Deal with Climate Reality as it Unfolds....

[Keepitsimple]

We don't see enough of the "debate" in proper context. We constantly get dragged into the weeds of Minutiae by the latest "peer reviewed" study as ably demonstrated by Waldo and his ilk right here on this board. We're inundated with terms like "may", "could" and "percentages of "likelihood" - and all are embedded in articles that seem to create the worst-case scenario. An overall view in context is rare - but it may well be that we are finally starting a glacial move away from the Chicken Little mindset and into the common-sense world of mitigation and adaptation. A nice artcle by Bob Carter.....sure to be excoriated as a Denier Devil by my little Buddy, Waldo:

..........................Ultimately, the rationale for choosing between policies of mitigation or adaptation must lie with an analysis of the underlying scientific evidence about climate change. Yet the vigorous public debate over possibly dangerous human-caused global warming is bedevilled by two things.

First, an inadequacy of the historical temperature measurements that are used to reconstruct the average global temperature statistic.

And, second, fuelled by lobbyists and media interests, an unfortunate tribal emotionalism that has arisen between groups of persons who are depicted as either climate “alarmists” or climate “deniers.”

In reality, the great majority of working scientists fit into neither category. All competent scientists accept, first, that global climate has always changed, and always will; second, that human activities (not just carbon dioxide emissions) definitely affect local climate, and have the potential, summed, to measurably affect global climate; and, third, that carbon dioxide is a mild greenhouse gas.

The true scientific debate, then, is about none of these issues, but rather about the sign and magnitude of any global human effect and its likely significance when considered in the context of natural climate change...........................

Link: http://opinion.financialpost.com/2012/05/23/deal-with-climate-reality-as-it-unfolds/

Edited May 27, 2012 by Keepitsimple

[socialist]

We don't see enough of the "debate" in proper context. We constantly get dragged into the weeds of Minutiae by the latest "peer reviewed" study as ably demenstrated by Waldo and his ilk right here on this board. We're inundated with terms like "may", "could" and "percentages of "likelihood" - and all are embedded in articles that seem to create the worst-case scenario. An overall view in context is rare - but it may well be that we are finally starting a glacial move away from the Chicken Little mindset and into the common-sense world of mitigation and adaptation. A nice artcle by Bob Carter.....sure to be excoriated as a Denier Devil by my little Buddy, Waldo:

Link: http://opinion.financialpost.com/2012/05/23/deal-with-climate-reality-as-it-unfolds/

irresponsible use of fossil fuels is the biggest threat to planet earth. if we don't do something soon we will all suffer. the west is the biggest abuser now and in the past of fossil fuels and should take the most responsibility in tryong to reverse deadly climate change. im doing my part to save the planet. how bout you?

[Moonlight Graham]

God forbid an article be *gasp* peer-reviewed! Though admittedly there are even some problems with that concept, though not as many as an article not being reviewed at all.

Bob Carter, world-famous for leading the scientific charge that recent climate change/global warming has not been primarily caused by anthropogenic factors. Financial Post/National Post, famous for trumpeting the denier mantra.

However, here Carter presents a fairly level-headed article. However, I disagree with his assertion that we should deal with the real consequences posed by climate change as they come along rather than prevent our contributions to it (assuming human contribution of CO2 is significant driver of recent climate change). That's like saying we should deal with the consequences of hole in the ozone as they come along.

We're inundated with terms like "may", "could" and "percentages of "likelihood"

Kinda like the weather. Nobody can exactly predict what the climate will be in a given region 50 years from now, but they can make an educated estimation, like weather.

[Keepitsimple]

irresponsible use of fossil fuels is the biggest threat to planet earth. if we don't do something soon we will all suffer. the west is the biggest abuser now and in the past of fossil fuels and should take the most responsibility in tryong to reverse deadly climate change. im doing my part to save the planet. how bout you?

You capably fit into the Chicken Little mindset. That said, everyone's entitled to an opinion.

[TimG]

However, I disagree with his assertion that we should deal with the real consequences posed by climate change as they come along rather than prevent our contributions to it (assuming human contribution of CO2 is significant driver of recent climate change).

Why? I suspect it is only because you have been conditioned to assume that is the most 'rational' response. The fact is such a response is only rational if:

1) Preventing emissions is economically and technically plausible;

2) The cost of prevention is actually less than the cost of dealing with the changes;

Carter is making the argument the answer to both of those questions is "NO".

So if you disagree with him I would like to see what evidence you are relying on to refute his claims and whether this evidence is really that reliable.

Edited May 27, 2012 by TimG

[dre]

The problem is that while climate change may be your pet issue (I mean both proponents, and opponents) it is only one factor that should inform policy.

Global warming resulting from fossil fuel use could be a big problem but theres a whole host of other compelling problems related to fossil fuel use as well. Price volatility is already an impediment to global economic growth, and a major contributor to economic instability. Energy costs have doubled in the last ten years and they will do the same in the next ten years. We need a stable and affordable source of energy and it should be obviously to pretty much everyone by now that we are not going to get that by relying on fossil fuels. We also have a lot of expensive security issues driven by the current energy paradigm as well.

We need reform that deals with all of these policy objectives not just one of them, and luckily theres a lot of synergy between these various things. Most fossil fuel alternatives (wind, solar, nuclear, geothermal, biomass, etc) will not only reduce energy dependance, but are more friendly to the environment as well, and are not dependant on increasingly scarce resources.

But those things wont be enough, so we should also be looking at ways to use the more abundant fossil fuels like coal in an environmentally responsible way, which is possible IMO, it just takes time and money.

Unfortunately the cost of energy projects in the west has increased to the point where they are almost beyond our capability to execute them in the current political environemnt. We are going to have increasingly depend on emerging economies and new engineering/production powerhouses to come up with solutions.

[dre]

1) Preventing emissions is economically and technically plausible;

2) The cost of prevention is actually less than the cost of dealing with the changes;

Depends on which snapshot in time you decide to look at. Can we completely resolve these issues today? Nope... But if we start taking energy technology seriously today and make these reforms a central policy objective, then we could certainly enter the next energy age within the next 50 or 100 years.

As I said before though "we" have little relevance now. We had our chance and did next to nothing. All we can do now is hope that somebody else solves this problem before energy costs destroy the global economy.

Edited May 27, 2012 by dre

[TimG]

But if we start taking energy technology seriously today and make these reforms a central policy objective, then we could certainly enter the next energy age within the next 50 or 100 years.

A excellent idea as long as the policy makes no assumptions about when this technology will be ready. The problem with most advocates for CO2 mitigation is they assume that the technology can be made to magically appear on a schedule that they demand. Get rid of the schedule expectations and I have no complaint.

We had our chance and did next to nothing.

There was never anything that we could of done so you are feeling guilty about a fantasy. Edited May 27, 2012 by TimG

[dre]

A excellent idea as long as the policy makes no assumptions about when this technology will be ready. The problem with most advocates for CO2 mitigation is they assume that the technology can be made to magically appear on a schedule that they demand. Get rid of the schedule expectations and I have no complaint.

There was never anything that we could of done so you are feeling guilty about a fantasy.

Sure there was. We could have taken energy development seriously... instead of more or less stopped building 30 years ago, and now we have a huge infrastructure defecit. We are on a path towards a major energy crisis that is the predictable result of our inaction and our failure to take the problem seriously.

Over the yearsinfrastructure crisis has become an important topic of discussion and relevance both in Canada so as in the rest of the world, mainly because of the existent infrastructure deficit concerningavailable funds that areneededfor reparation and maintenance of municipal infrastructures, which manyare way over-due their service life and represent a threat to public safetyand theeconomy.This is a serious problem that affects us all and especially us asEngineers who have duties and responsibilities towards addressing this particular problem.

All across the west we just sat there, watched infrastructure crumble, and watched prices increase. We shit in our own beds and only really got serious about energy development when theres was big spikes in oil prices. Never mind being a leader in policies that will ensure a stable energy supply for the future, we cant even afford to maintain our existing kit.

[TimG]

Sure there was. We could have taken energy development seriously... instead of more or less stopped building 30 years ago.

Nonsense. Billions have been poured into alternative energy research because there is a huge economic incentive to eliminate the need to dig up and burn stuff. The only reason it has not been deployed is because no economically viable solutions have been found. There is no reason believe that a different set of government programs would have changed anything.

Lets put it another way: let's say governments in 1900 decided that we needed to send a man to the moon. They would have failed no matter how many billions (in today dollars) they pissed away. By the 60s technology had evolved to the point where a such an effort actually produced results. We are in the same point today. No matter how much we spend we cannot make the change happen sooner.

Edited May 27, 2012 by TimG

[dre]

No matter how much we spend we cannot make the change happen sooner.

This is too dopey to even comment on. Spending is EXACTLY whats required to ensure a stable supply of energy in the future. By the time we launched a program to put a man on the moon we had already been developing the technology for decades, and all of that development required spending. By the time 1957 rolled around both governments and the private sector had already spent billions in todays dollars on developing and improving solid fuel rockets, aerospace materials and everything else.

Nobody just waited until the technology magically appeared

Our rotting energy infrastructure isnt gonna just up and fix itself. Plants built in the 70's arent going to modernize themselves. New plants are not going to build themselves either. Energy development and infrastuctures requires exactly that... a whole shitload of spending.

Edited May 27, 2012 by dre

[TimG]

Spending is EXACTLY whats required to ensure a stable supply of energy in the future. By the time we launched a program to put a man on the moon we had already been developing the technology for decades.

Sure. But no amount of government spending would have allowed the to moonshot to happen earlier which is why I said your whining about how things would have been different if the government had spent more money 30 years ago is complete BS. Technology evolutions take time and the government is always spending money trying to find the next one. So I feel no regret and if you want to feel regret then you are feeling regret over a fantasy of your own creation.

[dre]

Sure. But no amount of government spending would have allowed the to moonshot to happen earlier which is why I said your whining about how things would have been different if the government had spent more money 30 years ago is complete BS. Technology evolutions take time and the government is always spending money trying to find the next one. So I feel no regret and if you want to feel regret then you are feeling regret over a fantasy of your own creation.

I never said you should feel regret. I simply stated the obvious... that we should have taken this problem seriously a long time ago and we didnt... and we are gonna pay for it. But you can continue this retarded song and dance until youre paying $10 dollars a litre if you want and the economy is crashing down around you. Doesnt make any difference. And youre intentionally ignoring the state of our infrastructure... Im not talking about brand new technologies here, Im talking about just keeping the old ones working. Spending was required and it didnt happen. It was not made a priority because energy costs were still relatively low.

So now because of this stupidity the broke ass west has tens of trillions of dollars worth of infrustructure projects due over the next few decades and no money. We spend trillions of dollars bombing holes in the ground around the world, but theres no money for energy infrastructure.

And if the government hadnt spent money on aerospace research circa WW1 the moonlanding simply wouldnt have happened at all, and thats REALLY what you are arguing for with your plan to sit around and do nothing and hope that the infrastructure that will drive the next energy age just magically builds itself.

Edited May 27, 2012 by dre

[TimG]

I never said you should feel regret. I simply stated the obvious... that we should have taken this problem seriously a long time ago and we didnt... and we are gonna pay for it.

You have not offered any evidence to support your assertion that spending more money before would have changed anything. I used to moonshot as an example of how technology cannot be rushed by government fiat.

And youre intentionally ignoring the state of our infrastructure...

So infrastructure needs to be replaced? It happens all of the time. We will replace infrastructure as it needs replacing and there is no need to panic.

As for $10/liter oil: cars will switch to natural gas long before that happens and the price of oil will collapse.

[dre]

You have not offered any evidence to support your assertion that spending more money before would have changed anything. I used to moonshot as an example of how technology cannot be rushed by government fiat.

So infrastructure needs to be replaced? It happens all of the time. We will replace infrastructure as it needs replacing and there is no need to panic.

As for $10/liter oil: cars will switch to natural gas long before that happens and the price of oil will collapse.

You have not offered any evidence to support your assertion that spending more money before would have changed anything. I used to moonshot as an example of how technology cannot be rushed by government fiat.

You example proved the exact opposite. The moonshot would still not have happened if the Government didnt spend money it. It WAS rushed... and the only reason it happened at all was because it was made a national priority.

So infrastructure needs to be replaced? It happens all of the time. We will replace infrastructure as it needs replacing and there is no need to panic.

This is horseshit too... It ISNT being replaced as the need arises, thats why the west has trillions of dollars in infrastructure deficits.

As for $10/liter oil: cars will switch to natural gas long before that happens and the price of oil will collapse.

The only way those type of changes will happen is if people like you are summarily ignored.

[TimG]

You example proved the exact opposite. The moonshot would still not have happened if the Government didnt spend money it. It WAS rushed... and the only reason it happened at all was because it was made a national priority.

It was not made a priority UNTIL the technology existed to make it feasible. In 1900 the technology did not exist so no amount of government funding would have changed anything. You are basically arguing that any government could have got to the moon in 1900 if they spent enough money. That claim is so ridiculous I don't understand why you are making it.

The only way those type of changes will happen is if people like you are summarily ignored.

Wrong. Natural gas will start taking over as oil prices rise. The technology and distribution networks already exist. All that is needed is a price incentive. Governments just need to stay out the way. Edited May 27, 2012 by TimG

[dre]

It was not made a priority UNTIL the technology existed to make it feasible. In 1900 the technology did not exist so no amount of government funding would have changed anything. You are basically arguing that any government could have got to the moon in 1900 if they spent enough money. That claim is so ridiculous I don't understand why you are making it.

Wrong. Natural gas will start taking over as oil prices rise. The technology and distribution networks already exist. All that is needed is a price incentive. Governments just need to stay out the way.

That claim is so ridiculous I don't understand why you are making it.

Youre only characterizing my claim that way because you are a liar. You and I both know I never said anything of the sort. The fact is that both government and private money WAS spent on developing those technologies since the early 1900's otherwise the technology would not have existed. So again youre evidence is proof of the exact opposite of what you are claiming.

The technology and distribution networks already exist. All that is needed is a price incentive. Governments just need to stay out the way.

Maybe in magically whimsical Timmy Land! But in the real world these things come about of a partnership between the government and the private sector. In the real world the private sector needs funding, research grants, and access to public property from which to extract natural gas or any other kind of resource. And here again your moonshot example shoots both of your feet full of lead. The moon landing would not have happened if the "Government had just stayed out of the way". Private interest in such ventures only happened once the technologies were already mature and developed with mostly public money.

[TimG]

You and I both know I never said anything of the sort.

But that is what you are saying whether you want to acknowledge it or not.

The fact is that both government and private money WAS spent on developing those technologies since the early 1900's otherwise the technology would not have existed.

And government money WAS spent on developing alternate energy technologies over the last 30 years and produced nothing useful. You are arguing that things would have been different if the government spent more money. I am pointing out with the moonshot example that incremental government spending will accomplish nothing if the time is not right. You have not provided any evidence to show why spending more money on renewables 30 years ago would have produced better results than spending more money on a moonshot in 1900 would have produced results. Do you really believe that a moonshot could have happened in 1930 instead of 1960 if the government just spent more money? If you don't believe that then how can you possibly argue that spending more money on renewables 30 years ago would have changed anything?

In the real world the private sector needs funding, research grants, and access to public property from which to extract natural gas or any other kind of resource.

Yep. All of these things are happening today. I am trying to figure out what you think needs to change. Edited May 27, 2012 by TimG

[socialist]

You capably fit into the Chicken Little mindset. That said, everyone's entitled to an opinion.

catastrophic climate change unless human habits drasticly change is a FACT.

[TimG]

catastrophic climate change unless human habits drasticly change is a FACT.

Actually no it is not. The following are actual facts backed up by scientific evidence:

1) Humans emissions of CO2 are causing the level of CO2 to rise;

2) CO2 is a GHG which will cause the planet to warm;

3) A warming planet means the climate will change;

There is no science that tells us that climate change is necessarily catastrophic.

There is science that claims that it might be catastrophic.

But this science depends on a multitude of assumptions that may or may not be true.

Edited May 28, 2012 by TimG

[waldo]

...as ably demonstrated by Waldo .....sure to be excoriated as a Denier Devil by my little Buddy, Waldo:

Simple... are you hearing footsteps?

your/Carter's POS isn't worth me even troubling over... why, I'll simply throw back a clear-cut, robust point-by-point evisceration of your linked to, "Bob Carter, denier extraordinaire" nonsense:

Bob Carter's Gish Gallop of Scientific Denial

as for the "debate" you keep chirping over... what debate?

[Moonlight Graham]

Why? I suspect it is only because you have been conditioned to assume that is the most 'rational' response.

Saying my opinion is such merely I've been "conditioned" is insulting to me. You're assuming a lemming who doesn't know how to think for myself. I took a university course on climate change, it was taught by an influential "denier" and a close colleague of Carter. I had the 5th highest grade out of nearly 400 students in the class, so I'm no fool nor ignorant of Carter's arguments.

The fact is such a response is only rational if:

1) Preventing emissions is economically and technically plausible;

2) The cost of prevention is actually less than the cost of dealing with the changes;

Carter is making the argument the answer to both of those questions is "NO".

So if you disagree with him I would like to see what evidence you are relying on to refute his claims and whether this evidence is really that reliable.

Why is the burden of proof on me? The burden of proof should be on Carter, who is making the initial argument. His article hardly addressed the 2 points you suggest above. He went off and talked about how temperature before 1979 isn't very reliable, and goes to argue once more than recent climate change is mostly naturally caused etc. His thesis is interesting, his evidence is lacking.

Edited May 28, 2012 by Moonlight Graham

[TimG]

Saying my opinion is such merely I've been "conditioned" is insulting to me.

Sorry. Many people do fall into the trap of assuming it better to prevent than fix later because that approach is drilled into our heads at an early age. It is less intuitive to suggest that fixing it later is better than preventing now. My comment was not intended to be condescending but a statement of fact.

I took a university course on climate change, it was taught by an influential "denier" and a close colleague of Carter.

The entire problem with this debate is people seem to assume that climate scientists are authorities on economics and engineering. The question of whether viable alternatives exist is not a question that a climate scientist is qualified to answer.

His article hardly addressed the 2 points you suggest above.

Fair enough. I have read other stuff where he gets into more detail.

As for burden of proof: that rests with the people asking governments to spend money today on dubious technologies. If they cannot provide evidence that these technologies will make a difference then we should not be spending the money.

Edited May 28, 2012 by TimG

[waldo]

Fair enough. I have read other stuff where he gets into more detail.

then put it up... most certainly Carter offers no detail, no specificity, no support for anything he wrote in that farcical FP article Simple... and apparently you, so relish. Put it up... let's see the level of Carter detail that so emboldens you to, once again, parade your Adapt-R-Us (only) nonsense.

[Bryan]

Actually no it is not. The following are actual facts backed up by scientific evidence:

1) Humans emissions of CO2 are causing the level of CO2 to rise;

2) CO2 is a GHG which will cause the planet to warm;

3) A warming planet means the climate will change;

Even there you are conceding far too much. #3 is a fact in that warming in itself would be climate change. #1 and #2, however, are theories that have yet to be proven.