The Global Warming Plateau

[waldo]

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

huh! Oh, you mean "ice free"! Well... I could look for specifics, but those predictions have been made out a number of years yet. If there's one particular prediction that you'd like to elevate, have at er! Meanwhile, in the real world, we have the first bulk carrier through the Northwest Passage... just completed about 6 hours ago. Here's an earlier link for when it entered the passage a few days ago:

[Michael Hardner]

Carrying coal, too.

[waldo]

Carrying coal, too.

oh noooooooooooooosssssssssssssssssssss!

[carepov]

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.

There are many things we can do to reduce CO2 without reducing the quality of life!

How about the countless ways to conserve energy?

How about switching electrical generation from coal to gas and/or using more nuclear, and where feasible, hydro, geothermal and other sources?

[TimG]

How about the countless ways to conserve energy?

Conservation measures that are free or pay for themselves are a tiny drop in the bucket.

How about switching electrical generation from coal to gas and/or using more nuclear, and where feasible, hydro, geothermal and other sources?

Sure. But nuclear is not a politically feasible at this time. Gas is being expanded in the US but elsewhere it is being blocked. Hydro and geothermal are too small to make much of difference (worth doing but not much in the big picture).

[Michael Hardner]

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

I thought I posted a response to this yesterday....

When communication modes change drastically, there is necessarily a shakedown in power structures. This happened with the printing press, and Luther challenging the church, and the resulting wars.

The public also has to incorporate the new communication channels into existing information channels in a balanced way: to neither believe everything that comes from them (in this case, the blogosphere) nor to ignore them.

[carepov]

Conservation measures that are free or pay for themselves are a tiny drop in the bucket.

Sure. But nuclear is not a politically feasible at this time. Gas is being expanded in the US but elsewhere it is being blocked. Hydro and geothermal are too small to make much of difference (worth doing but not much in the big picture).

I disagree, I'm talking major conservation:

-About 1/3 of food is wasted

-How much energy is wasted in transportation, industrial, commercial and residential uses? Probably 1/3 as well

-Mass transit/high speed rail

-Car pooling/cycling

-More fuel efficiency

-Displace truck transport with rail

-Stop/lower air conditioning, lighting and heating loads of large buildings when not in use.

Nuclear seems politically feasible in South Korea and France. Politics can be changed.

The point is that there is lots we can do to reduce CO2 without reducing quality of life. (I also forgot to mention: plant more trees.) Why aren't these things getting done? and if it is happenning why isn't it happening in more places and on a larger scale?

[TimG]

My real question is - at projected warming costs of 2% of GDP is there a case for mitigation?

The social cost of carbon is an attempt to incorporate the future cost of adaption into the cost of fossil fuels today. Even the most aggressive estimates per the cost at 10 cents/liter of gas. i.e. It is insignificant compared to the cost of fossil fuels - and a lot less than the cost of an equivalent electric vehicle.

And what exactly IS mitigation ? Development of alternative sources of energy, phased in as with Hybrid cars ? Voluntary reduction targets ?

The only effect form of mitigation is changing energy sources (i.e. move to nuclear/natural gas instead of coal). But all of the alternatives have their own downsides so the question becomes what downsides are people most willing to live with. Once people look at the alternatives emitting CO2 seems like not such a bad idea.

[TimG]

About 1/3 of food is wasted

So? How much of it is spoiled? How much is thrown away simply because of a health concern? How much is wasted because people demand choice and providing choice means stores stock more than they can sell? Reducing food waste would reduce our quality of life.

A-How much energy is wasted in transportation, industrial, commercial and residential uses?

Define wasted? Power plants waste 70% of the energy that comes in. Cars about 80%. There is already an economic incentive to maximize the efficiency of these processes so the scope for additions reductions is next to zero (reductions over and above what we will see naturally).

Mass transit/high speed rail

Hi speed rail is uneconomic in most places. Running a mass transit system that people want to ride requires a lot of empty trains and buses during off peak hours. This means the benefit of mass transit is a lot less that you think. Plus riding mass transit means the quality of life for people goes down.

Car pooling/cycling

You are asking people to reduce their quality of life which was want you claimed was not necessary.

The point is that there is lots we can do to reduce CO2 without reducing quality of life.

You picked a bunch of things that you think would not reduce *your* quality of life. It is quite a stretch to say that others would feel the same way. In other cases there are already economic incentives to reduce energy consumption as much as possible so there is little additional potential for savings (other that the natural increase in efficiency that we get as technology improves without any special effort). Edited September 24, 2013 by TimG

[Michael Hardner]

The social cost of carbon is an attempt to incorporate the future cost of adaption into the cost of fossil fuels today. Even the most aggressive estimates per the cost at 10 cents/liter of gas. i.e. It is insignificant compared to the cost of fossil fuels - and a lot less than the cost of an equivalent electric vehicle.

The only effect form of mitigation is changing energy sources (i.e. move to nuclear/natural gas instead of coal). But all of the alternatives have their own downsides so the question becomes what downsides are people most willing to live with. Once people look at the alternatives emitting CO2 seems like not such a bad idea.

http://www.bloomberg.com/visual-data/gas-prices/

Americans spend about $4.50 per day on gasoline according to that, so 10 cents a litre comes out to 1/4 of that... seems about right I suppose ...

Couldn't mitigating the effects also include creating a superfund from the tax revenue to deal with the effects ? Just an academic question, really.

[TimG]

Couldn't mitigating the effects also include creating a superfund from the tax revenue to deal with the effects ? Just an academic question, really.

Why do we need big pools of money? As effects become apparent governments will need to act based on the circumstances. If a big pool of money exists people will invent excuses to get at it so we are better off without it.

That said, there is a tendency to for people to blame every bad weather event on climate change - even when there little or no evidence of a connection. This will make it virtually impossible to separate the real cost of adaptation from the normal costs of dealing with bad weather.

[carepov]

So? How much of it is spoiled? How much is thrown away simply because of a health concern? How much is wasted because people demand choice and providing choice means stores stock more than they can sell? Reducing food waste would reduce our quality of life.

Food is wasted for various reasons. I read that in the west it is due to people buying too much of it (retail or restaurants) and then throwing it away. In developing countries it is wasted in inefficient distribution. If done right, reducing food waste would increase quality of life.

Define wasted? Power plants waste 70% of the energy that comes in. Cars about 80%. There is already an economic incentive to maximize the efficiency of these processes so the scope for additions reductions is next to zero (reductions over and above what we will see naturally).

In this context, waste is the use energy for no benefit. For example: leaving the light on in an empty room

Or using x amount of energy when x-y would give the same benefit: eg: driving a car with underinflated tires where traction is not an issue

Hi speed rail is uneconomic in most places. Running a mass transit system that people want to ride requires a lot of empty trains and buses during off peak hours. This means the benefit of mass transit is a lot less that you think.

Of course mass transit and high speed rail should only be used where it is feasible.

Plus riding mass transit means the quality of life for people goes down.

You are asking people to reduce their quality of life which was want you claimed was not necessary.

You picked a bunch of things that you think would not reduce *your* quality of life. It is quite a stretch to say that others would feel the same way. In other cases there are already economic incentives to reduce energy consumption as much as possible so there is little additional potential for savings (other that the natural increase in efficiency that we get as technology improves without any special effort).

Yes, some things would inconvenience people, including myself - but the proper way to look at it is to consider the net cost/benefits to society. More disincentives for driving and more incentives for riding mass transit/car pooling/biking would piss of a few but others would gain (less traffic, faster commuter times, more disposable income, more exercise and better health, less stress).

There is huge potential for energy conservation. A good start would be to adopt "best practices" of communities where CO2 emissions have been reduced while life satisfaction has increased. Denmark and other Northern European countries come to mind.

[TimG]

---

Edited September 24, 2013 by TimG

[TimG]

If done right, reducing food waste would increase quality of life.

Or the fact that food can be wasted is an essential element to higher quality of life. Obviously something can be done about the most egregious examples but I suspect that the majority of food usage is because it is cheap enough that the cost of not wasting it is much higher. If the cost of food was higher there would be less wastage but lower quality of lives.

In this context, waste is the use energy for no benefit. For example: leaving the light on in an empty room Or using x amount of energy when x-y would give the same benefit: eg: driving a car with underinflated tires where traction is not an issue

Who says leaving a light on in an empty room has no benefit? In any case, the energy to be saved by reducing such things is trivial.

Yes, some things would inconvenience people, including myself - but the proper way to look at it is to consider the net cost/benefits to society.

If you want to argue people should live with less because it is "good for us" then go ahead. The argument is not without merit. But voluntary measures will be a drop of the bucket and mandatory impositions of energy puritanism reduces quality of life - which was my point, Reduction in CO2 requires either cheaper energy sources or a reduction in quality of life.

There is huge potential for energy conservation. A good start would be to adopt "best practices" of communities where CO2 emissions have been reduced while life satisfaction has increased. Denmark and other Northern European countries come to mind.

The Scandinavian countries have energy consumption per capita in the same range as the US and Canada. Denmark is the exception. Denmark also has a high population density which makes things like district heating practical. Edited September 24, 2013 by TimG

[gunrutz]

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/24/climate-campaigner-david-suzuki-doesnt-know-what-the-climate-temperature-data-sets-are/#more-94531

Believers in a nut shell.

[carepov]

Or the fact that food can be wasted is an essential element to higher quality of life. Obviously something can be done about the most egregious examples but I suspect that the majority of food usage is because it is cheap enough that the cost of not wasting it is much higher. If the cost of food was higher there would be less wastage but lower quality of lives.

Who says leaving a light on in an empty room has no benefit? In any case, the energy to be saved by reducing such things is trivial.

Waste by definition is non-value-added, but of course some people do benefit from waste. Are you saying that it's a bad idea to reduce waste, or are you just being obtuse?

Even if we can eliminate 10% of our energy consumption by reducing waste this would not be trivial. I imagine that the figure is at least 25%.

If you want to argue people should live with less because it is "good for us" then go ahead. The argument is not without merit. But voluntary measures will be a drop of the bucket and mandatory impositions of energy puritanism reduces quality of life - which was my point, Reduction in CO2 requires either cheaper energy sources or a reduction in quality of life.

I agree, "mandatory impositions of energy puritanism reduces quality of life" and voluntary measures are not enough. The answers are in between.

-Do Californians have a lower quality of life because gas lawnmowers are banned?

-Does planting more trees reduce quality of life?

-Again, replacing coal with hydro/nuclear does not fit your claim

-Some countries/regions have significantly reduced CO2 without reducing their quality of life - how did they do this?

[waldo]

Believers in a nut shell.

yes, most certainly... your link is a showcased example of denial believers in a nut shell!

the denialsphere is in a frenzy over an interpretation of what David Suzuki said during his Australia visit and the 'panel' discussion he was a part of. The chucklefest has deniers back-slapping and high-fiving over an interpretation that Suzuki does not recognize the names of principal temperature datasets. And, of course, they managed to pump it into an assortment of mainstream outlets!

setting aside preferred interpretations of the isolated panel discussion highlighted, it's not unreasonable to expect that Suzuki might know the names of some of the principal temperature datasets... alternatively, he may not immerse himself into that degree of detail; that's certainly not a facet of the role he's taken. On the other hand, until I read a response from him over this denier feeding frenzy, I'm inclined to point out the following; first the actual highlighted exchange:

BILL KOUTALIANOS: Sure, yeah. UAH, RSS, HadCRUT, GISS data shows a 17-year flat trend which suggests there may be something wrong with the Co2 warming theory?

DAVID SUZUKI: Sorry, yeah, what is the reference? I don’t…

BILL KOUTALIANOS: Well, they’re the main data sets that IPCC use: UAH, University of Alabama, Huntsville; GISS, Goddard Institute of Science; HadCRUT. I don’t know what that stands for, HadCRUT; and RSS, Remote Sensing something. So those data sets suggest a 17-year flat trend, which suggests there may be a problem with the Co2.

DAVID SUZUKI: No, well, there may be a climate sceptic down in Huntsville, Alabama, who has taken the data and come to that conclusion. I say, let’s wait for the IPCC report to come out and see what the vast bulk of scientists who have been involved in gathering this information will tell us.

Suzuki responds to the initial question stating, "Sorry, yeah, what is the reference? I don't...". He's interrupted. The question is one that first identifies by name, an assortment of temperature datasets, while at the same time making a suggestive claim that, "there may be something wrong with the CO² warming theory". Setting aside the idiocy of the suggestive claim, was Suzuki asking for the reference for the dataset names... or... for the reference to the suggestive claim? Would one make a request for the reference for names... or for the suggestive claim? Well, we certainly see which way the denialsphere preferred to interpret, while running giddy with it!

The interrupting questioner responds by stating what some of the names of the datasets acronyms mean. The fact he can actually only state accurately what only one of those acronyms means himself, seems to get a big-time pass! He closes his questioning out by stating "so those data sets suggest a 17-year flat trend, which suggests there may be a problem with the CO²." Oh my, CO² has a problem!!! The doofus questioner apparently doesn't realize the greenhouse effect is much more than just CO²... the point being, the correct/proper questioning would frame a suggestive claim around the greenhouse effect, proper! Another pass from the denialsphere!

The highlighted discussion stream has Suzuki closing out by stating, "No, well, there may be a climate skeptic down in Huntsville, Alabama, who has taken the data and come to that conclusion". I read this and I interpret Suzuki making indirect reference to the profile "skeptics" Christy and/or Spencer... who are from Huntsville Alabama. Oh my, does Suzuki actually know this association?

In any case gunrutz, you certainly are a, as you say, "believer", in linking/quoting from the most prolific denier blog out there! Well done you big believer! Of course, I expect you either don't know the history of that blogs author/originator as it relates to temperature datasets... or you're purposely "believing". Your blog guy has a long history of being shown to be an absolute idiot in regards the surface temperature record and it's related temperature datasets. Your guy is the guy who has accused NOAA of fraud... your guy has the denier pull (into the mainstream) that caused NOAA to have to respond to his nonsense. Your guy is the idiot who claimed all manner of problems with the datasets, to the data, to the point that scientists from both NASA and NOAA had to respond directly to his idiocy, where some of that response reached to the level of publishing papers to ensure public trust of the surface temperature record... response that was required because the denier BS was drawing mainstream attention calling into question the integrity of the surface temperature record. I could go on, and on, and on, concerning the absolute crap your referenced blogger has brought forward concerning the surface temperature record and its related datasets. To me, the summary kill-shot on your denier blogger is his absolute misunderstanding of what temperature anomalies are and how one properly relates/compares temperature datasets that have differing reference values. When his complete misunderstanding percolated forward he chose to tell his minions he was simply conducting a "social experiment". Yes, that's what he said... that he purposely chose to "misspeak" because he wanted to gauge the response he would draw - "a social experiment"! This, from your blogger guy, the guy who accused NOAA of fraud!

in any case, gunrutz, since UAH was particularly highlighted in the discussion exchange, I thought I'd close this out with attention to the suggestive claim that was made... that there's a 17 year flat trend! I've added in a couple of comparisons, also including 1990 and 1980. Enjoy! Looking flat to you gunrutz?

[Michael Hardner]

Waldo - in the interest of assisting those of us who are asked about these graphs:

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/suzuki_revealed_as_complete_know_nothing_by_very_first_question_on_qa/

Why do the UAH, RSS, HadCRUT appear so flat on that page ?

[TimG]

Why do the UAH, RSS, HadCRUT appear so flat on that page ?

The raw data appears to be the same. The difference is waldo slapped a linear regression on the graphs. However, waldo's graph is deceptive because linear regressions without the error bars are meaningless. i.e. you cannot tell from waldo's graph if the trend is statistically distinguishable from a zero trend.

[Accountability Now]

The raw data appears to be the same. The difference is waldo slapped a linear regression on the graphs. However, waldo's graph is deceptive because linear regressions without the error bars are meaningless. i.e. you cannot tell from waldo's graph if the trend is statistically distinguishable from a zero trend.

Yes...perhaps like the chart from the NOAA site which also shows a flat (even a slightly declining trend) over the last 15 odd years.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/service/global/global-land-ocean-mntp-anom/201201-201212.png

[waldo]

Waldo - in the interest of assisting those of us who are asked about these graphs:

wasn't your linked article a most interesting interpretation of the highlighted discussion with Suzuki? What would you make of an article that presumes to present GISS data and then shows a plot labeled RSS? (that's the first graph in the article)? If we accept the legitimacy of the other remaining plots as matched correctly by name, it appears the article is just presenting some degree of moving mean against the data. It's certainly a step-up from guys around here who have presumed to speak of warming by simply "eye-balling" the actual raw data (not plotted, just raw data)! Of course, a moving mean "eye-balled" ... or an actual trend for that matter, if shortened up tight enough, allows for great liberty taking and doesn't say anything whatsoever about climate. What's even more of a hoot is for someone to presume to present a moving mean graphical (a mean over some indeterminate/undefined time-frame), eyeball it all up, and refer to it as a trend!

in any case, we saw these games played by TimG/Riverwind in the past when attempting to trend on such nonsensical short time-frames like... 6 years in duration! As for TimG's drive-by follow-up to your post, he could present his own preferred plot example(s); ones that include confidence levels he's drawing attention to. We could gauge just how short... this, his latest iteration of the short game, truly is!

of course, a part of this recent weeks thrust by the denialsphere is to, in preparation for the upcoming release of the IPCC AR5 report, beat the drums around global surface temperature... while completely ignoring heat transfer at large, most particularly respective ocean layer warming - where over 90% of warming goes. Equally, DenialTown perpetually emphasizes 'natural causes', but somehow, downplays the significance of the rather unique clustering of La Nina years within the last decade; which, of course, does influence the overall surface temperature warming trend - 'slowing it'. Somehow DenialTown doesn't want to give any notice to that 'above norm' La Nina natural influence factor... more La Nina years this past decade than typical. Given the slowdown attention, scientists have taken to investigating these shorter periods, looking to distinguish (and separate out) warming causes... something that appears to bring significant consternation to the denier crew.

[scribblet]

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/24/climate-campaigner-david-suzuki-doesnt-know-what-the-climate-temperature-data-sets-are/#more-94531

Believers in a nut shell.

I've been reading about that... Dr, Suzuki is now Dr. Fruit Fly... The original article said he was 'pig ignorant' but has been changed.

Dr. S. has lost any credibility he had left. The point is, nothing is set in stone, the data changes and there is no definite proof that the earth is warming yadda yadda

[waldo]

there is no definite proof that the earth is warming

given your past history of posting within GW/CC related threads, you had no credibility to begin with... this latest lil' nugget of yours clearly puts you on the fringe of the fringe!

[eyeball]

Scientists say it's 95% our fault. Presumably that would be the vast vast majority of scientists.

Don't blame me for denying the skepticism.

[TimG]

Scientists say it's 95% our fault. Presumably that would be the vast vast majority of scientists.

The 95% number was plucked out of the air based on the "gut feel" of the people writing the IPCC report (a small minority of scientists). But even if we accept the assertion that humans are changing the climate it does not automatically follow that CO2 reductions are the best way to deal with the problem. Adaptation as needed makes more economic sense. Edited September 28, 2013 by TimG