Ex-Nasa Scientist calls Canadian Conservatives 'Neanderthals.'

[guyser]

You confuse the original conception with the commercialization.

Not at all confused, but since the internet didnt fit with your original claim, now its commercialization.

Sure sure....

[TimG]

Not at all confused, but since the internet didnt fit with your original claim, now its commercialization.

You clearly did not read what I wrote:

Nonsense. A short list of things we take for granted today: PCs, mobile phones, internet. All exist today ***in their current form*** because of for profit companies. Without those companies none of these conveniences would exists.

I cannot think of any meaning one could attach to the phrase 'in their current form' that would not include the commercialization of the technology. Edited May 10, 2013 by TimG

[guyser]

You clearly did not read what I wrote:

I cannot think of any meaning one could attach to the phrase 'in their current form' that would not include the commercialization of the technology.

[waldo]

James Hansen and intelligence are not words that go in the same sentence together. The guy is a liar and a fraud. If our government is ticking him off, that all by itself means we're doing the right thing.

a liar... and a fraud? Citation request.

[waldo]

This is the same guy who predicted a .45 degree temperature increase over the the 10 years following 1988, he was only wrong by 400%, it rose .11 degrees, and hasnt changed at all since.

no - you're simply repeating the standard false denier talking point that picks the least likely of 3 greenhouse gas emission scenarios Hansen projected upon in his 1988 study... the false talking point which was started by the testimony the prolific denier Patrick Michaels gave before a U.S. Congressional committee. In that testimony, Michaels' presented a manipulated graph from Hansen's paper that effectively erased 2 of the 3 scenarios... erased the most likely (to occur) emission scenario, all why claiming his false/manipulated graph represented Hansen's climate change prediction!

actually, you don't even have the denier talking point down correctly! Michaels' only claimed Hansen was out by 300%... not your suggested 400%. In actuality, Hansen was out by between 15-25%... considering this was 25 years ago and radiative forcing values were not as refined as today, Hansen's prediction as one of the first ever, wasn't that unreasonably far off. When today's refined/updated radiative forcing numbers are used in Hansen's 25 year old study, his B scenario is a correct projection of the ensuing global surface air temperature increase.

[waldo]

Here's another recent superbly reasonable thought from hansen, it could become so warm that lying naked in a hurricane we would still not be able to keep our bodies cool enough, our own trapped body heat will kill us, yea, that is surely a reasonable statement given the all of two thirds of a degree increase in temperature of the last 150 years. Thses sort of statements only harm the position of people who are concerned about agw, and will only detract from reasonable efforts to control it.

context! What a concept... one you apparently take extreme liberties with. What Hansen was speaking specifically to was a scenario of certain areas of the earth becoming literally uninhabitable because wet bulb temperatures would exceed 35°C - and at that temperature, as Hansen states, "for reasons of physiology and physics, humans cannot survive, because even under ideal conditions of rest and ventilation, it is physically impossible for the environment to carry away the 100 W of metabolic heat that a human body generates when it is at rest. Thus even a person lying quietly naked in hurricane force winds would be unable to survive. Temperatures even several degrees below this extreme limit would be sufficient to make a region practically uninhabitable for living and working."

Climate change: Heat, health, and longer horizons

Most of the prevailing discussion and modeling of climate change extends only to 2100 or even earlier, whereas this paper looks out further to 2300.

They argue that, whereas high-profile threats such as sea-level rise and economic slowdown have caused widespread anxieties, their impacts on human communities would pale into insignificance in a world that might, thermally, become partly or wholly uninhabitable by humans.

There are four main threads to the authors’ argument about future heat extremes. When the modifying effect of humidity on perceived (i.e., physiologically experienced) heat is allowed, the present range of extreme climatic conditions around the globe is actually rather limited: the hottest places tend to be dry, so that wet-bulb temperatures (T_W) essentially never exceed 31 °C. For reasons of physiology and physics, T_W values above 35 °C cannot be tolerated even under ideal conditions of shade, ventilation, and rest; therefore, there is little leeway. Climate modeling suggests that increases in global mean temperatures will give rise to similar increases in maximum T_W, in a ratio of at least 3 °C T_W for every 4 °C of global warming. Global mean temperatures may well rise by more than 10 °C, probably not this century but within the coming three centuries.

The authors may seem—at least on current thinking—to have stretched the limits of plausibility. To date, we have not had to think seriously about a foreseeable future world that is 10–12 °C warmer than today. However, as they point out, such temperature increases are not off the predictive scale if current trajectories continue and if full consequent global heating is realized over the next three centuries. Furthermore, given inherent scientific uncertainties about the future behavior of the climate system under changing conditions, recent modeling is as likely to have underestimated future changes as to have overestimated them. Indeed, much recent trend data indicate just that type of disparity between previous forecasts and actual geophysical outcomes.

[waldo]

Who cares? He's one more tree-hugger who thinks you can power cars with self-righteousness alone.

tree-hugger??? Does Hansen's advocating for '4th generation' nuclear fit your... or the "classic" intended disparagement you imply?

[Moonbox]

That's probably the only thing I respect about his 'politics'. He's at LEAST dropped the purpose defeating opposition to nuclear, which is a start. His exaggerations and alarmism, however, has pretty much tuned out of what he has to say.

[waldo]

tree-hugger??? Does Hansen's advocating for '4th generation' nuclear fit your... or the "classic" intended disparagement you imply?

That's probably the only thing I respect about his 'politics'. He's at LEAST dropped the purpose defeating opposition to nuclear, which is a start.

no - Hansen has always been a proponent of nuclear energy... the only change has been his shift calling for investment in 4th generation technology R&D - ostensibly, a call to shift fossil-fuel subsidies towards research and development of the 4th gen tech that will "burn" any nuclear waste created. And, of course, that shift coincides with a heightening realization that required fossil-fuel cuts likely won't come forward in the required time frame.

His exaggerations and alarmism, however, has pretty much tuned out of what he has to say.

your unsubstantiated and unscientific opinion is noted

[Moonbox]

Waldo forgive me, but I can't recall what your work/education background is. You're a PhD in climatology and not just some guy at his computer ideologically obsessing over a topic, right?

[waldo]

buddy... just step up, be very specific, and substantiate your claims for 'exaggeration and alarmism' - remember, context is everything, hey? It's clear you knew nothing about Hansen's long support for nuclear; what else do you have?

[Moonbox]

So I guess you're not a PhD then. Good to know.

I said nothing about Hansen's support for nuclear other than that at least he's not like most of the eco-crusaders in denouncing the only clean and reliable source of energy we have outside hydro. In terms of examples of exaggeration and alarmism, I'm not sure why you keep asking. People have brought them up over and over again and your canned 'citation please' response doesn't really count as an argument. The fact that he's getting rich doing it doesn't seem to matter to you either.

His 1988 predictions, as already stated, were perfect examples of alarmism and exaggeration. The fact that he hedged his bets by presenting low-end estimates along with the high-end doomsday ones that he primarily focused his rhetoric on doesn't make him any more reasonable. It just means that he's clever enough not to put himself in a position where his predictions can be categorically proven wrong.

Another good example is his position of the Keystone pipeline. He starts off by telling us that fully tapping the oil sands (he calls them Tar sands lol) will spell "Game Over" for the climate. He knows that's what's going to get printed in the headlines, but then he proceeds to tell us that this is a long term outlook (beyond several decades) and that it entails burning all 340 gigatons of the carbon buried in Alberta, which is flat out impossible anywhere in the forseeable future. Hansen's not interested in telling us what the realistic impact of the oil sands is, he's only interested in telling us what would happen if we were somehow able to magically burn it all out into the atmosphere over the next couple of decades.

Edited May 18, 2013 by Moonbox

[waldo]

You're a PhD in climatology and not just some guy at his computer ideologically obsessing over a topic, right?

hey genius... how does one get your "PhD in Climatology"? Where is it offered? How many scientists recognized as climatologists have such a 'degree'? Or, rather... how many scientists have their PhD's in the physical sciences... the biological sciences... the earth sciences... etc.; or in related fields like math, like computer science, like statistics, etc.? Clearly, you know what you're talking about!!!

I said nothing about Hansen's support for nuclear other than that at least he's not like most of the eco-crusaders in denouncing the only clean and reliable source of energy we have outside hydro.

no - you said he dropped his opposition to nuclear. Again, as I stated, as I'm aware, he's always been a proponent... with the only change being a shift to advocate for 4th generation nuclear given concerns over radioactive waste.

In terms of examples of exaggeration and alarmism, I'm not sure why you keep asking. People have brought them up over and over again and your canned 'citation please' response doesn't really count as an argument. The fact that he's getting rich doing it doesn't seem to matter to you either.

I get you're not prepared/not capable of substantiating a valid argument against your claimed examples of exaggeration and alarmism. Of course, deniers and fake-skeptics are quick to label those they oppose as alarmists... of course! As for making 'some coin', I didn't realize your benchmark for acceptability was someone who worked or advocated for free! Of course, you also must know what he does with any/all monies he makes, right?

His 1988 predictions, as already stated, were perfect examples of alarmism and exaggeration. The fact that he hedged his bets by presenting low-end estimates along with the high-end doomsday ones that he primarily focused his rhetoric on doesn't make him any more reasonable. It just means that he's clever enough not to put himself in a position where his predictions can be categorically proven wrong.

clearly, another demonstration of your scientific acumen! Do you even know anything about the now dated 25 year old study that presented the first ever look at possible emission scenarios? 3 scenarios were examined, ranging from a dramatic decline in emissions growth starting in 2000, to a somewhat constant growth, to one of accelerated growth. To suggest these scenarios were a way for Hansen to "hedge his bets", speaks volumes to just how much you'll reach to attempt to denigrate him. How desperate are you?

Another good example is his position of the Keystone pipeline. He starts off by telling us that fully tapping the oil sands (he calls them Tar sands lol) will spell "Game Over" for the climate. He knows that's what's going to get printed in the headlines, but then he proceeds to tell us that this is a long term outlook (beyond several decades) and that it entails burning all 340 gigatons of the carbon buried in Alberta, which is flat out impossible anywhere in the forseeable future. Hansen's not interested in telling us what the realistic impact of the oil sands is, he's only interested in telling us what would happen if we were somehow able to magically burn it all out into the atmosphere over the next couple of decades.

obviously the only thing you know about Hansen is what you glean from denier sites. By the by, the original name was tarsands... industry needed to clean that name up, hey?

simply stated, Hansen suggests that the only oil that should be currently extracted is that from conventional/traditional sources. Tarsands extraction never was a viable economic alternative for BigOil; it's just overly expensive to extract/manage. What brings the viability increasingly forward are markets and supporting infrastructure - hence, the opposition to a market enabling pipeline like KXL.

but weren't you the guy in another thread that claimed there was a need to reduce emissions... but bemoaned the lack of progress being made by the UN/politicos? Weren't you that guy? You belittle Hansen over distinctions of immediate versus longer-term threats. Apparently, you don't understand that emissions are cumulative and reside in the atmosphere for a lengthy period - the so-called long tail residual retention where an accumulated amount of CO₂ remains in the atmosphere on a time-scale of centuries. I guess you just don't get the point/need to act now to deal with the long-term, hey?

[bush_cheney2004]

Hansen is right...it is "Game Over"....for the climate change alarmists.

[waldo]

Hansen is right...it is "Game Over"....for the climate change alarmists.

your own self-serving alarming assessment is noted

[Moonbox]

waldo, on 18 May 2013 - 12:57 PM, said:

hey genius... how does one get your "PhD in Climatology"?

It seems you missed the joke. Unsurprising.

waldo, on 18 May 2013 - 12:57 PM, said:

no - you said he dropped his opposition to nuclear. Again, as I stated, as I'm aware, he's always been a proponent... with the only change being a shift to advocate for 4th generation nuclear given concerns over radioactive waste.

Poor choice of words then, sorry. There was never any intention on my part to suggest he was ever against nuclear. It's one of the few subjects I can agree with him on.

waldo, on 18 May 2013 - 12:57 PM, said:

clearly, another demonstration of your scientific acumen!

Ah, we're back to this. What was your scientific background again?

waldo, on 18 May 2013 - 12:57 PM, said:

Do you even know anything about the now dated 25 year old study that presented the first ever look at possible emission scenarios? 3 scenarios were examined, ranging from a dramatic decline in emissions growth starting in 2000, to a somewhat constant growth, to one of accelerated growth.

I've read less about it than you have obviously, but from what I have read from the newspapers (not climategate websites as you would imply) is that his B and C scenarios were the closest, but they weren't accurate, and the assumptions made to generate them turned out to be incorrect as well. Thus, as far as predictions go they weren't very useful. This in itself isn't a discreditation of Hansen's scientific acumen. He was working with primitive models (relatively speaking) and limited information. The problem with it, however, is that he used that to vehemently promote specific public policy changes and he continues to do so with certainty on uncertain and unreliable models ("Oops we didn't account properly for the effect of aerosols").

waldo, on 18 May 2013 - 12:57 PM, said:

simply stated, Hansen suggests that the only oil that should be currently extracted is that from conventional/traditional sources. Tarsands extraction never was a viable economic alternative for BigOil; it's just overly expensive to extract/manage. What brings the viability increasingly forward are markets and supporting infrastructure - hence, the opposition to a market enabling pipeline like KXL.

The tar sands are already viable and become more and more so as traditional oil sources are depleted. There's really no debating the economic side of this, and blocking the Keystone Pipeline won't shut down Alberta bitumen extraction.

waldo, on 18 May 2013 - 12:57 PM, said:

but weren't you the guy in another thread that claimed there was a need to reduce emissions... but bemoaned the lack of progress being made by the UN/politicos? Weren't you that guy?

I don't claim the need is anywhere near what Hansen is projecting, and I 'bemoaned' the moronic and self-defeating policy suggestions promoted by the UN and supported by 'expert' economists like you. If you're serious about reducing carbon emissions, policies should be aimed at that alone, and not at moving money around (ie wasting it on currently unviable solar/wind technology or on wealth transfers to the third world).

waldo, on 18 May 2013 - 12:57 PM, said:

I guess you just don't get the point/need to act now to deal with the long-term, hey?

I don't get the point of 'hey' at the end of your sentences, first of all. I also don't have a lot of faith in Hansen's projections that the world will be 3 to 9 degrees warmer by 2050, given the rate of growth we've seen so far and the previously underestimated ability of the climate to absorb heat via aerosols etc. Edited May 18, 2013 by Moonbox

[waldo]

It seems you missed the joke. Unsurprising.

unsurprising that when you're caught with your pants down you'd now say "just joking"!

Ah, we're back to this. What was your scientific background again?

it's clear you know little to nothing about a most dated study you keep flogging to belittle/demean Hansen.

I've read less about it than you have obviously, but from what I have read from the newspapers (not climategate websites as you would imply) is that his B and C scenarios were the closest, but they weren't accurate, and the assumptions made to generate them turned out to be incorrect as well.

as I said, you know (little to) nothing about the study, the makeup of the scenarios - but why would that ever stop you? I've already elaborated on and debunked the fallacious claims made by MLW member, 'gunrutz' concerning the study/predictions... and in that vein I spoke of just what Hansen was incorrect about. Specifically, given the dated period and the two decades plus work since, he used early forcing estimate values... and even given that, his scenario B (the most likely scenario) prediction on warming was only out by ~15-to-25%. As has been done, when today's revised forcing values are substituted back into the Hansen 1988 study/model, his B scenario warming prediction is quite accurate.

Thus, as far as predictions go they weren't very useful. This in itself isn't a discreditation of Hansen's scientific acumen. He was working with primitive models (relatively speaking) and limited information. The problem with it, however, is that he used that to vehemently promote specific public policy changes and he continues to do so with certainty on uncertain and unreliable models ("Oops we didn't account properly for the effect of aerosols").

no - those early predictions were very useful as they were insightful in raising public/political awareness of global warming and the greenhouse effect. Care to speak to just what public policy changes proposed by Hansen that you have such a, as you say, 'vehement' opposition to? As for models, feel free to step-up and substantiate your claim to the unreliability of climate models... there's no shortage of prior MLW threads that have covered this very false claim in the past - it'll be an easy cut&paste should you choose to... step-up and actually attempt to substantiate something... anything... you keep spouting off about!

...and blocking the Keystone Pipeline won't shut down Alberta bitumen extraction.

who says it would? Fewer pipelines mean either less throughput or alternate (more expensive) means of (rail) transport... both affect the bottom-line; i.e., available markets and market viability.

I don't claim the need is anywhere near what Hansen is projecting, and I 'bemoaned' the moronic and self-defeating policy suggestions promoted by the UN and supported by 'expert' economists like you.

of course... you clearly know more than the science and scientists represented by the IPCC/UNFCCC! You appear to want to negate Hansen's near-term alignment with the science supported policy alignment to attempt to keep warming below a 2°C rise... or the related ppm level of atmospheric CO₂. Yes, clearly, you're one of those types who revels in conflating long-term and short-term contextual aspects... obviously it suits your liberal use of the alarmist label!

If you're serious about reducing carbon emissions, policies should be aimed at that alone, and not at moving money around (ie wasting it on currently unviable solar/wind technology or on wealth transfers to the third world).

and, as before in the past, you continue to showcase your skewed view/misunderstanding of the COP meetings and related agreements. Ah yes, now I remember... you're the guy who doesn't think polluters should pay - that industrialized nations that have caused the accumulated emissions and warming have no obligations toward developing countries needing to adapt - your so-called "wealth transfers to the 3rd world". You're an inspiration!

...and the previously underestimated ability of the climate to absorb heat via aerosols etc.

underestimated ability??? Are you sure?

[Moonbox]

unsurprising that when you're caught with your pants down you'd now say "just joking"!

If that's what it takes to make you feel smart, go ahead and think that.

it's clear you know little to nothing about a most dated study you keep flogging to belittle/demean Hansen.

So are you dodging the question because you actually have no scientific background to understand the material in question, or is it something else? Reading a lot of articles on the subject and beating the subject to death on an internet forum doesn't actually mean you understand the mathematical models you're discussing, or their conclusions.

no - those early predictions were very useful as they were insightful in raising public/political awareness of global warming and the greenhouse effect.

...presented in as alarming a fashion as possible. Tar sands = End Game for climate. He could see the headlines as he wrote it. He's a smart guy. He knew his audience when he said it and the conclusions that would be made. The best part is that large amounts of the tar sand reserves are so difficult to extract that they won't be worth tapping anytime in the foreseeable future or perhaps ever. Hansen didn't find that relevant, however, because he was more interested in making the numbers sound as big and scary as possible!

Care to speak to just what public policy changes proposed by Hansen that you have such a, as you say, 'vehement' opposition to?

Weren't we just talking about the tar sands?

who says it would? Fewer pipelines mean either less throughput or alternate (more expensive) means of (rail) transport... both affect the bottom-line; i.e., available markets and market viability.

Hansen should stick to environmental models, and away from economics. If the tar sands are already viable without the pipeline, which they are, the pipeline being built or not will, at best, briefly slow development. Without that oil flowing in the markets freely, the prices will go up and only make the tar sands more and more viable.

of course... you clearly know more than the science and scientists represented by the IPCC/UNFCCC!

That comment had nothing to do about the science. I was commenting on the unrealistic and brain-dead proposals stemming from climate treaty negotiations which would had zero chance of meaningfully reducing emissions for economic reasons alone.

Ah yes, now I remember... you're the guy who doesn't think polluters should pay - that industrialized nations that have caused the accumulated emissions and warming have no obligations toward developing countries needing to adapt - your so-called "wealth transfers to the 3rd world". You're an inspiration!

That's right! You still don't seem to understand the self-defeating logic of those requirements, but you're not really interested in the common sense behind it. You're here more for the self-righteous and smug feeling you get for beating this argument to death!

underestimated ability??? Are you sure?

lol nobody seems to really know WHAT the effects are! Black carbon absorbs, others reflect, the satellite data relied on before proved inaccurate etc etc etc....It's one of the many areas of the science that isn't all that well understood!

Edited May 18, 2013 by Moonbox

[waldo]

If that's what it takes to make you feel smart, go ahead and think that.

sure, sure... just do whatever you need to in an attempt to 'save face'. Nothing sweeter than seeing someone scramble about when caught/nailed. Your claiming it was a "joke" is heeelarious!

So are you dodging the question because you actually have no scientific background to understand the material in question, or is it something else? Reading a lot of articles on the subject and beating the subject to death on an internet forum doesn't actually mean you understand the mathematical models you're discussing, or their conclusions.

says the guy who flounders about forever making unsubstantiated claims. It's clear you know diddly!

no - those early predictions were very useful as they were insightful in raising public/political awareness of global warming and the greenhouse effect.

...presented in as alarming a fashion as possible. Tar sands = End Game for climate. He could see the headlines as he wrote it. He's a smart guy. He knew his audience when he said it and the conclusions that would be made.

that's right! Hansen setup his targeting of the tarsands with those 20+ year old prior predictions!!! Man he's good.

He was working with primitive models (relatively speaking) and limited information. The problem with it, however, is that he used that to vehemently promote specific public policy changes

Care to speak to just what public policy changes proposed by Hansen that you have such a, as you say, 'vehement' opposition to?

Weren't we just talking about the tar sands?

nice dodge! You were speaking of the dated 25 year old study... that Hansen, as you said, "used that to vehemently promote specific public policy changes'. In the context of your reply, referencing the dated study, when/how did he use that study's predictions, to, as you said, "vehemently promote specific public policy changes"? The only real (positive) attention that dated study gets is when the scenario B prediction is shown to align with today's resultant warming... 25 years later. Clearly, Hansen doesn't leverage it in regards to his opposition to the tarsands! Have you anything else?

Hansen should stick to environmental models, and away from economics. If the tar sands are already viable without the pipeline, which they are, the pipeline being built or not will, at best, briefly slow development. Without that oil flowing in the markets freely, the prices will go up and only make the tar sands more and more viable.

Hansen and economics??? Where did that come from... certainly not from the prior discussion. Hansen has the ear of many of the world's preeminent economists; he's quite cautious in stepping out and making claims outside his area of expertise. Don't hesitate to actually substantiate what you're speaking to in terms of 'Hansen & economics'. In case you didn't see this image just dropped in another thread, speaking to viability:

do you really know anything about the tarsands? What affect do you think the (coming) EU 'dirty oil' designation will have on the price/viability? And hey now, have you heard... the U.S. doesn't need the tarsands given it's drive for (presumed) self-sufficiency, particularly its (and other countries) panting at the chance to get at conventional Arctic reserves... notwithstanding major shifts to natural gas.

The best part is that large amounts of the tar sand reserves are so difficult to extract that they won't be worth tapping anytime in the foreseeable future or perhaps ever. Hansen didn't find that relevant, however, because he was more interested in making the numbers sound as big and scary as possible!

again, you show your ignorance of just what Hansen has said. He's spoken directly to the portion of the tarsands that can actually be extracted... the "economically viable" portion. The viability that, as I stated earlier, increases when supporting infrastructure actually brings access to markets. In any case, counter to your claim, Hansen offered a conservative estimate on that potential economically viable portion, suggesting that half of the tarsands carbon deposits could eventually be extracted - leading to his estimate of ~ 160 billion tonnes of carbon, which would release 587 GtCO2 into the atmosphere when used. Like I said, can you/will you ever substantiate anything you say?

...and I 'bemoaned' the moronic and self-defeating policy suggestions promoted by the UN and supported by 'expert' economists like you. If you're serious about reducing carbon emissions, policies should be aimed at that alone, and not at moving money around (ie wasting it on currently unviable solar/wind technology or on wealth transfers to the third world).

of course... you clearly know more than the science and scientists represented by the IPCC/UNFCCC! You appear to want to negate Hansen's near-term alignment with the science supported policy alignment to attempt to keep warming below a 2°C rise... or the related ppm level of atmospheric CO₂. Yes, clearly, you're one of those types who revels in conflating long-term and short-term contextual aspects... obviously it suits your liberal use of the alarmist label!

That comment had nothing to do about the science. I was commenting on the unrealistic and brain-dead proposals stemming from climate treaty negotiations which would had zero chance of meaningfully reducing emissions for economic reasons alone.

you can't separate policy from science... those decision makers make policy relative to summary scientific assessments provided to them. And as before, responses to address climate change go beyond your narrow isolated view that chooses to negate any adaptation requirements.

If you're serious about reducing carbon emissions, policies should be aimed at that alone, and not at moving money around (ie wasting it on currently unviable solar/wind technology or on wealth transfers to the third world).

and, as before in the past, you continue to showcase your skewed view/misunderstanding of the COP meetings and related agreements. Ah yes, now I remember... you're the guy who doesn't think polluters should pay - that industrialized nations that have caused the accumulated emissions and warming have no obligations toward developing countries needing to adapt - your so-called "wealth transfers to the 3rd world". You're an inspiration!

That's right! You still don't seem to understand the self-defeating logic of those requirements, but you're not really interested in the common sense behind it. You're here more for the self-righteous and smug feeling you get for beating this argument to death!

no - this is just you, again, failing to recognize mitigation isn't the sole requirement... this is just you choosing to ignore the need for adaptation and related financial assistance to those 3rd world countries you mentioned. It's quite revealing that you choose to echo the morally bankrupt "wealth transfer" talking point. Like I said, you selfishly choose to not accept that polluters should pay!

...and the previously underestimated ability of the climate to absorb heat via aerosols etc.

underestimated ability??? Are you sure?

lol nobody seems to really know WHAT the effects are! Black carbon absorbs, others reflect, the satellite data relied on before proved inaccurate etc etc etc....It's one of the many areas of the science that isn't all that well understood!

oh... so, you actually acknowledge your claim might not be so absolute. Good on ya! In any case, the positive forcing associated with black carbon on snow is well recognized... and relatively insignificant in relation to atmospheric CO₂. As for atmospheric black carbon, particularly given its short 1-2 week retention period in the atmosphere, it also is a relatively insignificant contributor as compared to CO₂... and, per the study I linked to (along with others), possibly having less of a heat absorption trait than previously considered.

[Moonbox]

waldo, on 18 May 2013 - 11:51 PM, said:

sure, sure... just do whatever you need to in an attempt to 'save face'. Nothing sweeter than seeing someone scramble about when caught/nailed. Your claiming it was a "joke" is heeelarious!

Save face for what, exactly? I'm still waiting to find out what your scientific qualifications are. If you have none, as it appears just say so already instead of continually dodging. As it stands you've avoided the question about 3-4 times already, yet you seem to think you have a very solid understanding of mathematical models and such...

waldo, on 18 May 2013 - 11:51 PM, said:

nice dodge! You were speaking of the dated 25 year old study... that Hansen, as you said, "used that to vehemently promote specific public policy changes'.

A dodge? That's rich coming from you! As for his policy suggestions, this was the beginning of his eco-crusade, wasn't it?

waldo, on 18 May 2013 - 11:51 PM, said:

Hansen and economics??? Where did that come from... certainly not from the prior discussion. Hansen has the ear of many of the world's preeminent economists; he's quite cautious in stepping out and making claims outside his area of expertise. Don't hesitate to actually substantiate what you're speaking to in terms of 'Hansen & economics'.

Really? Where did that come from? You and Hansen seem to think that blocking Keystone will somehow put the breaks on the project. It REALLY won't.

waldo, on 18 May 2013 - 11:51 PM, said:

In case you didn't see this image just dropped in another thread, speaking to viability:

Yeah, neat picture. The part showing that the portion of the oil sands that will 'become' economically viable is a nice touch. By 2020, it's expected maybe 3M barrels/day will flow from the oil sands, which would take us about 50 years to use the 170 B reserve that will likely be viable. By the way, would you care to tell us how 170B barrels of bitumen production somehow equals the same carbon footprint as all the carbon ever burned by humans? World oil consumption is about 30 billion barrels a year, so unless the oil sands burn 10000x dirtier than estimated, I'm not so sure about those numbers!

waldo, on 18 May 2013 - 11:51 PM, said:

no - this is just you, again, failing to recognize mitigation isn't the sole requirement... this is just you choosing to ignore the need for adaptation and related financial assistance to those 3rd world countries you mentioned. It's quite revealing that you choose to echo the morally bankrupt "wealth transfer" talking point. Like I said, you selfishly choose to not accept that polluters should pay!

The moral argument on this means next to nothing. Your opinion on it means even less to me. Voters are more interested in their wallets than your vague concepts of morality.

waldo, on 18 May 2013 - 11:51 PM, said:

oh... so, you actually acknowledge your claim might not be so absolute.

Oh I make no absolute claims on climate science. My position has long been that it's not understood nearly as well as experts (and people like you) like to claim! This is just a really good example of a variable that wasn't properly accounted for in the modelling. The science is still in its infancy.

[waldo]

Save face for what, exactly? I'm still waiting to find out what your scientific qualifications are. If you have none, as it appears just say so already instead of continually dodging. As it stands you've avoided the question about 3-4 times already, yet you seem to think you have a very solid understanding of mathematical models and such...

save face for your nonsensical reference that you subsequently called "a joke"... after I highlighted your nonsense.

I'm quite familiar with your junkyard dog act having encountered it once before with your incessant ramblings over comprehension reading/writing! This version of your act is equally entertaining, particularly in that you've yet to ever substantiate anything you say... apparently, you're so scientifically qualified that you have no need to provide any form of citation/substantiation for anything you claim. By the by, what are your undeclared scientific chops, hey?

whatever understanding of models I have, I will note, again, that you refused to take-up the challenge to support your claim of "unreliable models"... quite telling, wouldn't you admit?

nice dodge! You were speaking of the dated 25 year old study... that Hansen, as you said, "used that to vehemently promote specific public policy changes'. In the context of your reply, referencing the dated study, when/how did he use that study's predictions, to, as you said, "vehemently promote specific public policy changes"? The only real (positive) attention that dated study gets is when the scenario B prediction is shown to align with today's resultant warming... 25 years later. Clearly, Hansen doesn't leverage it in regards to his opposition to the tarsands! Have you anything else?

A dodge? That's rich coming from you! As for his policy suggestions, this was the beginning of his eco-crusade, wasn't it?

what? You mean, once again, you're not capable of actually supporting your claim... you said, "used that to vehemently promote specific public policy changes". Given your declared "Hansen vehement" and your pointed reference to "specific", surely you must be able to come up with... something... anything!

Really? Where did that come from? You and Hansen seem to think that blocking Keystone will somehow put the breaks on the project. It REALLY won't.

no - I've said just the opposite a couple of posts back in the discussion of viability impacted by infrastructure vs. market access... that less infrastructure (pipelines) simply means the sludge gets shipped by rail (at a significant cost increase). You should try to keep up.

as for Hansen, I've never read anything where he's claimed shutting down KXL will, as you say, "put the breaks on the project". Feel free to actually substantiate that claim of yours!

Yeah, neat picture. The part showing that the portion of the oil sands that will 'become' economically viable is a nice touch. By 2020, it's expected maybe 3M barrels/day will flow from the oil sands, which would take us about 50 years to use the 170 B reserve that will likely be viable. By the way, would you care to tell us how 170B barrels of bitumen production somehow equals the same carbon footprint as all the carbon ever burned by humans? World oil consumption is about 30 billion barrels a year, so unless the oil sands burn 10000x dirtier than estimated, I'm not so sure about those numbers!

you clearly don't know anything about the tarsands, do you? 170 billion is simply that 'smallish' viable piece today... of the total 1.8 trillion 'oil in place (OIP)'... where, as stated now several times over, viability obviously increases with infrastructure access to markets. As stated previously, Hansen has suggested a conservative estimate of 50% of the OIP (potentially) shifting into a viable categorization... without applying any date attachment to that potential. The graph itself simply includes a reference to the global CO₂ budget amount to keep within the target 2°C warming limit accepted by 167 countries via the Copenhagen Accord. You're the only one equating 2050 to tarsands usage/depletion rates... as I said, Hansen certainly hasn't attached a date to his conservative estimate of 50% OIP potentially becoming viable.

The moral argument on this means next to nothing. Your opinion on it means even less to me. Voters are more interested in their wallets than your vague concepts of morality.

no - the 'moral argument' means next to nothing... to you. As before, you simply believe those countries that created the accumulated CO₂... those polluting countries... have no obligation to assist the 3rd world countries impacted by the resultant warming. Fortunately, at least in this case, world governments don't accept your callous 'wallet interest' and have established the Green Climate Fund (again via the Copenhagen Accord) as a "mechanism to transfer money from the developed to the developing world, in order to assist the developing countries in adaptation and mitigation practices to counter climate change." You know... all that "wealth transfer" BS you spoke of earlier!!!

Oh I make no absolute claims on climate science. My position has long been that it's not understood nearly as well as experts (and people like you) like to claim! This is just a really good example of a variable that wasn't properly accounted for in the modelling. The science is still in its infancy.

oh, I see... but wasn't it you making the absolute (unsubstantiated) claim - the claim I showed might not be so absolute, after all? Wasn't that you? I simply linked you to a study... a single study, that's it... and already, you're bailing on your earlier absolute claim. In any case, the ultimate determination for the degree of heat absorption of black carbon aerosol isn't a relatively significant factor... again, as I stated, given it's very short-term retention period within the atmosphere - typically only residing for a single weeks period. As for your "science is still in its infancy"... that's for your meaningful insight!!!

[Moonbox]

whatever understanding of models I have, I will note, again, that you refused to take-up the challenge to support your claim of "unreliable models"... quite telling, wouldn't you admit?

So...that's what? The 5th time you've dodged the question now? Can we just firmly take it that you have no qualified background on the subject material? LoL.

As before, you simply believe those countries that created the accumulated CO2... those polluting countries... have no obligation to assist the 3rd world countries impacted by the resultant warming.

That's what I said. Why are you parroting me now?

Fortunately, at least in this case, world governments don't accept your callous 'wallet interest' and have established the Green Climate Fund

Yeah we've had this discussion before. I mocked the initiative and how much waffling is going on and how little success they'll ultimately have. You disagreed. Let's leave it at that.

you clearly don't know anything about the tarsands, do you? 170 billion is simply that 'smallish' viable piece today... of the total 1.8 trillion 'oil in place (OIP)'... where, as stated now several times over, viability obviously increases with infrastructure access to markets.

Thanks. You've given me a perfect example of the type of fear mongering and idiotic exaggeration people like you and Hansen are prone to. By 2020, it's estimated tar sands production will be about 1.8 billion barrels per year. Tell us, genius, how long it would take to burn the 170 billion of proven and viable reserves available now, or better yet, how much production would have to increase to burn through all of it by 2050. Let's go back to your OIP numbers now and find out how long it would take to burn the 1.8 trillion. Yeah. That's what I thought. Pretty dumb.

Edited May 19, 2013 by Moonbox

[waldo]

So...that's what? The 5th time you've dodged the question now? Can we just firmly take it that you have no qualified background on the subject material? LoL.

yes, as I said, another version of your junkyard dog act. Your question is as stooopid as your failing act... I could tell you anything. So what? Could you verify it? If you want to start counting, let's make this the third time now you've been asked for your scientific credentials. Tell me a story... I'll believe ya!

The moral argument on this means next to nothing. Your opinion on it means even less to me. Voters are more interested in their wallets than your vague concepts of morality.

no - the 'moral argument' means next to nothing... to you. As before, you simply believe those countries that created the accumulated CO₂... those polluting countries... have no obligation to assist the 3rd world countries impacted by the resultant warming. Fortunately, at least in this case, world governments don't accept your callous 'wallet interest' and have established the Green Climate Fund (again via the Copenhagen Accord) as a "mechanism to transfer money from the developed to the developing world, in order to assist the developing countries in adaptation and mitigation practices to counter climate change." You know... all that "wealth transfer" BS you spoke of earlier!!!

That's what I said. Why are you parroting me now? Yeah we've had this discussion before. I mocked the initiative and how much waffling is going on and how little success they'll ultimately have. You disagreed. Let's leave it at that.

parroting you? I appreciate your sensitivity to having your failed morality repeatedly exposed. Do you have any updates to support your mocking and presumption of 'little success'? Your want to "leave it at that" can't go without reinforcing the world country fund pledges made as a part of being signatories to the Copenhagen Accord. I do believe I asked you if you had any info as to whether or not any countries have reneged on their pledge... I seem to recall specifically asking you whether you knew if Harper Conservatives were going to walk away from Canada's pledge? Any updates?

you clearly don't know anything about the tarsands, do you? 170 billion is simply that 'smallish' viable piece today... of the total 1.8 trillion 'oil in place (OIP)'... where, as stated now several times over, viability obviously increases with infrastructure access to markets. As stated previously, Hansen has suggested a conservative estimate of 50% of the OIP (potentially) shifting into a viable categorization... without applying any date attachment to that potential. The graph itself simply includes a reference to the global CO₂ budget amount to keep within the target 2°C warming limit accepted by 167 countries via the Copenhagen Accord. You're the only one equating 2050 to tarsands usage/depletion rates... as I said, Hansen certainly hasn't attached a date to his conservative estimate of 50% OIP potentially becoming viable.

Thanks. You've given me a perfect example of the type of fear mongering and idiotic exaggeration people like you and Hansen are prone to. By 2020, it's estimated tar sands production will be about 1.8 billion barrels per year. Tell us, genius, how long it would take to burn the 170 billion of proven and viable reserves available now, or better yet, how much production would have to increase to burn through all of it by 2050. Let's go back to your OIP numbers now and find out how long it would take to burn the 1.8 trillion. Yeah. That's what I thought. Pretty dumb.

.

again, you're the only one drawing a 2050 timeline to that graph... the graph that is really intended to speak to the nonsense spewed by Harper Conservative Natural Resources minister, Joe Oliver. Perhaps you should invest some time in actually researching what Hansen has said... that would be a most refreshing change for you! Again, the crux of the concern over KXL is as much symbolic as truly enabling an increase in the reserve viability. And as I stated, twice now, Hansen hasn't put a timeframe around his estimate on the tarsands potential viability and development extension.

I do find it most self-serving and silly of you to presume a status-quo like production increase given there's at least a half-dozen pipelines being considered... and these are the one's we know about! You don't appear to care to read what's already been stated; however, I'll try again. Given the concern on emissions reflects upon accumulated use and (the long-tail CO2) retention is in the centuries timeframe, the crux of the problem rests in the cumulative effect of continuing to use conventional oil sources at the current rates, coupled with a massive tarsands expansion... neither of which gets the world any closer to reducing the reliance on fossil-fuels.

the tarsands are, symbolically, an easy target simply based on GHG emission comparisons to conventional oil... the tarsands releases 3 times as much CO2 during the extraction process itself and GHG emissions from tarsands crude are, on average, ~25% higher than conventional oil. Hansen's emphasis, of course, is to reduce fossil-fuel usage/reliance... but to, at least for the immediacy, choose conventional over non-conventional sources of oil.

I question how you balance your earlier championing the need to reduce emissions with an almost unfettered zeal for the tarsands... surely you're not one of those concern-troll fake-skeptics, are you?

[Moonbox]

yes, as I said, another version of your junkyard dog act. Your question is as stooopid as your failing act... I could tell you anything. So what? Could you verify it?

You could tell us that you do not, indeed, have the scientific background that would be required to have a detailed and meaningful discussion on the mathematical models or projections. I certainly don't, so asking us to have a debate on them (on an internet political forum no less) is another one of your typically moronic "citation please" sort of fall-backs. The models and predictions have needed constant updates since 1988 and the understanding of them is not nearly as good as you or Hansen like to pretend.

again, you're the only one drawing a 2050 timeline to that graph... the graph that is really intended to speak to the nonsense spewed by Harper Conservative Natural Resources minister, Joe Oliver. Perhaps you should invest some time in actually researching what Hansen has said... that would be a most refreshing change for you! Again, the crux of the concern over KXL is as much symbolic as truly enabling an increase in the reserve viability. And as I stated, twice now, Hansen hasn't put a timeframe around his estimate on the tarsands potential viability and development extension.

Well gee, another dodge. Quelle surprise! I've read plenty of Hansen's comments on the subject, including his 'end game for the climate' article in the NY times from last year, where he told us how dangerous it would be to 'fully exploit' the tar sands and release the extra 120 PPM of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere (the amount equal to the total CO2 increase over the last 150 years). The graph you're presenting speaks more to the nonsense that you and Hansen are spewing than anything else. Again, I'm asking, what sort of timeline are we looking at for burning through the type of reserves that Hansen is theorizing, and what sort of expansion in development will it require from the 2020 levels of 1.8 billion barrels a day?

Given the concern on emissions reflects upon accumulated use and (the long-tail CO2) retention is in the centuries timeframe, the crux of the problem rests in the cumulative effect of continuing to use conventional oil sources at the current rates, coupled with a massive tarsands expansion

Good back-peddle. So I guess we can conclude that the chart is complete BS and that the tar sands are, as argued previously, a pretty small piece of the puzzle despite Hansen's scary numbers.

the tarsands are, symbolically, an easy target

There we go. That's basically what we're looking at.

I question how you balance your earlier championing the need to reduce emissions with an almost unfettered zeal for the tarsands... surely you're not one of those concern-troll fake-skeptics, are you?

I question you on my "championing on the need to reduce emissions with almost unfettered zeal." You made that up!

Edited May 20, 2013 by Moonbox

[Keepitsimple]

Moonbox - nice to see some more rational thought on the issues of Climate Change. I see you've been trying to have a rational discussion with our local zeolot Waldo who tends to huff and puff himself towards his usual narcissistic mania when rational discussion threatens to gain traction. He (or she) demonstrates the dark and destructive side of the Alarmist community - blinded to the reality that countries and governments need to work in incremental fashion to gain the momentum needed to make a difference. It's how the real world works. More and more, people are turning a deaf ear to the rantics and bluster of the Waldo-like fanatics. Adrian Dix paid the price for bowing to the radical side of the environment movement.

Moving from coal to clean-coal to oil to gas to totally renewable is a sequence that will provide meaningful advances over the next 20-30 years. Look at the US - 50% of power coming from coal - not to mention China and India's dependence on the same dirty resource. Having Oil Sands oil play a role in replacing coal in the US is a step in the right direction......but politics get in the way of reducing coal usage because of jobs, jobs, jobs. But once the recession is in retreat, Obama (or whoever) should make that committment - start replacing coal with oil - or gas.