The Global Warming Plateau

[Michael Hardner]

It's another qualitative assessment. I doubt any of us can say definitively where that label is most often used.

I'll be watching on here, at least, to see if you're right.

[Shady]

New from the LA Times:

Warming hiatus puts scientists on the spot.

http://touch.latimes.com/#section/-1/article/p2p-77513431/

[Keepitsimple]

Most 'deniers' acknowledge human caused warming ?

I guess I misunderstood that rather specific label, then.

Absolutely Michael. I fall into that category even though the usual suspects would label ME a denier. Like many of my ilk, I accept that humans contribute to some warming - over and above natural variations but the question has always been "how much"? Some people quote "significant" but what does that mean to a scientist - 20% is pretty significant - but what is it, really? When you reach a plateau like we've had while CO2 continues to rise unabated, it gives one pause to reflect on what that amount might be.

[waldo]

When you reach a plateau like we've had while CO2 continues to rise unabated, it gives one pause to reflect on what that amount might be.

you should have led, rather than close, with this sentence! It properly defines your actual position. In spite of this threads multiple times mentioned references to there being no pause in warming, in spite of your (continued) personal isolated preference on surface temperature (to the exclusion of ocean warming), in spite of your refusal to acknowledge that the last decade has been the warmest within the instrumental record, in spite of the overall top 10 list of warmest years being "2010, 2005, 1998, 2003, 2002, 2006, 2009, 2007, 2004, 2012", you continue on with this nonsense about a "warming plateau". Yes, the rate of global surface temperature has slowed in relation to the previous decade... but warming continues/accelerates within respective ocean layers. It's called GLOBAL warming for a reason!

Absolutely Michael. I fall into that category even though the usual suspects would label ME a denier. Like many of my ilk, I accept that humans contribute to some warming - over and above natural variations but the question has always been "how much"?

you are a denier! That fact is plainly evident in the history of your related MLW posts. Posts that have had you claiming cooling trends, had you challenging any correlation between CO2 and temperature, had you perpetually linking to/quoting from prominent denier blogs, had you steadfast in claims of warming following a "30 year natural variability cycle", etc., etc., etc. MLW search will easily pull out these and more of your best worst!

not only have you questioned warming occurring, outright, you now couch your "shifted position" with the weaselly words "humans contribute to some warming" - some! Quite obviously, given your posting history, your apparent shift is one that has you realizing you can no longer stay "within the fringe, or the fringe of the fringe". Unless you can provide a substantive and supportable position on what's principally causing present warming, other than anthropogenic sources, you sir, remain a denier! And it most certainly is not a pejorative... it is a statement of fact that you do not accept the prevailing science - you deny it.

[waldo]

The label is a pejorative applied to anyone who disagrees with the anti-CO2 policy agenda. If you suggest that mitigating CO2 is a bad idea for whatever reason you are a "denier".

If you think that the label has something to do with a person's view on the science then you have not been paying attention.

outside of your victimization play, the label 'denier' is not a pejorative. It's a statement of position in denying the consensus/prevailing science. It has nothing whatsoever to do with policy... well... unless, as in your case, that policy position of adaptation to the outright exclusion of mitigation, is one that has you denying the science that shows mankind's burning of fossil-fuels is the principal causal tie/link to global warming. As you are always asked to do... as you refuse to respond with... please provide the basis for your accepting of warming; i.e., given you won't accept, won't acknowledge that mankind's burning of fossil-fuels is the principal causal tie/link to warming, what is your interpreted alternate principal causal tie/link? Just answer the question... it's as simple as that. Just answer the question!

[waldo]

Most "deniers" agree with me.

no - most advocates for "do nothing, delay any mitigating action at all cost"... they agree with you!

[waldo]

This is one of the reasons why I think adaptation is the best policy option because you are only spending money once you are certain that it is actually required.

of course, after the fact, try to address impacts caused by principals/feedbacks that meanwhile continue to accumulate, compound and accelerate, further impacting on the very target you presume to attempt to adapt to! Makes perfect economic sense in your vested interest Adapt-R-Us (only) mentality!!!

[carepov]

Most 'deniers' acknowledge human caused warming ?

I guess I misunderstood that rather specific label, then.

I'm not sure, but I would probably be labelled a "denier" because I do not see global warming as one of the biggest threats facing humanity. From an earlier link:

"Multiple challenges compete for the world’s resources, from economic development and ending poverty to eradicating AIDS and malaria. The climate is not the world’s only priority. Even if we were to agree that improving the well-being of future generations is worth an enormous investment, there might be better things to invest in than reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

Most of Bangladesh is less than 33 feet above sea level. Millions of poor farmers on its alluvial plains would welcome investments to prevent melting polar ice caps and rising sea levels. But many would also welcome investments that made them richer and better able to cope with climate change, including jobs outside of agriculture and homes somewhere dry.

As Professor Nordhaus wrote in his 2008 book, “A Question of Balance”: “Investments in reducing future climate damages to corn and trees and other areas should compete with investments in better seed, improved rotation and many other high-yield investments.” If investments in CO₂ abatement are not competitive, we would do better by investing elsewhere and using the proceeds to cover warming’s damage."

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/11/business/counting-the-cost-of-fixing-the-future.html?src=recg&_r=1&

Is Professor Nordhaus a "denier"?

[waldo]

I'm not sure, but I would probably be labelled a "denier" because I do not see global warming as one of the biggest threats facing humanity. From an earlier link:

"Multiple challenges compete for the world’s resources, from economic development and ending poverty to eradicating AIDS and malaria. The climate is not the world’s only priority. Even if we were to agree that improving the well-being of future generations is worth an enormous investment, there might be better things to invest in than reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

no - based on this post, you most certainly would not fit the labeling. Again, you're mixing science with policy intent/decision/outcome.

you might be asked to support your position that other global impacting issues rise to the level of and usurp concerns over global warming/climate change. You also present a false dichotomy between absolutes... adaptation to the exclusion of mitigation. The prevailing policy mix is one that includes all measures; adaptation, mitigation and prevention.

[waldo]

But, in the end, how much can we really know people so remove from us ? We have signs to his character, and I agree that his response is understandable. As such, if people want to make their judgments, I can accept that. I myself reserve judgment.

this is more in line with my perception on your position... that you reserve judgement on character. Unfortunately, your words read as an acceptance of the other members viewpoint/character assessment of Mann... that you received such a 'heartfelt thank you' from that member should have been your first clue!

[carepov]

no - based on this post, you most certainly would not fit the labeling. Again, you're mixing science with policy intent/decision/outcome.

you might be asked to support your position that other global impacting issues rise to the level of and usurp concerns over global warming/climate change. You also present a false dichotomy between absolutes... adaptation to the exclusion of mitigation. The prevailing policy mix is one that includes all measures; adaptation, mitigation and prevention.

Thanks for not labelling me a "denier". By the way, I am the last person that would present a dichotomy between any absolutes - especially on such a complex topic.

Regarding other global impacting issues that eclipse GW, I cannot help being very sceptical (even dismissive) of economic reports that "predict" the cost of unmitigated GW to be 2.8% of global GDP in 2095!?!? Really, to put this prediction into perspective, what was the cost of the Financial Crisis?

I'm sorry if you've already given your opinions in earlier posts, but I would be interested in knowing what sort of policy mix outline that you would like to see.

[Michael Hardner]

this is more in line with my perception on your position... that you reserve judgement on character. Unfortunately, your words read as an acceptance of the other members viewpoint/character assessment of Mann... that you received such a 'heartfelt thank you' from that member should have been your first clue!

I do accept his judgment, though. Assessing character is an individual person's prerogative. Obvious TimG holds a high standard, and so be it.

[waldo]

Regarding other global impacting issues that eclipse GW, I cannot help being very sceptical (even dismissive) of economic reports that "predict" the cost of unmitigated GW to be 2.8% of global GDP in 2095!?!? Really, to put this prediction into perspective, what was the cost of the Financial Crisis?

I'm sorry if you've already given your opinions in earlier posts, but I would be interested in knowing what sort of policy mix outline that you would like to see.

to comment on your referenced 'cost of unmitigated action', it would be helpful to see where that prediction sources... and what it's based upon.

yes, I have offered comment/opinion in the past on a policy mix... approaches that reflect on an assortment of so-called 40-50 year roadmaps from such groups as the IEA, the EU, etc.. Roadmap approaches that speak to technology perspectives/scenarios/strategies aimed toward, ultimately, emission reduction and degrees of energy decarbonization... emphasizing respective technology mixes inclusive of technology gap management. Of course, regardless of the fact it's the IEA providing advise/guidance to the G8/G20, a mandate given to the IEA by the G8/G20, the usual suspects on this board won't acknowledge the roadmap approach... the standard, 'technology doesn't exist ... and we'll never get there' comeback gets regularly trotted out. Equally, they get outright queasy when discussion includes suggestions toward reducing reliance on fossil-fuels - go figure!

[waldo]

I do accept his judgment, though. Assessing character is an individual person's prerogative. Obvious TimG holds a high standard, and so be it.

you're missing the point between accepting someone's character assessment, as in you accept they have a right to their assessment, versus accepting the actual assessment (i.e., you endorse it). Your acceptance was taken as an endorsement... that you shared it. Now, you did subsequently clear that up by highlighting your care in making character assessments (as in, 'how much do we really know from afar'), by stating you in fact reserve judgement on your personal character assessment of Michael Mann. "Accept" can be taken different ways... and, again, the hearty thank you directed your way suggested just how it was taken by the MLW member in question.

[Michael Hardner]

and, again, the hearty thank you directed your way suggested just how it was taken by the MLW member in question.

I suppose TimG appreciates that I respect the right of others to apply their own judgment in such cases. I also don't disagree with the fact that our information sphere will necessarily bring ivory towers crashing down, and that academia has a social duty to reintegrate their institutions to the new way.

[waldo]

I respect the right of others to apply their own judgment in such cases. I also don't disagree with the fact that our information sphere will necessarily bring ivory towers crashing down, and that academia has a social duty to reintegrate their institutions to the new way.

interesting... what's the "new way" you speak of?

[TimG]

I do accept his judgment, though. Assessing character is an individual person's prerogative. Obvious TimG holds a high standard, and so be it.

I see the distinction you are making and it is fair and much better than accusing me of being a conspiracy theorist because scientific institutions don't live up to the standards that I expect. That said, I don't believe you would be so sanguine about Mann's behavior if you did not support his cause.

[TimG]

Thanks for not labelling me a "denier". By the way, I am the last person that would present a dichotomy between any absolutes - especially on such a complex topic.

waldo appears to be moderating his tone - normally he rolls out the denier label for anyone who has the temerity to disagree with him.

I cannot help being very sceptical (even dismissive) of economic reports that "predict" the cost of unmitigated GW to be 2.8% of global GDP in 2095!?!? Really, to put this prediction into perspective, what was the cost of the Financial Crisis?

One metric I think is interesting is the 'social cost of carbon' where the cost of carbon emissions are converted to a dollar value today. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_tax

Even under the most aggressive assumptions the SCC is about $0.06 to $0.09 per liter of gas which is less than the excise taxes that are already in place in most countries. This data tells me that there is no compelling economic case for massive spending today in order to reduce emissions slightly. Adaptation (i.e. pay the costs as it comes due) makes much more sense.

Edited September 24, 2013 by TimG

[ReeferMadness]

Science is never settled - scientists keep on discovering new things about the world. Any other expectation is ludicrous.

There are plenty of good reasons to become more efficient with natural resources - especially fossil fuels. They include less pollution, conservation of resources for future generations, sustainment of biodiversity and freeing up of people's time for non-economic pursuits (ie increased personal freedom). However, doing this without destroying the quality of life for poor people will involve creativity, empathy and cooperation - not exactly the strengths of the dinosaurs who seem to be dominating economic thought these days.

[TimG]

However, doing this without destroying the quality of life for poor people will involve creativity, empathy and cooperation - not exactly the strengths of the dinosaurs who seem to be dominating economic thought these days.

The only way to reduce CO2 emissions without destroying the quality of life for the poorest is to invent a new source of power that is cheaper than fossil fuels (after including all costs).

Any other measures will destroy quality of life because they are simply fancy ways to increase the cost of energy until non-fossil fuel alternatives can compete. Making everyone equally poor through taxation is not going to change that.

When it comes to finding a new energy sources I have more faith in a profit driven private sector than in bureaucrat managed "innovation". The shale gas success story is a good example of how the public funding and private sector can combine to produce innovation. The government funded the initial R&D in the 80s but the technology was put on the shelf because it was not economic. By the time the 2000s rolled around it became economic an shale gas production exploded thanks to private sector investment - no subsidies required.

But repeating that model requires that bureaucrats accept that they cannot demand innovation on a time table.

Edited September 24, 2013 by TimG

[waldo]

I see the distinction you are making and it is fair and much better than accusing me of being a conspiracy theorist because scientific institutions don't live up to the standards that I expect. That said, I don't believe you would be so sanguine about Mann's behavior if you did not support his cause.

scientific institutions living up to standards that you expect! Ya, ya... like your oft claimed sweeping 'gate-keeping' and complete corruption of peer-review charges! World-wide scientific institutions conspiring to keep the poor downtrodden denier-man down!

you just made a snide remark about me 'moderating my tone' because you (incorrectly) perceived something about agreement... why... it appears you've moderated your tone. Not that many posts back in this thread, you labeled Michael Hardner a religious zealot and called him clueless for not agreeing with you. How moderating of you to ramp that down to "sanguine" in this post!

[waldo]

waldo appears to be moderating his tone - normally he rolls out the denier label for anyone who has the temerity to disagree with him.

no - as stated many times over, the denier label fits appropriately for anyone denying the prevailing science of today. Nothing more, nothing less. In the past, and displayed several times recently just within this thread, you've pulled out your ready go-to victimization card claiming the label is pejorative intended! How should we speak of your tone... and victimization plays... through your many, many, many times labeling of others as conspirators, group thinkers, job protectors, fraudsters, data manipulators, peer-review corruptors, disaster porn sellers, rent seekers, religious zealots, exhibiting ideological bias, exhibiting confirmation bias, etc., etc., etc.! In that light, as you say about "rolling out labels", is there one overall label you'd prefer to be rolled out with?

.

[gunrutz]

edit

Edited September 24, 2013 by gunrutz

[gunrutz]

no - as stated many times over, the denier label fits appropriately for anyone denying the prevailing science of today. Nothing more, nothing less. In the past, and displayed several times recently just within this thread, you've pulled out your ready go-to victimization card claiming the label is pejorative intended! How should we speak of your tone... and victimization plays... through your many, many, many times labeling of others as conspirators, group thinkers, job protectors, fraudsters, data manipulators, peer-review corruptors, disaster porn sellers, rent seekers, religious zealots, exhibiting ideological bias, exhibiting confirmation bias, etc., etc., etc.! In that light, as you say about "rolling out labels", is there one overall label you'd prefer to be rolled out with?

.

And there really was a lake at the north pole this summer.

[Michael Hardner]

This may be a first - posters insisting that the other person is moderating their tone ?

Sorry for the aside, but ...

My real question is - at projected warming costs of 2% of GDP is there a case for mitigation ? And what exactly IS mitigation ? Development of alternative sources of energy, phased in as with Hybrid cars ? Voluntary reduction targets ?

Aren't these things just reasonable responses to the use of a limited resource anyway, and furthermore one that causes other damage to the environment ?