Emission scenarios and economic impacts of climate change

[TimG]

Could you explain how GWPF is a 'denier organization'?

Any organization that does not fully endorse the 'world-is-ending-shutdown-down-all-industry-immediately' mentality is a "denier". At some point you just have to stop looking for logic and treat such labels nothing more than the rantings of a religious fanatic. Edited July 14, 2015 by TimG

[Argus]

The only way to win the game is to refuse to play. Perhaps the biggest argument in favour of adaption as the primary policy response is it only requires local action. No global agreement is required.

I tend to agree. Nothing Canada can do individually will have any impact on world CO2 emissions anyway. And none of the international agreements proposed would stop the increase in CO2 emissions since they exempt primary growth areas like China and India. The only logical response to an increasing global temperature is to try and figure out what real world issues this will cause and move to address them in advance. Arguments over what the total effects of CO2 growth are on climate vs some other natural progressive warming become redundant then.

Edited July 14, 2015 by Argus

[-1=e^ipi]

Tol's (failed) analysis and (false) claim that the positive effects of climate change far outweigh the negative.

I know the following concept is difficult for you to grasp but please try. It's not simply climate change is either positive or negative; it depends on how much climate change. A small amount of climate change (say 1 degree of warming) is likely beneficial, where as warming beyond that will generally have negative impacts.

considering this is your economic focused thread, it's quite telling that you've chosen to take a most literal interpretation

Yes, I take what you say literally. That's what you are supposed to do in science.

Of course, an actual thinking person would view impacts and affects in terms of vulnerability, risk, mortality, economic loss, ability to adapt, readiness to adapt, etc..;

You mean someone who doesn't mind distorting facts to suit their agenda? Saying 'tropical regions, while being affected far less by climate change than polar regions, will be the most negatively impacted by climate change' doesn't have the same emotional impact to the public as saying 'developed countries will be the most affected by climate change'.

As but one example below, a graphic sourced from Germanwatch / Munich Re reinsurer: "of the 10 most affected countries (1994-2013), nine were developing countries in the low income or lower-middle income country group, while only one was classified as an upper-middle income country"

All this risk index is, is a measure of what extent countries have been impacted by storms, floods and heat waves. It looks at which countries are most affected by tropical weather events and finds that tropical countries are most affected by tropical weather events, well duh. It says nothing about which countries will be negatively or positively impacted by climate change.

Edited July 14, 2015 by -1=e^ipi

[waldo]

Any organization that does not fully endorse the 'world-is-ending-shutdown-down-all-industry-immediately' mentality is a "denier". At some point you just have to stop looking for logic and treat such labels nothing more than the rantings of a religious fanatic.

care to relate just who/what your targets are here... just who/what has endorsed the, as you say, "world-is-ending-shutdown-all-industry-immediately' mentality? Name em... Of course, to you, anyone/any group advocating a mitigating reduction in global fossil-fuel sourced emissions is your, as you say, "religious fanatic"!

Lawson/Pieser statements/actions speak for themselves... their "scientific advisory board" is pasted with a veritable rogues gallery of deniers. About that member cross-over with the Heartland Institute... For such a fine upstanding "realist group"... with charitable status... they sure are most unwilling to publicly state where their funding comes from! Imagine that.

- Two secret funders of Nigel Lawson’s climate sceptic organisation revealed:

[waldo]

I tend to agree. Nothing Canada can do individually will have any impact on world CO2 emissions anyway.

you keep repeating the same statement about Canada having no impact on world CO2 emissions... again, as replied to you in the past (to which you simply choose to continue to ignore), the rate/extent of development of Canadian resources is a most significant impact on emissions. It directly feeds and fuels other countries usage and acts as a deterrent to alternative energy commitments/developments in those countries. That's why the words "sustainable development" cause just consternation to you... and yours!

.

And none of the international agreements proposed would stop the increase in CO2 emissions since they exempt primary growth areas like China and India.

something you've also stated in the past. Citation Request to support your repeated claim.

.

The only logical response to an increasing global temperature is to try and figure out what real world issues this will cause and move to address them in advance. Arguments over what the total effects of CO2 growth are on climate vs some other natural progressive warming become redundant then.

"natural progressive warming"??? Care to detail the extent of your stated "natural progressive warming" within the context of the relatively recent post-industrial period... or more pointedly, the last 50-60 years? You "adapt only" types seem to have great confidence in being able to simply adapt... and adapt again... and again, and again... cause, uhhh... that's what a no mitigation scenario brings you. Go figure.

.

[waldo]

I know the following concept is difficult for you to grasp but please try. It's not simply climate change is either positive or negative; it depends on how much climate change. A small amount of climate change (say 1 degree of warming) is likely beneficial, where as warming beyond that will generally have negative impacts.

is that the context being discussed in regards Tol's twice corrected paper... was his meta-analysis done and presented as an encapsulation of climate sensitivity? Geezaz, you are the Man... the StrawMan!

.

Yes, I take what you say literally. That's what you are supposed to do in science.

how lame can you get? It was your statement... your interpretation on the effects that you simply put forward as a most literal summation about temperature rise. My pointing out the qualifying references should be in terms of such impacting aspects as vulnerability, risk, mortality, economic loss, ability to adapt, readiness to adapt, etc., ..... that really messes with your naivety, doesn't it, hey!

.

You mean someone who doesn't mind distorting facts to suit their agenda. Saying 'tropical regions, while being affected far less by climate change than polar regions, will be the most negatively impacted by climate change' doesn't have the same emotional impact to the public as saying 'developed countries will be the most affected by climate change'.

why not step out from your shadow-play and actually qualify your "affected" usage/reference? Sure you can!

.

All this risk index is, is a measure of what extent countries have been impacted by storms, floods and heat waves. It looks at which countries are most affected by tropical weather events and finds that tropical countries are most affected by tropical weather events, well duh. It says nothing about which countries will be negatively or positively impacted by climate change.

surprise, surprise, surprise! Did I anticipate you playing the "there are no ties between extreme weather and climate change card"? Cause floods, storms, heat waves, etc., ... have nothing to do with increased warming, hey?

.

[-1=e^ipi]

is that the context being discussed in regards Tol's twice corrected paper... was his meta-analysis done and presented as an encapsulation of climate sensitivity?

People making corrections to papers doesn't mean their work is discredited. I'm not really sure what you are trying to say with respect to climate sensitivity. The meta study looks at the impact of climate change vs magnitude of increase in the global average temperature, it doesn't try to make any claims about climate sensitivity.

why not step out from your shadow-play and actually qualify your "affected" usage/reference?

Magnitude of temperature change is probably the most straightforward measure of climate change. But by other measures, the polar regions will be more strongly affected. Be it changes in precipitation, changes in how the jetstreams are affected, changes in vegetation, etc.

Did I anticipate you playing the "there are no ties between extreme weather and climate change card"? Cause floods, storms, heat waves, etc., ... have nothing to do with increased warming, hey?

The nonsense 'risk index' you provided doesn't even look at changes in floods, storms or heat waves due to climate change. It just looks at the impact by which these events impact various countries (and not surprisingly, tropical developing countries are more affected).

And I made no claim that there are no ties between extreme weather and climate change.

Edited July 14, 2015 by -1=e^ipi

[waldo]

People making corrections to papers doesn't mean their work is discredited. I'm not really sure what you are trying to say with respect to climate sensitivity. The meta study looks at the impact of climate change vs magnitude of increase in the global average temperature, it doesn't try to make any claims about climate sensitivity.

take your silly-buggar act elsewhere! I replied to your statement where you said: "I know the following concept is difficult for you to grasp but please try. It's not simply climate change is either positive or negative; it depends on how much climate change. A small amount of climate change (say 1 degree of warming) is likely beneficial, where as warming beyond that will generally have negative impacts." That's you replying to my question about the Tol context you're distorting... that's you introducing the subject of degrees of change (i.e., degrees which reflect ulitmately upon sensitivity). That's you STRAWMANING! Again, you are the Man... the KingOfStraw!

.

Magnitude of temperature change is probably the most straightforward measure of climate change. But by other measures, the polar regions will be more strongly affected. Be it changes in precipitation, changes in how the jetstreams are affected, changes in vegetation, etc.

thanks Captain Obvious... all of which speaks to related physical science aspects. But again, in your focused thread on the economics of climate change and measuring focused change in that regard... it's bloody amazing you keep blathering away on anything but such impacting aspects as vulnerability, risk, mortality, economic loss, ability to adapt, readiness to adapt, etc.! You know... stuff that speaks to... wait for it... related economics!

.

The nonsense 'risk index' you provided doesn't even look at changes in floods, storms or heat waves due to climate change. It just looks at the impact by which these events impact various countries (and not surprisingly, tropical developing countries are more affected).

And I made no claim that there are no ties between extreme weather and climate change.

of course it looks at extreme weather changes in regards to floods, storms, heat waves... those reflect upon the qualifiers that provide the rankings. Again: "of the 10 most affected countries (1994-2013), nine were developing countries in the low income or lower-middle income country group, while only one was classified as an upper-middle income country". If you're saying you accept there are ties between extreme weather and climate change... where's your beef man?

[-1=e^ipi]

that's you introducing the subject of degrees of change (i.e., degrees which reflect ulitmately upon sensitivity).

Climate sensitivity relates how much warming you get for a given change in atmospheric CO2. The Tol paper and other related papers look at the economic impact for different levels of warming; the result is independent of climate sensitivity. Climate sensitivity could be 1 C or 10 C, it wouldn't affect the results of the Tol paper.

where's your beef man?

With the false implication that somehow because tropical developed countries are more adversely affected by specific weather events, they will somehow be the most adversely affected by climate change.

[Argus]

you keep repeating the same statement about Canada having no impact on world CO2 emissions... again,

China's emissions growth over the coming few decades is expected, by itself, to be four times greater than Canada's ENTIRE emissions now. India's expected emissions growth over the coming twenty five years ie expected, by itself, to be forty times Canada's entire current emissions. In light of information like that I see no sense in attempting to lower Canada's emissions since anything we can conceivably do will be hugely outweighed by new emissions anyway.

something you've also stated in the past. Citation Request to support your repeated claim.

None I'm aware of, then. Feel free to find me one which calls on China, India and other third world countries to drastically lower emissions.

"natural progressive warming"???

Merely meaning that there are some who suspect CO2 is not the be all and end all of the reason why the globe is warming. My only point is that if we go with adaption we don't have to get into the argument about what's causing it.

You "adapt only" types seem to have great confidence in being able to simply adapt... and adapt again... and again, and again...

cause, uhhh... that's what a no mitigation scenario brings you. Go figure.

.

I think that eventually technological improvements will lower our use of fossil fuels. And I don't think anything else will. These enormously expensive programs of cap and trade and carbon taxing accomplish virtually nothing other than to persuade industries to move from the jurisdictions which impose them to the ones which don't. Our emissions will not be lowered because of anything the UN does, much less Trudeau or Wynne, but because of people like Elon Musk.

Edited July 14, 2015 by Argus

[waldo]

Climate sensitivity relates how much warming you get for a given change in atmospheric CO2. The Tol paper and other related papers look at the economic impact for different levels of warming; the result is independent of climate sensitivity. Climate sensitivity could be 1 C or 10 C, it wouldn't affect the results of the Tol paper.

more of your silly-buggar routine! Again, you introduced the subject of degrees of change... that speaks to climate sensitivity; i.e., just what degree of change will occur relative to how sensitive the climate is! Again, this is you messing with the context of the Tol paper which... yes... has nothing to do with sensitivity. Which was my point... which was made because you went down your StrawPath!

.

With the false implication that somehow because tropical developed countries are more adversely affected by specific weather events, they will somehow be the most adversely affected by climate change.

yup... per the references provided, the most adversely affected countries were presented... per GermanWatch... per the world's largest reinsurer, Munich Re. Of course, those less-developed countries will fair much better when the master plan to divert mega-wealth from developed countries to them occurs! (/snarc)

.

[waldo]

China's emissions growth over the coming few decades is expected, by itself, to be four times greater than Canada's ENTIRE emissions now. India's expected emissions growth over the coming twenty five years ie expected, by itself, to be forty times Canada's entire current emissions. In light of information like that I see no sense in attempting to lower Canada's emissions since anything we can conceivably do will be hugely outweighed by new emissions anyway.

isn't it freaking amazin' that Conservative types have no qualms in posturing about the need to "do our part" in the war on terror... and yet, any concept of "doing our part" in regards to emission reductions, well..... that's for those other countries to take on! Do you think you're providing a real revelation in regards the comparative emission levels of China/India to Canada? Of course, and again, Canada opening up the tarsands to unfettered development and full-bore, full speed ahead exporting related tarsands products to developing countries... that is the Canadian contribution to increased global emissions!

.

None I'm aware of, then. Feel free to find me one which calls on China, India and other third world countries to drastically lower emissions.

you mean you've been blowing smoke each and every time you keep repeating that same old refrain of yours? I trust we won't see it again, hey!

.

Merely meaning that there are some who suspect CO2 is not the be all and end all of the reason why the globe is warming. My only point is that if we go with adaption we don't have to get into the argument about what's causing it.

those "some" you speak of... they are not the consensus... they are TheDeniers! You're prepared to go with adaptation to something you presume isn't causally attributed? Really? Exactly what will "you" be adapting to? When will you know you're adapted 'enough'... the first adaptation attempt? And then the second... and subsequent adaptive requirements, which without any accompanying mitigation will iteratively compound upon each other. Sounds like a plan... sounds like a real "Conservative Plan"!

.

I think that eventually technological improvements will lower our use of fossil fuels. And I don't think anything else will. These enormously expensive programs of cap and trade and carbon taxing accomplish virtually nothing other than to persuade industries to move from the jurisdictions which impose them to the ones which don't. Our emissions will not be lowered because of anything the UN does, much less Trudeau or Wynne, but because of people like Elon Musk.

no - prior agreements have shown committed reduction targets can be met by those countries willing to do so (eg., Kyoto... internal EU agreements). Of course, bringing forward an actual comprehensive global emission reduction requires a comprehensive international agreement with participation from those countries causing the bulk of emissions.

.

[-1=e^ipi]

no - prior agreements have shown committed reduction targets can be met by those countries willing to do so (eg., Kyoto... internal EU agreements). Of course, bringing forward an actual comprehensive global emission reduction requires a comprehensive international agreement with participation from those countries causing the bulk of emissions.

Just because you can do something, doesn't mean you should. You can put your hand into a wood chipper, but I wouldn't advise it.

[waldo]

Just because you can do something, doesn't mean you should.

c'mon, look... I didn't say anything about your manifesto thread... or your sensitivity-bible thread!

[-1=e^ipi]

Someone provided the following link on a climate blog:

http://bravenewclimate.com/2013/01/16/zero-emission-synfuel-from-seawater/

"But if we don’t insist on running these processes on an expensive ocean-going platform, the cost drops to $0.79 per litre for synfuel and $37 /tCO­₂."

So it might be possible to capture excess CO2 at $37/ton of CO2. This could get even lower if one takes advantage of economies of scale.

[Argus]

isn't it freaking amazin' that Conservative types have no qualms in posturing about the need to "do our part" in the war on terror... and yet, any concept of "doing our part" in regards to emission reductions, well..... that's for those other countries to take on!

We 'do our part' in the war on terror as part of shared defensive agreements which allow us to pay very little for our military.

So your comparison is, frankly, inane. I notice, however, that you have no answer to the futility of us tryign to lower our emissions while India increases theirs by forty times what we produce.

you mean you've been blowing smoke each and every time you keep repeating that same old refrain of yours? I trust we won't see it again, hey!

I'll take that as an admission that there are no such agreements but you don't have the honesty to say so.

those "some" you speak of... they are not the consensus... they are TheDeniers!

No, they're not. The deniers deny there is warming. These people accept there is warming and accept that CO2 likely has some part to play, but even the UN doesn't know exactly how much.

no - prior agreements have shown committed reduction targets can be met by those countries willing to do so

Those reductions were mostly met by ex soviet countries modernizing industry, countries going into economic recessions or by driving heavy emitters to close up shop and open up again in third world countries (which means the emissions reduction is artificial)

So a vastly expensive waste of time which does nothing useful in terms of reducing Co2 emissions.

Edited July 15, 2015 by Argus

[waldo]

We 'do our part' in the war on terror as part of shared defensive agreements which allow us to pay very little for our military.

So your comparison is, frankly, inane. I notice, however, that you have no answer to the futility of us tryign to lower our emissions while India increases theirs by forty times what we produce.

inane? No! The comparison is most apropos in that, in terms of absolute emissions versus military participation, both are symbolic gestures for Canada. However, emissions on a per-capita basis, where Canada consistently ranks at/near the top, clearly shows that Canada should be doing something... something other than having Harper Conservatives continually make revolving target reduction commitments that they never meet and have no intentions of ever meeting. Per World Resources Institute:

.

I'll take that as an admission that there are no such agreements but you don't have the honesty to say so.

that's rich! You've made that same claim many times over... that proposed agreements have exempted India/China. When you're called on it, you fess up that you can't support your repeated statements. Yet you have the unmitigated gall to turn it around on me! Here's a clue sherlock... if you knew anything you'd realize it's a given there are no such proposed agreements that speak to a legally binding emission reduction target for India... or for any country. That's what COP is all about... that's what COP 21 later this year in Paris is all about. Way to highlight your naivete, hey!

since you've zeroed in on India, in terms of what India is doing, as a part of building the "Obama legacy", and towards it's participation in COP 21, India recognizes its need to shift from its heavy coal reliance... to nuclear: U.S.-India Deals on Clean Energy, Nuclear Power Pave Way for Paris

.

No, they're not. The deniers deny there is warming. These people accept there is warming and accept that CO2 likely has some part to play, but even the UN doesn't know exactly how much.

no! There are degrees of denial. Not accepting that CO2 is the principal causal tie to warming is a degree of denial.

.

Those reductions were mostly met by ex soviet countries modernizing industry, countries going into economic recessions or by driving heavy emitters to close up shop and open up again in third world countries (which means the emissions reduction is artificial)

So a vastly expensive waste of time which does nothing useful in terms of reducing Co2 emissions.

citation request: I'll save you the time/effort in regards to that oft claimed manipulation of the Kyoto I protocol treaty's 1990 base year reference... claimed manipulation to purposely favour affected countries within the 1991 demise of the Soviet Empire. I took care of a like prior claim from Simple - here:

.

[Argus]

inane? No! The comparison is most apropos in that, in terms of absolute emissions versus military participation, both are symbolic gestures for Canada.

Drivel. We participate in a united defense so we can get away with minimal economic cost while still enjoying the benefits of strong military protection.

Participating in a futile undertaking to transfer wealth to the third world does not benefit Canada whatsoever, nor does it lower world Co2 emissions.

However, emissions on a per-capita basis,

Are utterly irrelevant. Yes, it's cold here. Yes, we have a large oil extraction industry.

that's rich! You've made that same claim many times over...

And it's never been countered. There are no agreements binding third world countries. China says that maybe in 30 years they'll do something. India has flat out said their focus is on economic improvements, and that CO2 emissions are the west's problem.

citation request: I'll save you the time/effort in regards to that oft claimed manipulation of the Kyoto I protocol

Spare us your technocrat gibberish. Make energy too expensive in one country and high energy industries will move to others. End of story.

[Wilber]

Don't worry, be happy. It will all go away if we just ignore it.

[waldo]

Participating in a futile undertaking to transfer wealth to the third world does not benefit Canada whatsoever, nor does it lower world Co2 emissions.

thanks for coming out! Proposals... and existing commitments to assist funding developing countries adaptation requirements are "mice-nuts" in terms of the so-called denier talking point about the "New World Order and Developed World Wealth Transfer"! Here's a clue for you... the actual lowering of CO2 emissions is a part of that thingee within proposals called, wait for it... "mitigation" - you know, towards legally binding agreements for nations to commit to emission reduction targets... and meet them!

.

Are utterly irrelevant. Yes, it's cold here. Yes, we have a large oil extraction industry.

yup! Shills for BigOil never like to have Canada's numero-uno per capita emissions figure highlighted.

.

And it's never been countered. There are no agreements binding third world countries. China says that maybe in 30 years they'll do something. India has flat out said their focus is on economic improvements, and that CO2 emissions are the west's problem.

huh! You countered it yourself When I asked you to provide cited support for your oft repeated claim, you acknowledged your own blustering/blundering mistake.

cite your statement/claim concerning India

you clearly know bupkis about China! Per the relatively recent U.S.-China agreement, China has committed to a peak pledge level (cutting its net carbon pollution between 2015 and 2030 by about 20 billion tons.)... notwithstanding as a part of that U.S.-China deal, China has pledged to increase the share of energy consumed from non-emissions sources like renewables, nuclear energy and hydro-electricity to 20 percent by 2030 --- Fact check: China pledged bigger climate action than the USA; Republican leaders wrong (America can meet President Obama’s climate pledge relatively easily, but China’s will require dramatic change):

.

Spare us your technocrat gibberish. Make energy too expensive in one country and high energy industries will move to others. End of story.

"technocrat gibberish"? You mean the fact I put forward to punt a part of your statement - I accept you can't counter it and acknowledge your deflection gibberish to that end! I also note you're ignoring my citation requests for the rest of your statement - go figure, hey!

.

[Keepitsimple]

China's emissions growth over the coming few decades is expected, by itself, to be four times greater than Canada's ENTIRE emissions now. India's expected emissions growth over the coming twenty five years ie expected, by itself, to be forty times Canada's entire current emissions. In light of information like that I see no sense in attempting to lower Canada's emissions since anything we can conceivably do will be hugely outweighed by new emissions anyway.

That's exactly the context that any discussions about Canada's "responsibility" should be conducted in - and it's precisely this type of information that Canadians are shielded from. All this talk that Canada should be "a leader in the battle against Climate Change" is a steaming pile of fertilizer. We're the flea on the elephant's back. It doesn't mean that we can't - or won't do anything - but it reinforces the fact that it's insanity to self-flagellate for no purpose other than....... what?

Edited July 16, 2015 by Keepitsimple

[Argus]

That's exactly the context that any discussions about Canada's "responsibility" should be conducted in - and it's precisely this type of information that Canadians are shielded from. All this talk that Canada should be "a leader in the battle against Climate Change" is a steaming pile of fertilizer. We're the flea on the elephant's back. It doesn't mean that we can't - or won't do anything - but it reinforces the fact that it's insanity to self-flagellate for no purpose other than what?

I think the proponents are so blinded by their own zealotry that common sense has no place in any of their thinking. Witness the Ontario government's enthusiasm for alternative energy making Ontario the most expensive energy jurisdiction in north America. Most of the proposals deal with taxing energy use to discourage it's use, which in terms of industry simply encourages them to go and relocate to China or India or Mexico.

[-1=e^ipi]

BAU = Linear-trend now? Well I guess this is to be expected from the math capabilities of alarmists.

The linear-trend is not China's BAU. China's BAU is their pledge.

[waldo]

That's exactly the context that any discussions about Canada's "responsibility" should be conducted in - and it's precisely this type of information that Canadians are shielded from. All this talk that Canada should be "a leader in the battle against Climate Change" is a steaming pile of fertilizer. We're the flea on the elephant's back. It doesn't mean that we can't - or won't do anything - but it reinforces the fact that it's insanity to self-flagellate for no purpose other than....... what?

MLW member 'Argus' drops yet more unsubstantiated statements... is he right? Who knows! The guy never provides cites on anything.

you say, "it doesn't mean that we can't or won't do anything"... which fits Harper Conservatives to a tee! Other than piggy-backing off the backs of the provinces, just what have Harper Conservatives done toward reducing emissions, with what actual results to-date? Oh wait... that's the "won't do" part of your statement, right? Over time now, Harper has twice insisted that Canada must tie itself to the same target commitments as the U.S. - and he formally commits to those same targets through agreements accordingly. Of course, that wascally Obama admin isn't obliging to Harper's "promise and do nothing/little" approach. Just what have Harper Conservatives actually done... with what results?

so Simple... is it your position that only the leading emitters, China and the U.S., need to... do sumthin'? Every other country gets a free-ride and it's full-speed ahead for unencumbered Canadian emission growth?

.

[waldo]

BAU = Linear-trend now? Well I guess this is to be expected from the math capabilities of alarmists.

The linear-trend is not China's BAU. China's BAU is their pledge.

what label do YOU use to refer to continued unrestricted emissions growth distinguished by no accompanying commitments/pledges to do anything?