It's the [Climate Polcy] Stupid!

[TimG]

model hindcasts and projections have shown credible and useful results.

BS. The hindcasts are barely able to get something close to the GMST trend. When it comes to predictions over the last decade they have failed miserably. When you look at other parameters like rainfall or any sort of comparison on a regional basis they fail miserably. There is no reason for a rational person to take these models as an authorative statement on anything. They are no better than reading tarot cards.

present a GCM that can explain climate's behaviour over the past century without CO2 warming.

You don't need a GCM. Simple models using different parametrizations for aerosols, clouds and UHI can easily replicate the GMST trend which is all the GCMs can do.

BTW - it is not up to me to prove the models wrong. it is up to the modellers to convince me that their models are useful. So far they have failed. Calling me names because I don't lap up the pronouncements of climate priests simply demonstrates how weak your arguments are.

[waldo]

model hindcasts and projections have shown credible and useful results... your standard and predictable denier slam against models has been dealt with many times over in assorted MLW threads. Do you have something new to offer... other than your continued agenda driven (unsubstantiated) comments? Since you now cast all climatologists using modeling as dishonest, care to speculate why none of your denier team has been able to step forward and present a GCM that can explain climate's behaviour over the past century without CO2 warming. I mean, really... if, as you accuse and label, "there are simply too many ways for a computer modeler to tweek the results", what's holding your denier team back from doing exactly that? Or do you claim the denier team to be, uhhh... too "principled" to engage in the same dishonest & fraud labeling you attach to climatologists using modeling... the labeling you, as always, provide without accompanying substantiation.

BS. The hindcasts are barely able to get something close to the GMST trend. When it comes to predictions over the last decade they have failed miserably. When you look at other parameters like rainfall or any sort of comparison on a regional basis they fail miserably. There is no reason for a rational person to take these models as an authorative statement on anything. They are no better than reading tarot cards.

a recent review update comparing AR4 model-projection results: here

as follows, a trip down MLW memory lane... it seems you're quite consistent. Imagine the unmitigated gall of attempting to make a case for 7 year short-term trending - hey? btw... any updates on that unpublished... going through peer review paper? [/snarc]

The author is a well known AGW propoganda generator. He would have shopped around until he found somebody to support his predetermined position. I provided a link to a source that illustrates how sensitive such claims are to the choice of start date and why picking 1990 as a start date is just as much a cherry pick as picking 1998. The analyses I look at start in 2001 because that is when the climate model runs used in the IPCC report start predicting the future. That makes it the only appropriate date to use when comparing model predictions to reality.

Surely… given your 2001 year emphasis, you can’t be seriously attempting to, with credence, speak to AR4 modelling projection comparisons. Global (warming) temperature signal to variability noise ratio within only 7 years of data introduces major uncertainty to estimated trends. In that context you must be speaking to IPCC TAR (Third Assessment Report) where IPCC scenarios and projections start in the year 1990 - right?

In that IPCC TAR context, model references used to make the IPCC projections begin their computations in 1990. We’re not talking anything new/revealing here… peer reviewed papers have, of course, already shown a comparison of IPCC projections to observed temperature – example: Rahmstorf et al. – a published paper in Science Magazine (VOL 316, 4 MAY 2007) that for comparison purposes used annual average land-ocean surface temperature from NASA GISS and the Hadley Centre/Climate Research Unit for the years 1990 through 2006.

From the abstract:

We compiled the most recent observed climate trends for carbon dioxide concentration, global mean air temperature, and global sea level, and we compare these trends to previous model projections as summarized in the 2001 assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The IPCC scenarios and projections start in the year 1990, which is also the base year of the Kyoto protocol, in which almost all industrialized nations accepted a binding commitment to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. Although published in 2001, these model projections are essentially independent from the observed climate data since 1990.

.

.

Overall, these observational data underscore the concerns about global climate change. Previous projections, as summarized by IPCC, have not exaggerated but may in some respects even have underestimated the change, in particular for sea level.

It is quite telling for you to state, “That makes it (2001) the only appropriate date to use when comparing model predictions to reality.” For you to suggest such a short time period since 2001, certainly, calls to question your interpretations of model comparisons (climate or otherwise)… the period since 2001, a mere 7 years, is clearly too short to make meaningful comparisons – to draw trend conclusions… to negate random fluctuations in observed comparison data to long-term projection trends.

You’ve offered previous suggestion that the Rahmstorf et al study was, as you stated, “BS”… by linking to a couple of your skeptic blog specialists who were fixated on the smoothing method and chosen parameters. I’ve read the direct exchanges (and disagreements) between Rahmstorf and one of your linked to denier bloggers… the end result being a challenge from Rahmstorf to your linked to denier blogger to publish his counter findings… that exchange was about a year ago now… interesting that nothing appears to have resulted from that challenge; i.e. the denier blogger appears not to have taken up the challenge. The bottom line appears to be a dispute as to where exactly the Rahmstorf study findings fit within the IPCC TAR projections… not whether they fit within the projections, just where they fit… even with their criticism, your denier bloggers do acknowledge the Rahmstorf study findings fit within “the center” of the IPCC TAR model projections.

In any case others have also shown that the Rahmstorf study findings – the “smoothed temperature curves” clearly lie within the IPCC TAR model projection area for any of the smoothing periods (11, 14 or 15 years), regardless of whether roughness minimization is used – emphasizing that endpoint artefacts are of no consequence.

And yet… you summarily dispatched the Rahmstorf study (previously linked to by wyly) as “BS”. Really – perhaps to skeptic bloggers and those that revere their perceived statistical “wizardry”.

You purposely negate the thrust of what's been front and center across a big part of the denialsphere in recent months/weeks... claims that global warming has been "debunked" because of, apparently, skeptic statistician's claims that temperature cooling trends have been observed in satellite temperature data. Of course you won't listen to NASA or NOAA representatives who recently reworked all their data in response to this latest denialsphere cooling trend BS... finding that no such cooling trend can be found/exists... so... fresh off another of your continuing hyped references to skeptic statisticians I thought it considerate of me to allow you to digest the review of a group of independently selected statisticians... a refreshing change for you... wouldn't you think?

The cooling trend exists depending on where you start. Anyone who says that it has not been cooling over the last 10 years is lying or incompetent.

Those independently selected statisticians looked for trends… across 2 sets of data provided to them: data from, “NOAA's year-to-year ground temperature changes over 130 years and the 30 years of satellite-measured temperatures preferred by skeptics and gathered by scientists at the University of Alabama in Huntsville.” The independently selected statisticians observed the presence of a, “distinct decades-long upward numbers trend”… while at the same time advising they, “could not find a significant drop in the past 10 years in either data set.”

For you to be fixated on a single year starting point within the last 30 years… is that your accepted time frame for considerations toward long term trending? 30 years? In any case, as mentioned, those independent statisticians could not find a cooling trend in the last 10 years of the 30 year data set numbers you prefer/reference.

If you believe that such naive claims are evidence of the "accuracy" of the climate models then you probably believe that astrology can predict the future too. The latest batch of climate models started predicting the future in Jan 2001. Since then temperatures for a number of key metrics have dropped when the climate models said the should have risen. When a proper statistical analysis is done it is possible to show that the difference between reality and the latest batch of models is too large to be explained by random weather variations. Something wrong with the models. The most plausible explaination is they exagerrate the amount of warming that is caused by the CO2.

citation request... for your "proper statistical analysis"

I note you didn't answer my citation request for your declared, "proper statistical analysis"... waiting.

It is in a paper currently going through peer review, however, the techniques used are identical to the techniques used in a recent Santer et al. paper that tried to claim that the data was consistent with the models but they choose to omit data after 1998. When these same techniques are applied to data up to the present the data is not consistent with the models. If you disagree with the techniques then you are disagreeing with the Santer et al paper that used them to support the alarmists position.

The analysis that is used in this submitted paper can be found here: http://rankexploits.com/musings/2009/hadcrut-ncdc-and-giss-trends-through-august/

1.Since 2001 the least squares trends are -0.10 C/century, -0.90 C/century and -0.37 C/century for GISS, Hadley and NOAA respectively. The multimodel mean trends for AR4 runs forced with the A1B scenarios were +2.7 C/century and 2.4 C/century for models forced with and without volcanic aerosols respectively. These fall well outside the redcorrected ±95% confidence interval for the mean trend associated with the earth’s weather noise.

I have no difficulty finding accounts that speak to the robustness of the AR4 projected long term trends (global warming)… and that speak to the affects of short term variable influences (weather) in the models. Again, with your quoted 2001 reference, you/the skeptic blogger continue to have a fixation on short time scale tendencies.

As an aside, with your peer review mention, is this the same peer review process you described as “broken”… otherwise inferring fraud, deceit and favouritism…interesting that you would now tout “peer review” for the skeptic blogger associated with your referenced link. In any case, your referenced link describes nothing about said paper currently going through peer review (journal/magazine/publication?), not withstanding your apparent assumption “said paper” will be accepted within “said peer review process”. You raise a challenge with reference to the “techniques used”… comparing it to a “Santer et al” paper. If you really expect a reply to this, you’ll need to provide something that actually describes the techniques you’re referring to and identifies the “Santer et al” paper you’re comparing them to. Certainly, your referenced skeptic blogger’s link doesn’t speak to that level of detail or comparison.

Direct and inferred criticism/questioning that I’ve read of your referenced skeptic blogger’s ‘unpublished study’ runs the gamut from raised uncertainties associated with shorter term decadal trending (uncertainties associated with LTP/auto correction)… to whether the mean trend results for SRES A1B forcings are correct (with/without volcanic aerosols) and whether they actually fall within (or outside) the confidence limits… to whether long term variability/noise are properly handled within the multi-model analysis… to highlighting the obvious consideration that short term behaviour of individual model runs is impacted by ‘weather’ variability in the models associated with annual/decadal inter-relationships between models. Perhaps… if the skeptic bloggers “findings” gain acceptance – are published …..

But that’s it? You’re offering a refute to the veracity of the AR4 model projections… by providing a skeptic bloggers link (that includes literally a short few paragraphs offering) and suggesting peer review submission is ongoing. That’s it… that’s what you’re going with… to refute the AR4 model projections? That’s the “proper statistical analysis” you referred to… that I asked your citation for (twice). That’s it? By the way… when does “proper statistical analysis” meet “climate science” in your skeptics world... or does it?

I note you didn't provide any of your own example(s) of models that can explain climate's behaviour over the past century without factoring CO2... waiting.

The planet warmed from 1910 to 1940. This warming was natural. The rate and magnitude of warming is identical to the warming from 1978 to 1998. This means there is no need for anyone to show that the warming from 1978 to 1998 was natural - that is the default assumption. The onus is on the AGW types to demonstrate that it was not natural and they cannot do that with climate models that have been tuned to match the historical record.

Your default premise/assumption doesn’t account for either the rate or magnitude at which the Earth is warming… and the models follow the historical record with appropriate and accepted/applicable forcings - without greenhouse-gas forcing, there’s simply no explanation for modern warming. Other than your unpublished blogger’s reference, do you have accepted published findings to refute the veracity of the prominent existing IPCC climate models?

[waldo]

The outputs of unverifiable computer models are not something that we can afford to get too excited about. There are simply too many ways for a computer modeller to tweek the results in order to grap media attention, funding and recognition of peers. They have no credibility. The only thing we can say for certain is the planet will most likely warm in the future. This will be both good and bad.

model hindcasts and projections have shown credible and useful results... your standard and predictable denier slam against models has been dealt with many times over in assorted MLW threads. Do you have something new to offer... other than your continued agenda driven (unsubstantiated) comments? Since you now cast all climatologists using modeling as dishonest, care to speculate why none of your denier team has been able to step forward and present a GCM that can explain climate's behaviour over the past century without CO2 warming. I mean, really... if, as you accuse and label, "there are simply too many ways for a computer modeler to tweek the results", what's holding your denier team back from doing exactly that? Or do you claim the denier team to be, uhhh... too "principled" to engage in the same dishonest & fraud labeling you attach to climatologists using modeling... the labeling you, as always, provide without accompanying substantiation.

You don't need a GCM. Simple models using different parametrizations for aerosols, clouds and UHI can easily replicate the GMST trend which is all the GCMs can do.

nice dodge... the point being made... the challenge to you... was to have you present a GCM that, as I said, "can explain climate's behaviour over the past century without CO2 warming". In your, 'all about alternatives other than CO2' world, you should be able to do that - hey?

BTW - it is not up to me to prove the models wrong. it is up to the modellers to convince me that their models are useful. So far they have failed. Calling me names because I don't lap up the pronouncements of climate priests simply demonstrates how weak your arguments are.

your presumption of failure fits your pre-determined agenda. As for your fake trumped up concern about being labeled a denier, remember that in your continued repeat pattern of throwing out the alarmist and CAGW tags... while, as you just did, labeling AGW proponent scientists as "dishonest" and "frauds"... and, as you just did, "climate priests". You poor, poor baby... you were, as you say, "called a name"... whaaa!

[waldo]

Obviously, it is not perfect but it does not have to be perfect - it just has to be better than all others.

[jbg]

Finally some acknowledgement in the media that the science of climate change is a secondary concern. What really matters is how we balance the risk of climate change among all of the other issues that governments have to deal with:

**************

The bottom line is we will be burning stuff for energy 50 years from now whether we like it or not. The only question is how much money will be wasted before politicians stop pandering to the spoiled little rich kids in environmental movement.

The real agenda is to give control freaks, or those who profit from the existence of controls, some leverage. This has little to do with climate and everything to do with "state (or U.N.) knows best.

[TimG]

a recent review update comparing AR4 model-projection results:

Oh just look at those error bands! Looks like we could have had no warming since 1990 and it still would be 'consistent' with the models. It appears RC is a great believer in tarot card reading because they adopt the same technique (make predictions that are so vague that any possible outcome can be considered at 'hit'). Edited February 6, 2011 by TimG

[waldo]

The real agenda is to give control freaks, or those who profit from the existence of controls, some leverage. This has little to do with climate and everything to do with "state (or U.N.) knows best.

huh! You go right back to the OP and the op-ed reference... as I said, way back:

Finally some acknowledgement in the media that the science of climate change is a secondary concern.

ok, ok... noted: an op-ed rises to the level of TimG media acknowledgment!

hey now - isn't that the same Ramesh Thakur who (also) wrote:

For example, the threat of climate change is grave enough to make collective action both necessary and urgent. Global climate change poses significant risks to the planet, and all nations have an important stake in addressing this new threat. But while the responsibility for causing climate change rests largely with the rich countries, the poor people will be the hardest hit by worsening drought, weather volatility and extremes, and a rising sea level.

The responsibility for having created the problem through carbon-intensive growth and profligate consumption patterns, and therefore for the solutions, rests mainly with the rich countries who have far deeper carbon footprints and also the financial and technological muscle to undertake the necessary action. The three worst GHG emitters per capita are the United States, Canada and Australia. If the whole world adopted U.S. and Canadian levels of production, consumption and waste generation, we would need nine planets Earth to sustain them.

Who is going to pay for the costs of addressing global climate change? How will these be shared? "Sustainable development" has been subverted into sustainable consumption for the industrialized countries. Developing countries need more transition time, financing for low-carbon technology transfer and assistance with adaptation. Differential capacity between the rich and poor countries carries the risk of "drifting into a world of adaptation apartheid," in the words of Nobel Laureate Desmond Tutu.

Industrial and emerging market economies need to acknowledge their common but differentiated responsibilities, accept an equivalence of burden-sharing, see that all countries take national action on climate change, and negotiate an effective regime aimed at stabilizing global levels of carbon emissions within agreed, acceptable targets

[waldo]

Oh just look at those error bands! Looks like we could have had no warming since 1990 and it still would be 'consistent' with the models. It appears RC is a great believer in tarot card reading because they adopt the same technique (make predictions that are so vague that any possible outcome can be considered at 'hit').

In any case, if you want to go live in cave because you believe these models have some connection to reality then go for it. I (and a lot of others) will not be joining you.

Obviously, it is not perfect but it does not have to be perfect - it just has to be better than all others.

:lol:

[TimG]

in another currently topical MLW thread, when speaking of models.

If you had read the thread you would have seen that I said a theory has to be able to make predictions to be useful. CAGW is not a useful theory because it claims that any possible outcome is 'consistent with' the theory. This makes it useless theory.

The recent attempts by CAGW activists to link the recent snow storms to CAGW is a perfect example of why CAGW has more in common with creationism than evolution.

Lastly, no one is asking to introduce a massive regime for taxation and regulation based on evolution. That means the onus of evidence for CAGW is much much higher for CAGW.

Edited February 6, 2011 by TimG

[WIP]

Whatever we need to do. It is not like we have a choice since there are no viable alternatives to fossil fuels today that can be deployed at the scale required.

We have choices! The ones that the oil and coal companies are trying to prevent funding for, so that they can collect all of the tax benefits for oil development. Also, those claims of oil being the only alternative, use the in-built assumption that we need to carry on present rates of energy usage. It seems that we have no choice about reducing energy consumption regardless of which picture you are looking at: from a climate impact perspective, or just considering the fact that oil, gas and coal are non-renewable and running out real fast. The smart thing to do would be to start reducing oil use drastically right now, because we need oil for other things besides gassing up the car! The only reason why it is even possible to feed seven billion people in the world today, is because of oil-based fertilizers; and just about everything we use these days is made of oil-based plastics....so, instead of trying to go deeper under the ocean floor, or using the dirtiest sources: tar sands and proposed shale deposits, the smart thing to do would be to make a pre-emptive strike against Peak Oil. This could be done by putting on a carbon tax that factors in the environmental costs of burning oil and coal, and subsidizing energy sources that deserve the attention, but interfere with the billions of dollars in profits that the large oil producers are still raking in.

Only delusional crackpots believe that the survival of the human race is at stake. Climate change is purely an economic problem and the cost of trying to prevent it must be weighed against the cost of dealing with it.

Delusional crackpots like Stephen Hawking I presume? The only new angle he adds to the picture is that he believes we have to establish our species beyond Planet Earth by that time to prevent extinction.

The 200 year window has to be taken seriously when the problems of overpopulation, soil depletion, and increasing climate change are factored together. Biologists who are taking a hard look at the human species, believe that we face extinction perils similar to any animal that undergoes a sudden crash in population, where starvation gives rise to virulent new diseases, and scatter weakened populations so that they do not have enough genetic diversity to remain a viable species. According to molecular biologists, our DNA record shows evidence of having hit a population bottleneck between 60 and 70,000 years ago, possibly related to a supervolcano eruption that went off in the Indonesian Archipeligo. The human family dropped to as few as 2,000 in a short period of time. Any lower, and the human population would have never recovered and eventually died out completely. Here we are looking at environmental factors that are going to force a population crash sometime in the coming decades if nothing is done to stop it, plus we have the added factor of nuclear weapons to add to the mix.

[WIP]

If you had read the thread you would have seen that I said a theory has to be able to make predictions to be useful. CAGW is not a useful theory because it claims that any possible outcome is 'consistent with' the theory. This makes it useless theory.

What I've read from climatologists, they give serious consideration to the complexities and unknown factors in trying to analyze the global climate picture; but if there is anything inconsistent, it is the fact that the eventual results of rising CO2, methane levels, declining sea ice, and rising average temperatures are occurring much faster than the climate models predict. For some reason you and the deniers think that's a reason to think they don't apply, rather than the fact that things are more likely worse than climate projections indicate.

The recent attempts by CAGW activists to link the recent snow storms to CAGW is a perfect example of why CAGW has more in common with creationism than evolution.

The changes in the Polar Vortex are a good example of what can go wrong unexpectedly if you just screw around with nature without anticipating any negative consequences. And, in case you're not paying attention, it's summer in the Southern Hemisphere, and the West Antarctic Ice Sheet is shrinking, but you likely won't hear that on Sean Hannity's show when he sends some stooge out with a camera to see how much snow is outside!

Lastly, no one is asking to introduce a massive regime for taxation and regulation based on evolution. That means the onus of evidence for CAGW is much much higher for CAGW.

The fact that the expert consensus of opinion is 97% for what you call CAGW, that means the tools you consider to be climate authorities have to explain how the facts like: rising Co2 rates, increasingly violent storms, and shrinking ice, can be dealt with without taking action against human-produced carbon emissions.

Edited February 6, 2011 by WIP

[jbg]

huh! You go right back to the OP and the op-ed reference... as I said, way back:

I almost always start by commenting on the opening post. And always when I can predict with whose cr@p litter the intermediate posts.

[TimG]

Also, those claims of oil being the only alternative, use the in-built assumption that we need to carry on present rates of energy usage.

Energy usage goes hand in hand with wealth. We create wealth by consuming energy. Over time we have become more efficient at using energy so we can create more wealth with less energy but that does not change the fundemental equation. i.e. if we want economic growth and the increase in standard of living that goes with then energy consumption must go up. No amount of wishful thinking will change that.

smart thing to do would be to make a pre-emptive strike against Peak Oil.

Don't use dishonest arguments. If you really cared about peak oil you would be promoting coal and natural gas because we have lots of that. But you don't because your real obsession is CO2 and talk about peak oil is an attempt to hide your true agenda.

This could be done by putting on a carbon tax

I said that I support a carbon tax. The trouble is a carbon tax will do little or nothing to reduce emissions because the cost differential between fossil fuels and the alternatives is too high to be overcome with any politically feasible tax.

Delusional crackpots like Stephen Hawking I presume? The only new angle he adds to the picture is that he believes we have to establish our species beyond Planet Earth by that time to prevent extinction.

If he thinks that extinction is a likely outcome of AGW then he is a delusional crackpot. However, I suspect he is looking at a much broader picture - a picture that is not going to be made better because we create massive toxic waste dumps in order create the high tech goodies which are supposed to save us from fossil fuels. Edited February 6, 2011 by TimG

[waldo]

Obviously, it is not perfect but it does not have to be perfect - it just has to be better than all others.

:lol:

If you had read the thread you would have seen that I said a theory has to be able to make predictions to be useful. CAGW is not a useful theory because it claims that any possible outcome is 'consistent with' the theory. This makes it useless theory.

again, you're in dodge mode... the point you're dodging is your selective, self-serving judgment on models... you were, of course, speaking to the merits of different economic models... and yet/equally... you relentlessly pull out economic models related to climate change in futile attempts to make your case for delay/do nothing. As I highlighted, the irony meter maxes out on your selective assessment of models... "don't need to be perfect... just better than all others". Meanwhile, you beak-off about the range of uncertainty within the GMST graphic I presented while conveniently ignoring the results of the ensemble runs as compared to observations. It's quite clear why you would choose to ignore the graphed comparison showing the annual mean anomalies from the IPCC AR4 models plotted against the surface temperature records from the HadCRUT3v, NCDC and GISTEMP products... not quite the results that fits your unsubstantiated denier slam against the credibility of IPCC models - hey?

[waldo]

Only delusional crackpots believe that the survival of the human race is at stake. Climate change is purely an economic problem and the cost of trying to prevent it must be weighed against the cost of dealing with it.

Delusional crackpots like Stephen Hawking I presume? The only new angle he adds to the picture is that he believes we have to establish our species beyond Planet Earth by that time to prevent extinction.

The 200 year window has to be taken seriously when the problems of overpopulation, soil depletion, and increasing climate change are factored together. Biologists who are taking a hard look at the human species, believe that we face extinction perils similar to any animal that undergoes a sudden crash in population, where starvation gives rise to virulent new diseases, and scatter weakened populations so that they do not have enough genetic diversity to remain a viable species. According to molecular biologists, our DNA record shows evidence of having hit a population bottleneck between 60 and 70,000 years ago, possibly related to a supervolcano eruption that went off in the Indonesian Archipeligo. The human family dropped to as few as 2,000 in a short period of time. Any lower, and the human population would have never recovered and eventually died out completely. Here we are looking at environmental factors that are going to force a population crash sometime in the coming decades if nothing is done to stop it, plus we have the added factor of nuclear weapons to add to the mix.

a (most) lengthy video that puts perspective around the TimG's of the world trivilizing and categorizing climate change impacts as a simple balanced economic valuation... embedding disabled by request - direct youtube link @ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jqxENMKaeCU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jqxENMKaeCU

[WIP]

a (most) lengthy video that puts perspective around the TimG's of the world trivilizing and categorizing climate change impacts as a simple balanced economic valuation... embedding disabled by request - direct youtube link @ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jqxENMKaeCU

Thanks for posting that video! I may be the only one who watched it all the way through, but I'd say this doc does the best presentation I've seen of tying everything together to TRY to inform the general public of the scope and scale of the problems the world is facing today. I got caught up in a comment battle there yesterday with some twits who were voting it down because they were offended because the narrator said "life appeared nearly 4 billion years ago" instead of life was created by God or something...there may be too many of these fools taking up valuable oxygen to save the planet!

If you've heard of the Radio Ecoshock show done by environmental activist - Alex Smith in the Vancouver area, this last week he had a panel of guests who want to turn attention towards how overpopulation intersects with these problems of environment and resource scarcity -- RAPID POPULATION DECLINE OR BUST. One of the guests - automotive engineer Jack Alpert, fears that humans may be too stupid to survive! He explains his frustration as a young engineer, inventing the seat belt to save lives, and then finding many people wouldn't use it anyway. Alpert says he learned from psychologists that there is a basic problem in most people's reasoning, where they would prefer to muddle through a problem rather than solve it immediately if they see the benefits as something distant, rather than immediate gratification. Alpert believes that no climate policy can provide a permanent solution to ensure the survival of the human race without finding a way for rapid population decline. He makes a case that our modern civilization is already starting a death spiral, because the world's agriculture can barely meet consumer needs during good years, and there are no reserves to get the world through major disasters in food-growing exporters. World agriculture is already in a state of overcapacity (as mentioned in the movie), where soil depletion and declining groundwater is reducing agricultural output.

When there are floods, droughts, hurricanes, cyclones (like this past year) food exports drop, and commodity prices soar. Maybe you've noticed that meat and cereal prices have jumped significantly in the past year, but at least we have the money to buy more. Just recently, we learned that Southern China's winter wheat harvest was a bust, caused by drought and bad weather. China will be buying more on the international markets and raising world food commodity prices. How will Canada, as a net food exporter, respond to the world crisis? Will we keep exporting and watch our domestic food prices soar? Or will we try to declare a moratorium on exports, like Russia did last summer? If food prices keep rising, Canada is in a much weaker position than Russia to say no to exports. Russia has nukes, we don't. And we have 300 million Americans to our south that are armed to the teeth. If there are no surplus years in the near future like 2009 to ease the impact of declining world agricultural yields, I doubt that we will be able to stop grain exports from going south and diverting them to markets in Eastern Canada. A little food for thought, since the near future may see America going from being seen as our protector, to our exploiter, just the same as those people in most of the Third World view the American Empire.

[waldo]

Thanks for posting that video!

World agriculture is already in a state of overcapacity (as mentioned in the movie), where soil depletion and declining groundwater is reducing agricultural output.

When there are floods, droughts, hurricanes, cyclones (like this past year) food exports drop, and commodity prices soar. Maybe you've noticed that meat and cereal prices have jumped significantly in the past year, but at least we have the money to buy more. Just recently, we learned that Southern China's winter wheat harvest was a bust, caused by drought and bad weather. China will be buying more on the international markets and raising world food commodity prices. How will Canada, as a net food exporter, respond to the world crisis? Will we keep exporting and watch our domestic food prices soar? Or will we try to declare a moratorium on exports, like Russia did last summer?

yes, a most powerful video... I wonder if any of the usual suspect MLW idgits bothered to even open it up! Perhaps their only eye-opener to the realities of beginning/possible impacts will come about as a result of rising local food prices hitting their wallets... if you had a chance to read the recent days NYT column from Nobel laureate Paul Krugman - Droughts, Floods and Food:

We’re in the midst of a global food crisis — the second in three years. World food prices hit a record in January, driven by huge increases in the prices of wheat, corn, sugar and oils. These soaring prices have had only a modest effect on U.S. inflation, which is still low by historical standards, but they’re having a brutal impact on the world’s poor, who spend much if not most of their income on basic foodstuffs.

The consequences of this food crisis go far beyond economics. After all, the big question about uprisings against corrupt and oppressive regimes in the Middle East isn’t so much why they’re happening as why they’re happening now. And there’s little question that sky-high food prices have been an important trigger for popular rage.

So what’s behind the price spike? American right-wingers (and the Chinese) blame easy-money policies at the Federal Reserve, with at least one commentator declaring that there is “blood on Bernanke’s hands.” Meanwhile, President Nicolas Sarkozy of France blames speculators, accusing them of “extortion and pillaging.”

But the evidence tells a different, much more ominous story. While several factors have contributed to soaring food prices, what really stands out is the extent to which severe weather events have disrupted agricultural production. And these severe weather events are exactly the kind of thing we’d expect to see as rising concentrations of greenhouse gases change our climate — which means that the current food price surge may be just the beginning.

Now, to some extent soaring food prices are part of a general commodity boom: the prices of many raw materials, running the gamut from aluminum to zinc, have been rising rapidly since early 2009, mainly thanks to rapid industrial growth in emerging markets.

But the link between industrial growth and demand is a lot clearer for, say, copper than it is for food. Except in very poor countries, rising incomes don’t have much effect on how much people eat.

It’s true that growth in emerging nations like China leads to rising meat consumption, and hence rising demand for animal feed. It’s also true that agricultural raw materials, especially cotton, compete for land and other resources with food crops — as does the subsidized production of ethanol, which consumes a lot of corn. So both economic growth and bad energy policy have played some role in the food price surge.

Still, food prices lagged behind the prices of other commodities until last summer. Then the weather struck.

Consider the case of wheat, whose price has almost doubled since the summer. The immediate cause of the wheat price spike is obvious: world production is down sharply. The bulk of that production decline, according to U.S. Department of Agriculture data, reflects a sharp plunge in the former Soviet Union. And we know what that’s about: a record heat wave and drought, which pushed Moscow temperatures above 100 degrees for the first time ever.

The Russian heat wave was only one of many recent extreme weather events, from dry weather in Brazil to biblical-proportion flooding in Australia, that have damaged world food production.

The question then becomes, what’s behind all this extreme weather?

To some extent we’re seeing the results of a natural phenomenon, La Niña — a periodic event in which water in the equatorial Pacific becomes cooler than normal. And La Niña events have historically been associated with global food crises, including the crisis of 2007-8.

But that’s not the whole story. Don’t let the snow fool you: globally, 2010 was tied with 2005 for warmest year on record, even though we were at a solar minimum and La Niña was a cooling factor in the second half of the year. Temperature records were set not just in Russia but in no fewer than 19 countries, covering a fifth of the world’s land area. And both droughts and floods are natural consequences of a warming world: droughts because it’s hotter, floods because warm oceans release more water vapor.

As always, you can’t attribute any one weather event to greenhouse gases. But the pattern we’re seeing, with extreme highs and extreme weather in general becoming much more common, is just what you’d expect from climate change.

The usual suspects will, of course, go wild over suggestions that global warming has something to do with the food crisis; those who insist that Ben Bernanke has blood on his hands tend to be more or less the same people who insist that the scientific consensus on climate reflects a vast leftist conspiracy.

But the evidence does, in fact, suggest that what we’re getting now is a first taste of the disruption, economic and political, that we’ll face in a warming world. And given our failure to act on greenhouse gases, there will be much more, and much worse, to come.

[WIP]

yes, a most powerful video... I wonder if any of the usual suspect MLW idgits bothered to even open it up! Perhaps their only eye-opener to the realities of beginning/possible impacts will come about as a result of rising local food prices hitting their wallets... if you had a chance to read the recent days NYT column from Nobel laureate Paul Krugman - Droughts, Floods and Food:

Thanks for the heads-up! I guess even economists are realizing that there are forces at work that are larger than simple economic theory. Up till now, it seems most of the coverage about Egypt, Tunisia, and Yemen has been trying to focus on the nuances of politics, and they have not been paying attention to the food riots that have been going on in the Middle East and other Third World countries over the past year. This reminds me of when I took highschool history class many, many years ago, and the material tried to explain the revolutions that overtook France and other European nations in the latter 18th century by focusing on the movements and what the leaders of those movements said. The simple fact is that if there wasn't a dramatic change in weather during those times, that ruined harvests and caused famines, there would have been no revolutions in France or anywhere else! I think we are living in a time now when significant issues can no longer be compartmentalized as politics, economics, environment etc.. To understand what's going on we have to consider all of these impacts on people together, instead of trying to separate them.

[Pliny]

yes, a most powerful video... I wonder if any of the usual suspect MLW idgits bothered to even open it up! Perhaps their only eye-opener to the realities of beginning/possible impacts will come about as a result of rising local food prices hitting their wallets... if you had a chance to read the recent days NYT column from Nobel laureate Paul Krugman - Droughts, Floods and Food:

I didn't open it up. It's kind of a dead issue, isn't it? As noted by Krugman famine is taking precedence.

And if you believe Krugman...remember Al Gore won a Nobel prize and an Oscar too. Barack Obama won a Nobel peace prize as well. Peace is breaking out all over now.

Krugman never says he has an economic solution to economic problems but he has plenty of government solutions.

[waldo]

yes, a most powerful video... I wonder if any of the usual suspect MLW idgits bothered to even open it up! Perhaps their only eye-opener to the realities of beginning/possible impacts will come about as a result of rising local food prices hitting their wallets... if you had a chance to read the recent days NYT column from Nobel laureate Paul Krugman - Droughts, Floods and Food:

I didn't open it up. It's kind of a dead issue, isn't it? As noted by Krugman famine is taking precedence.

I'm not surprised you wouldn't bother to review the video... of course, Krugman's op-ed simply expounded upon certain points highlighted within the video. You shouldn't fear enlightenment, hey Pliny?

And if you believe Krugman...remember Al Gore won a Nobel prize and an Oscar too. Barack Obama won a Nobel peace prize as well. Peace is breaking out all over now.

associative comparisons... weak, Pliny... very weak. C'mon - I'm sure you can do better!

Krugman never says he has an economic solution to economic problems but he has plenty of government solutions.

more Pliny nonsense - see NYT - Krugman: the economics of climate change or, more precisely, the economics of lessening climate change.

[Pliny]

more Pliny nonsense - see NYT - Krugman: the economics of climate change or, more precisely, the economics of lessening climate change.

more Krugman nonsense...

[GostHacked]

more Krugman nonsense...

Seems like Krugman is looking at the economics of it all instead of what the real problem is. All he seems to be saying is that everything is going to cost more.

The food crisis he talks about does not take into account the amount of people on the planet in need of food. How GM crops have turned local farms into corporate farms (and we know how much corporations care about our food)..... Farmland being razed and used to build houses and the expanding urban sprawl, we need all the quality farmland we can get, and in some countries, jungles and rain forests that have existed for 1000's of years have been razed to create farmland and grazing land, but that ends up to be a short lived gain, because the farmland is not sustainable/usable for very long, which defeats the purpose of clear cutting for farmland, the soil just does not have enough nutrients to sustain any kind of farming. .. yes weather does have an effect on crops, but all the other factors I've mentioned also takes a toll on food production and distribution (krugman does talk about corn being used for fuel and not food and the competition for limited crop space for cotton growing). Compared to even 50 years ago, you could not get all the foods you can currently buy in the food stores. We get some unique exotic foods from South America, Africa, China, Japan, ect ect ect ..... we can't grow some of that in North America because of the climate zones we live in. Essentially we've been pretty spoiled in industrialized nations with the amount of food we have, the varieties we can buy and the oh so bad for your health fast foods (high in fat and little nutrient value)

[Pliny]

Are things going to break down economically on a global scale? Will we become more dependent on local produce in such a scenario?

Well, Krugman believes that if government didn't manage everything nothing would happen or people would be trading things illegally and ripping each other off. In reality people enjoy co-operating and helping each other. Government in its zeal to prove its worthiness likes to apply pressure to everyone, good or bad, equally, just to let you know they are important and your role is to follow their regulations. They don't tolerate non-compliance or loss of revenues. The fact people are starving is secondary to those considerations and loss of revenues and non-compliance will be dealt with first.

[gretchenne]

No need to be worried. We are going to soon run out of fosssil fuels and that in itself will bring down the CO2 emissions. Global warming will be over! Whew!

And as you're writing that statement, Canada, United States and Russia are fighting over the oil reserves in the Artic ocean. Also, some governments want to exploit shale gas even though they know it has a huge negative impact on the environment and on the health of the people who live near it.

This has little if anything to do with global warming. They have floods every year, but not like this. And the cause explained was an 'inland tsumani' .. think about that for a moment and what it means.

Maybe but they're happening more frequently and it won't get any better. Because of the global warming, glaciers are melting and are increasing the level of water in seas and rivers. (Don't forget they're the largest reservoirs of freshwater...)

For those of you who do not believe in global warming or are simply sceptic, I encourage you to watch this video on youtube

. If, after watching the video, you still believe we are not responsible for the well-being of not only the humans, but all of the other plants and animals that were thriving before we started destructing their habitat, well that's just sad. Edited June 4, 2011 by gretchenne

[TimG]

If, after watching the video, you still believe we are not responsible for the well-being of not only the humans, but all of the other plants and animals that were thriving before we started destructing their habitat, well that's just sad.

Excuse me? That video is nothing but a rehash of Pascal's Wager with flawed assumptions. The biggest assumptions are climate policy will actually stave off the alleged disaster (nothing we have now would) and that adaptation is not an option.

If the analysis was done properly by adding in a third column where climate policy is enacted but it fails we would see that the most prudent strategy given the risks is one of adaptation. The fact is nothing we do can do to prevent the worst case scenarios so we simply have to hope they do not occur.

Edited June 4, 2011 by TimG