David Suzuki versus Justin Trudeau

[waldo]

If the "people of Canada" gave a damn about climate change as immensely as some on this board try to make them out to be, then the Green party would be tied with the other majors or leading.

by your convoluted logic, if the (great unwashed) "people of Canada" gave a damn about fiscal conservatism then the Harper Conservatives would be assured of another majority government... oh wait... carry on!

[-1=e^ipi]

did not realize the 'science was settled' on sensitivity!

Uncertainty isn't zero, but certainly evidence suggests that climate models like CMIP5 with median ECS of 3.2 C are overestimating ECS.

[TimG]

Yes, it's a classic claim, that scientists are greedy. Attacking the messenger, a classic ad hominen fallacy.

You don't understand nuance very well do you? If you actually read what I wrote instead of rolling out your ideological playbook you would see that I said something very different. The fallacy you are engaged in is called a 'strawman'.

So let us get this straight. Your solution to AGW research is to simply reduce the number of researchers.

Again you have problems with nuance. I guess nuance interferes with your black and white view of the world.

What I said, is scientists benefit financially by doing research that is more likely to get government funding. One way to do this is to create research with 'alarming' conclusions that attract the media. This bias has been noted by many outside of the climate arena.

Edited September 30, 2015 by TimG

[waldo]

Uncertainty isn't zero, but certainly evidence suggests that climate models like CMIP5 with median ECS of 3.2 C are overestimating ECS.

considering you wrote an MLW bible thread on sensitivity... to read you repeatedly presuming to equate results from varying methods of determining sensitivity is quite telling... on your 'new testament' version!

[-1=e^ipi]

considering you wrote an MLW bible thread on sensitivity... to read you repeatedly presuming to equate results from varying methods of determining sensitivity is quite telling... on your 'new testament' version!

As I explained in other threads, from what I can tell, proper time-series estimations of ECS using the instrumental record consistently exclude ECS values greater than 3 C at the 95% level. Ice core data from the pleistocene excludes ECS values above 3 C at the 95% confidence level provided you don't neglect Milankovitch cycles in your calculations like James Hansen likes to do and provided you take into consideration the global distribution of forcing changes since, as we know from the Stefan-Boltzman law, a more even distribution of radiative forcing leads to a higher global average temperature even if average radiative forcing is the same.

Edited September 30, 2015 by -1=e^ipi

[waldo]

As I explained in other threads, from what I can tell, proper time-series estimations of ECS using the instrumental record consistently exclude ECS values greater than 3 C at the 95% level. Ice core data from the pleistocene excludes ECS values above 3 C at the 95% confidence level provided you don't neglect Milankovitch cycles in your calculations like James Hansen likes to do and provided you take into consideration the global distribution of forcing changes since, as we know from the Stefan-Boltzman law, a more even distribution of radiative forcing leads to a higher global average temperature even if average radiative forcing is the same.

you're simply continuing to align with what I stated: you presume to equate results from distinctly separate/diverse methodologies, be they modeling, instrumental or paleo based.

[-1=e^ipi]

you're simply continuing to align with what I stated: you presume to equate results from distinctly separate/diverse methodologies, be they modeling, instrumental or paleo based.

I'm not equating the methodologies, though they do give ECS estimates.

Instrumental data suggests ECS < 3 C.

Pleistocene data suggests ECS < 3 C once you take into account Milankovitch cycles and distribution of radiative forcing.

Paleoclimate data older than Pleistocene have much higher uncertainty on CO2 levels or global temperature, have the added problem of taking into account the different positions of the Earth's continents (and subsequent albedo changes) and frequently neglect CH4 and N2O.

The only thing that is inconsistent are the climate models, which are subject to unknown model error due to all of the parameters that need to be chosen, are vulnerable to confirmation bias, and have large grid sizes which makes it impossible to simulate cloud microphysics so large numeric errors which can result in systematic bias are present. Although recent results this year suggest that most climate models have been overestimating the effect of human aerosols and not taking into account the iris effect, which means that over time the climate model results should move downward to be more in line with the empirical estimates.

Edited September 30, 2015 by -1=e^ipi

[waldo]

you're adding nothing new and simply reaffirming your interpreted legitimacy in equating the different methodologies that bring forward the respective estimate results. Notwithstanding... this is a thread distraction from the OP intent.

Edited September 30, 2015 by waldo

[Argus]

Reviewing the posts, it's not surprising that we're making very little progress on CO2 reduction. Denial. Excuses. Foot dragging. Finger pointing. All the things that happen when people resist change.

I'm still waiting to hear of a plan which has a chance to work. So far nada.

[ToadBrother]

I'm still waiting to hear of a plan which has a chance to work. So far nada.

The plan is to raise fossil fuel prices to reflect their true costs. It's called artificial scarcity, and it's hardly a new thing in capitalist free market economies.

[TimG]

The plan is to raise fossil fuel prices to reflect their true costs. It's called artificial scarcity, and it's hardly a new thing in capitalist free market economies.

Except there is no universally accepted definition of the "true costs" of fossil fuels. This means what the government is really doing is trying manipulate the market to produce its desired outcomes - the exact opposite of a free market. So please don't pretend your policies have any more free market merit than the gasoline subsidy programs in various developing countries.

Next, large increases to the cost of energy can push the economy into a recession and/or depression. I guess you think that would be wonderful because it reduces CO2 emissions. Others would not take that view.

Lastly, there is no reason to believe that price increases will convince people to switch if the alternatives are less convenient than fossil fuels. e.g. we need baseload and will pay what we need to get it. Relatively cheap solar or wind will not change that reality.

Edited September 30, 2015 by TimG

[On Guard for Thee]

Except there is no universally accepted definition of the "true costs" of fossil fuels. This means what the government is really doing is trying manipulate the market to produce its desired outcomes - the exact opposite of a free market. So please don't pretend your policies have any more free market merit than the gasoline subsidy programs in various developing countries.

Lastly, large increases to the cost of energy will push the economy into a recession and/or depression. I guess you think that would be wonderful because it reduces CO2 emissions. Others would not take that view.

One of the true costs of fossil fuels extraction is remediation. Why are taxpayers having to fund that in such places as the tar sands?

[WIP]

Might be great for Canada, though. With most models showing rainbelts shifting further northward, we will probably be growing wheat in the Northwest Territories, and selling it to the US because the Midwest has been transformed into a permanent dust bowl.

Or based on past historical behaviour, the Americans will just move north and claim the land for their farmers!

[ReeferMadness]

I'm still waiting to hear of a plan which has a chance to work. So far nada.

Most of the technology is in place today. Go look at the two technical documents that are referenced by the Leap Manifesto. Most areas can generate wind and solar for about the same price as fossil fuels. The one area that still needs improvement is battery technology; for transportation and grid storage. Even today, though, there is battery technology that could feasibly replace ICE's for most applications. The aluminum air battery has a demonstrated range of 1,000 miles (after which, you recycle the aluminum). They say it will be in cars by 2017.

So, this isn't a matter of technical feasibility, it's a matter of motivation and financing. Look at all the wet blankets around this place. It's amazing anyone does anything. Here's how to provide the motivation and financing.

Impose a modest carbon tax ($30 per ton) world-wide. Increase it slowly, year over year (say, $2.50 per year). Countries that don't play are referred to the WTO for trade sanctions. This would raise roughly $1 trillion. Before anyone whines that this would bankrupt the world and leave us all living like people in the 1500's I should point out that this is exactly the carbon tax we are paying in BC and nobody notices.

Of the carbon tax, countries are allowed to divert up to 5% to clean energy research (to be audited by the international energy agency). Results of all research funded through this mechanism become public domain.

Countries are allowed to divert a further 20% to be used to improve energy efficiency within their borders (again, audited by the international energy agency). I expect this would be normally used as a tax credit for capital intensive things like insulation or heat pumps.

The remaining funds (at least $750 billion) are returned to countries using a formula based on the average per capita GHG emissions to be used for zero emission energy generation or energy efficiency projects. So, countries with high per capita emissions receive less than what they put in and countries with low per capita emissions receive more. The net effect would be to provide underdeveloped countries with funds to develop clean energy - so this is also a foreign aid plan.

The third component of this plan is most important because it will provide the motivation for rich countries to become more efficient. Every time someone fills up their tank, they're going to be thinking that some of that money is being sent to India. And, frankly, there are enough bigots in the world that will buy a smaller car (or an electric car) just to avoid that.

People whine about the cost of energy but look at all the pickup trucks driving through cities. And look at the ads for those pickup trucks. More torque!! More horsepower!! This one can haul an elephant! Oh, yeah? This one pulls a house!!! It's all so ridiculous. What we need is people focusing their minds on efficiency and environment, not on horsepower.

[ReeferMadness]

Or based on past historical behaviour, the Americans will just move north and claim the land for their farmers!

It's no joke. We might think we're OK sitting up here in the north but if the worst case happens, tens of millions of people might decide to join us.

[WIP]

It's no joke. We might think we're OK sitting up here in the north but if the worst case happens, tens of millions of people might decide to join us.

That's why I say we're the ones with the southern border problem....not the US! Even without formal invasion, what are we going to do when millions of Americans all armed with guns decide that Canada is part of their manifest destiny?

[ReeferMadness]

With respect to TimG's claim of the existence of publication bias, I think this link is evidence:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0140988315002327

So... you're telling me that that science journals tend to publish the most shocking stories. Which makes it exactly like every other type of news story. I guess you think that's a huge revelation.

Here's the thing though. Maybe climate change is not as bad as they think - or maybe it's worse. It's a complex system and nobody knows. So, here's a fair proposal. Until we know for sure what the impact is, let's just stop putting more CO2 into the air. Then, if we find out if huge amounts of CO2 are a huge benefit to the world, like Tim claims, we can have a huge bonfire when we know.

[TimG]

So, this isn't a matter of technical feasibility, it's a matter of motivation and financing. Look at all the wet blankets around this place. It's amazing anyone does anything. Here's how to provide the motivation and financing.

You need to stop believing in press releases.

Your link:

Depending on your point of view, mechanical recharging is both awesome and awful. On the one hand, you can give your car another 1,000 miles of range just by slotting in a new battery; on the other hand, buying a new battery every 1,000 miles sounds like very poor overall economy. Ultimately, it will probably come down to the price of the battery. At today’s market rate, a kilo of aluminium costs $2, and one pack of 50 plates weighs 25kg — so, ignoring labor costs, it would cost $50 to refill your Al-air battery. $50 to travel 1,000 miles is really rather good — at $4 per gallon of gas, that’s an equivalent of around 90 mpg. The aluminium oxide can be recycled back into aluminium, too, though it isn’t a particularly cheap or easy process.

All of these wonderful new ideas have nasty problems buried in the fine print that can often make the idea useless as a real world solution. So your assertion that it is a question of funding and political will is false. As it stands today anyone with a viable battery technology would make billions without government prodding. The fact that battery uptake is slow is because of the limitations of the technology and these limitations may never go away. Edited September 30, 2015 by TimG

[ToadBrother]

All of these wonderful new ideas have nasty problems buried in the fine print that can often make the idea useless as a real world solution. So your assertion that it is a question of funding and political will is false. As it stands today anyone with a viable battery technology would make billions without government prodding. The fact that battery uptake is slow is because of the limitations of the technology and these limitations may never go away.

Wow, so your assertion is we're stuck with fossil fuels because you think battery technology will never improve?

[bush_cheney2004]

That's why I say we're the ones with the southern border problem....not the US! Even without formal invasion, what are we going to do when millions of Americans all armed with guns decide that Canada is part of their manifest destiny?

Pretty much what Canadians have done for years.....watch American media, buy American products, work for American subsidiaries, and complain about lower American gas prices.

Edited September 30, 2015 by bush_cheney2004

[-1=e^ipi]

Maybe climate change is not as bad as they think - or maybe it's worse. It's a complex system and nobody knows.

No, but one can get a probability distribution of what will happen using empirical data and climate models.

Until we know for sure what the impact is, let's just stop putting more CO2 into the air. Then, if we find out if huge amounts of CO2 are a huge benefit to the world, like Tim claims, we can have a huge bonfire when we know.

I have a better idea. Attain probability distributions for how the climate will evolve under different emission scenarios, for how economic output will change under different emission scenarios, etc. using empirical data. Use empirical data on risk averse behaviour in humans to define a social welfare function. Then perform Monte Carlo simulations and use Newton's method to determine the path of carbon dioxide emission taxation that maximizes expected social welfare.

[-1=e^ipi]

Most areas can generate wind and solar for about the same price as fossil fuels.

No you can't. You just think this because you have confirmation bias and want to believe it. It's very easy to convince yourself that solar/wind is just as cheap as fossil fuels or nuclear if you arbitrarily add costs to fossil fuels / nuclear and/or arbitrarily hide costs from solar/wind.

The one area that still needs improvement is battery technology

Battery technology is not infinitely cheap, nor will it be any time soon. Pretending away the problem of energy storage and transportation isn't a good way to deal with this issue.

Impose a modest carbon tax ($30 per ton) world-wide. Increase it slowly, year over year (say, $2.50 per year). Countries that don't play are referred to the WTO for trade sanctions. This would raise roughly $1 trillion.

Of the carbon tax, countries are allowed to divert up to 5% to clean energy research (to be audited by the international energy agency).

Countries are allowed to divert a further 20% to be used to improve energy efficiency within their borders (again, audited by the international energy agency).

The remaining funds (at least $750 billion) are returned to countries using a formula based on the average per capita GHG emissions to be used for zero emission energy generation or energy efficiency.

And these numbers are based on... what? Pulled from thin air?

Somehow I think the well being of 7 billion people, soon to be 10 billion, is worth more thought than someone coming up with arbitrary numbers from nowhere.

Every time someone fills up their tank, they're going to be thinking that some of that money is being sent to India.

I don't think everyone thinks like you. From experience, most people don't really care much about what happens outside their own bubble of experience.

[ToadBrother]

No, but one can get a probability distribution of what will happen using empirical data and climate models.

I have a better idea. Attain probability distributions for how the climate will evolve under different emission scenarios, for how economic output will change under different emission scenarios, etc. using empirical data. Use empirical data on risk averse behaviour in humans to define a social welfare function. Then perform Monte Carlo simulations and use Newton's method to determine the path of carbon dioxide emission taxation that maximizes expected social welfare.

I have a better idea. Quit posting word salads.

[-1=e^ipi]

I have a better idea. Quit posting word salads.

If you don't know the words I use, look them up. It isn't hard. It's not like I'm purposely trying to make what I write difficult to understand.

[ReeferMadness]

Wow, so your assertion is we're stuck with fossil fuels because you think battery technology will never improve?

Ever seen The Walking Dead? Picture the zombies stumbling through the field chanting "IT'LL NEEVVVEERRR WOOORRRKKKK!!!" That's an apt analogy for what we're up against debating this crowd.