cato gig was earlier), and today occupies a key role at the heart of Interior -- head of the Program Coordination section of the Office of Policy Analysis. His title is a mouthful, even for fedspeak: "Assistant Director of Programs and Science & Technology Policy."

Goklany appears not to hold 'civil servant employment protection'... this, obviously, looks like a case point example of the much discussed difficulty the Obama admin is having in changing key appointees... as in GOP blockages. Of course, we could have some real fun with the recent blog-a-whirl that Goklany has stirred over his attacks against Bill Gates (vis-a-vis DDT/Malaria)... but that's another thread - hey?

[TimG]

and really... couldn't you find anything from your favoured Richard Tol... certainly, in seeing you spread your reach with a link to a politically appointed AGW denier like Goklany

I take it from your response that you are incapable of actually addressing the substance of the argument?

[waldo]

I take it from your response that you are incapable of actually addressing the substance of the argument?

I take it from your response that you are incapable of recognizing that when a source is tainted... exposed as tainted... one shouldn't double-down on that source - hey?

btw - have you decided which AR4 SRES scenario you'd like to attach your 'business as usual' designation to?

[TimG]

I take it from your response that you are incapable of recognizing that when a source is tainted... exposed as tainted... one shouldn't double-down on that source - hey?

Actually, I think your premise that an entire argument can be dismissed simply because you do not like the source is quite childish and demostrates that you have nothing to contribute.

[waldo]

Actually, I think your premise that an entire argument can be dismissed simply because you do not like the source is quite childish and demostrates that you have nothing to contribute.

no - I have zero interest in even attempting to reconcile the pointed agenda driven writings of someone clearly defined by his past publications - an avowed denier, one with a checkered history with assorted right-wing think tanks/organizations (Cato, AEI, Heartland). I'm quite content to highlight that you relish drawing from the writings of that type of biased source... that you take exception to having the background of your sources revealed is also a bonus.

as for a real contribution to this thread, I've expressed my thoughts several times over in past climate change related threads... a good example being something akin to the IEA Roadmap. Oh wait, you didn't like that one - did you? No, it doesn't sit well with your delay at all costs mindset... with your adapt-R-Us closed mindedness - hey?

[TimG]

I have zero interest in even attempting to reconcile the pointed agenda driven writings of someone clearly defined by his past publications

A rather silly claim since everyone who comments on these issues is 'agenda driven'.

As far as the substance goes: we are talking about economic projections for the next 100 years. I don't consider them particularily credible no matter who the source is. However, the numbers demonstrate that people predicting economic catastrophe are spouting nonsense. We don't know what the effect of climate change will be and it is impossible to do any sort of cost benefit calculation that would allow us to justify spending a lot of money now on things that many not be necessary. The most rational strategy now is develop our economy and adapt as required.

a good example being something akin to the IEA Roadmap. Oh wait, you didn't like that one - did you?

And I explained why: it identifies the major technology gaps that need funding (a good thing) but it goes on to claim that specific timelines could be met if enough money was spent on these technology gaps. R&D does not work like that. Innovation does not happen on bureaucrats schedule and some of these technology gaps are huge and may never be filled.

The net result is a report that is largely wishful thinking. If one ignores the fictional timelines the IEA roadmap is a useful document and perfectly in line with my call to increase R&D spending. It also means that adaptation is the only feasible strategy since we cannot know that the technology will be found until it is found.

Edited October 2, 2010 by TimG

[waldo]

And I explained why: it identifies the major technology gaps that need funding (a good thing) but it goes on to claim that specific timelines could be met if enough money was spent on these technology gaps. R&D does not work like that. Innovation does not happen on bureaucrats schedule and some of these technology gaps are huge and may never be filled.

The net result is a report that is largely wishful thinking. If one ignores the fictional timelines the IEA roadmap is a useful document and perfectly in line with my call to increase R&D spending. It also means that adaptation is the only feasible strategy since we cannot know that the technology will be found until it is found.

wash, rinse, repeat cycle... the roadmap offers an immediate target/goal that aims to reduce emissions over a protracted 40+ years. You simply can't fathom any approach that presumes to target emission reduction. Of course, the IEA roadmap (exec summary - as only an example), in no way positions to eliminate the use of FF over that period - obviously it can't be done, wouldn't make sense to do it... and would never be accepted. So the roadmap constructs an approach that reconciles a continued dependency on FF => leveraging investments in renewables, nuclear power and a smart electric grid, and perfecting technologies such as carbon sequestration.

you keep harping on a technology gap - "missing technologies" - but never quite manage to, with specificity, identify what's missing in relation to what timeline... but, as always, that's what advocates for delay (and inaction) reach for. You also repeat (again, and again) that only innovation can truly drive R&D... cause... targets, goals, incentives, subsidies... they're just things that must stifle ingenuity!