Global Warming and Hot Air

Washington Post ^ | 02/07/2007 | Robert Samuelson

[ancient_geezer]

Progressives have a huge problem separating things.
Global warming is real.
Man-made it's not.
There is no debate about the former.

Ahh the crux of the debate comes out:

 

 

An Economist's Perspective on Climate Change and the Kyoto Protocol,
by Ross McKitrick. November 2003
http://www.lavoisier.com.au/papers/articles/McKitrick.pdf

The 1992 UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) defined "climate change" as follows:

"Climate change" means a change of climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and which is in addition to natural climate variability observed over comparable time periods.
( http://unfccc.int/index.html )

The recent Third Assessment Report (TAR) of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) defined it differently ( http://www.ipcc.ch/ ):

Climate change in IPCC usage refers to any change over time, whether due to natural variability or as a result of human activity.

This is a very important difference: The IPCC is looking for signs of any change, whereas the policy instruments prescribed by the UNFCCC are not triggered unless it is a particular kind of change: that attributable to human activity. When IPCC officials declare that "climate change" is for real, this is about as informative as announcing that the passage of time is for real. Of course the climate changes: if it didn't Winnipeg would still be under a glacier. But the fact that the last ice age ended doesn't imply that the policy mechanisms of the UNFCCC should kick in. That's the problem with the ambiguity over the term "climate change"-and it seems to trip up a lot of people-accepting the reality of "climate change" does not mean accepting the need for policy interventions. And denying that global warming is a problem requiring costly policy measures is not the same as denying "climate change."

 

As far as IPCC projectections go, if you can specify the input to a model, guess what comes out:

 

http://www.pacificresearch.org/pub/cap/2003/cap_03-02-20.html

• "The Economist, which provides the best environmental reporting of any major news source, carried a small story last week about a simple methodological error in the latest U.N. global warming report that has huge implications. The article, "Hot Potato: The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Had Better Check Its Calculations" (February 15 print edition), reviews the work of two Australian statisticians who note an anomaly in the way the IPCC estimated world carbon dioxide emissions for the 21st century."

......

• "The IPCC's method has the effect of vastly overestimating future economic growth (and, therefore, CO2 emissions) by developing nations. The fine print of the IPCC's projections, for example, calls for the real per-capita incomes of Argentina, South Africa, Algeria, Turkey, and even North Korea to surpass real per-capita income in the United States by the end of the century. Algeria? North Korea? The IPCC must be inhaling its own emissions to believe this."

 

Garbage In Garbage Out.

[Publius6961]

Ever seen the temperature and CO2 concentration graphs for the last 100,000 years?
They doomsayers, scientists or not, always carefully choose those portions of the record that will bolster their "argument" and stick their fingers in their ears and say "La la la la la la" when the "other" portions of the cycles are pointed out to them.

Hence the pathological obsession with the last 10,000 years, since emerging from the last ice age.

[palmer]

Ever seen the temperature and CO2 concentration graphs for the last 100,000 years?

Yep. Just be careful to put too much into them, the CO2 is averaged over decades or centuries so it would not show any spikes like the current one. The alarmists say the current spike is unique and manmade, but the ice cores can't prove that at all. Bottom line, what you are looking at is highly smoothed.

[CSM]

"Were it not for human activities, the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere would actually be stable or slowly declining."

Thank goodness we don't have that or we actually might be on our way to another ice age.

BTW, I read your other links and I am extremely skeptical of them. I could come back with refuting articles and links, but I just don't have the time.

Let's assume that I concede your point that all increase in CO2 since the beginning of the industrial age is attributable to human activity. Now, with that assumption, how much of the 0.7 degree temp increase over the last 100 years is attributable to CO2 increases? What damage has that increase actually caused?

How much value does each 0.1 degree hold, in other words, is it worth it at $1M for a reduction of 0.1 degree? How about $1B or $1T? Couldn't that slight increase actually help the environment?

Is it better to use ethynol over petroleum? What happens when forests have to be clear cut to produce more corn in order to meet the ethynol market needs?

[cogitator]

Enough to everpower the effects of the other 99.72%?

Well yes, considering that nitrogen and oxygen aren't significant absorbers of radiation!

[cogitator]

That is a contention, an assertion, not a fact.

No, it goes well beyond "contention and assertion". It is based on analysis and synthesis of numerous data types. Some of the fluxes are better characterized than others, so there is uncertainty -- there always is in science -- but many aspects can be checked and double-checked independently, establishing their veracity.

From NOAA's Carbon Cycle Science Breakthroughs

"CO2 and CH4 concentrations have been increasing in the atmosphere since 1850 and are now higher than they have been for more than 400,000 years, primarily as a result of human use of fossil fuels and land clearing. Of the total emissions to the atmosphere, about half of the carbon emitted to the atmosphere (CO2 and CH4) is taken up by the oceans (and land). Specifically, the ocean (and land) is a sink for CO2, while CH4 is largely oxidized in the atmosphere (this explains why CO2 has a relatively longer atmospheric lifetime compared to CH4). Quantifying and reconciling these sinks with the remaining concentrations in the atmosphere has been and remains a major challenge, although recent advances have been made in understanding the continental U.S. land sink through NOAA-supported research."

[cogitator]

Any idea why the 13C/12C ratio started to decline when fossil fuel use was insignificant?

You think I know everything? My *guess* is that increased agriculture allowed increased bacterial respiration of "old" carbon in soils. But it's just a guess and could easily be wrong.

[cogitator]

Thank goodness we don't have that or we actually might be on our way to another ice age.

Declining CO2 is only one factor necessary for the initation of a glacial period.

Let's assume that I concede your point that all increase in CO2 since the beginning of the industrial age is attributable to human activity. Now, with that assumption, how much of the 0.7 degree temp increase over the last 100 years is attributable to CO2 increases?

For the 20th century overall, 50-60%. For the last 25 years, more on the order of 75-90%. I expect the full scientific report from the IPCC (due in 3-4 months) will discuss this.

What damage has that increase actually caused?

Not much. But the concern of the climate science community is not the slight warming of the 20th century; it is the warming that will still take place due to current concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere (at least another 0.5 C) and accelerated warming as atmospheric concentrations increase further. More rapid warming stresses ecoystems because organisms fail to adapt to rapidly changing conditions.

How much value does each 0.1 degree hold, in other words, is it worth it at $1M for a reduction of 0.1 degree? How about $1B or $1T? Couldn't that slight increase actually help the environment?

A much better perspective than you will get from me is to be found in the UK's Stern report. Google search will find it easily -- it was pretty big news 2-3 months ago.

Is it better to use ethynol over petroleum? What happens when forests have to be clear cut to produce more corn in order to meet the ethynol market needs?

Potentially, because biomass took CO2 out of the atmosphere -- burning it just puts it back (zero sum). There are tradeoffs, as you note, but there is general agreement that corn ethanol is a stopgap -- biomass (cellulosic) or ethanol from other waste feedstocks (likewise for biodiesel) holds more promise and is more energy efficient.

[liberallarry]

Oh, those experts that get nominated for Nobel Peace Prizes?...Conquest means, "1 : the act or process of conquering" and conquering means, "1 : to gain or acquire by force of arms."...So, what exactly are we gaining or acquiring in Afghanistan or Iraq, if it is not oil?

For this post you are nonminated for the Leninist-Stalinist mumbo-jumbo double-speak prize of the year.

[liberallarry]

LOL! Ah, the classic Marxist technique of projection.

What are you talking about?

Samuelson - correctly - points out that political and social stability in all modern societies depends on economic growth. Stop it - and that's what's necessary if global warming is caused by that growth - and all societies become destabilized. Meaning that self-proclaimed elites will take over and rule by force.

Not a sure thing, but likely.

[liberallarry]

Explain this

What is there to explain? Seitz disagrees with IPCC scientists and is a genuine peer. He has the credentials to do so credibly.

Once upon a time, the best scientists were ascetic scholar-monks. That is no longer true. Every scientist is paid by someone

Oh please. What did these scholar-monks do for food and shelter? Someone paid them too. And since when is taking money in exchange for honest work evil? Since when is taking money for work a sign that that work is dishonest? Scientists are supported by those who believe in their work far, far more often than they bend their conclusions to please their supporters. You've been spending too much time around lawyers.

[MeekOneGOP]

LOL!!

[liberallarry]

That sentence makes sense if and only if, as an article of faith, you already have made up your mind without any conclusive scientific evidence whatsoever.

That's more or less my point. Most laymen take sides based on their political beliefs, on personal experience, on what demands they think will be placed on them, etc...and then look for evidence which supports their position.

[liberallarry]

And totally undesirable if it's not!

Not desireable if it is. Very much the lesser of two evils.

Man-made it's not. There is no debate about the former.

Oh really? I think there are several on this thread who dispute the claim that the globe is warming. But regardless my statement is part of the debate about man-made causes. Nobody's blowing smoke. You've just created a straw-man.

By the way, are you claiming that human activity plays no significant part in the undisputable (your statement) recent warming of the planet?

[liberallarry]

There are no climate models showing that happening that I am aware of

The temperature reached 124 degrees in Woodland Hills (a suburb of Los Angeles) one day last summer. That's why I used that example. It was just a hypothetical.

[palmer]

Ah yes, LA. It's true some areas could see heat like that, but those are topographically unique. In LA's case it's hot dry air, further heated and dried coming down the mountains. The causes (Santa Anna winds) don't have much to do with global warming.

Whether you wish to believe the climate models for GW or change your mind, in neither case will conditions over LA happen anywhere else and probably won't get worse there either.

[liberallarry]

In 1973 a collection of essays appeared in book form under the title "The No-Growth Society". I'm just re-reading it so I can't yet comment intelligently but one piece "Growth vs. No Growth: An Evaluation" by Roland McKean probably captures our situation better than my alarmist example.

He contends that economic growth, at worst, will lead to a slow degredation of the environment which will cause humans to gradually return to earlier conditions where 95% of the population lived in abject poverty - as compared to the present 50 to 60%...and world population was much, much smaller. On the other hand any realistic attempt to limit growth would lead to cataclysmic confrontations. Given those two choices it's better to go with continued growth in the hope that advances in technology and social organization will result in better adaptations than are presently foreseeable.

That's his take as I now understand it and it's probably as valid today as it was 35 years ago. In that light consider my posts an attempt to make more people more conscious of our situation in the hope that they will devote their time, thought, and effort to doing something constructive.

[ancient_geezer]

If governments are going to "do something", carbon taxes are probably the least worst solution.

Anyone who wonders what the UN/IPCC Anthropogenic Global Warming hype is about need only look no further than Europe to note the real purposes:

http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/02/04/news/climate.php

France and 45 other countries call for world environmental monitor
International Herald Tribune: Europe
The Associated Press Published: February 4, 2007

• PARIS: Forty-five nations joined France in calling for a new environmental body to slow global warming and protect the planet, a body that potentially could have policing powers to punish violators.

• "It is our responsibility," Chirac said. "The future of humanity demands it."

• "Without naming the United States, the producer of about one-quarter of the world's greenhouse gases, Chirac expressed frustration that "some large, rich countries still must be convinced" and were "refusing to accept the consequences of their acts."

• "So far, it is mostly European nations that have agreed to pursue plans for the new organization and hold their first meeting in Morocco this spring."

• "We are at a tipping point," Gore said to the conference by videophone. "We must act, and act swiftly." He added: "Such action requires international cooperation."

• "It is time now to hear from the world's policy makers," Tim Wirth, president of the United Nations Foundation, said Friday. "The so-called and long-overstated 'debate' about global warming is now over."

• "The United Nations also is considering a summit meeting of world leaders to tackle global warming, and de Boer said he would expect the United States to send high-ranking officials to participate."

---

Echos out of the past:

"We've got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing"
(Tim Wirth 1990, former US Senator) as quoted in NCPA Brief 213; September 6, 1996

"What we've got to do in energy conservation is try to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, to have approached global warming as if it is real means energy conservation, so we will be doing the right thing anyway in terms of economic policy and environmental policy."
-- Timothy Wirth, former U.S. Senator (D-Colorado)

"A global climate treaty must be implemented even if there is no scientific evidence to back the [enhanced] greenhouse effect"
(Richard Benedict, US Conservation Foundation)

"The trouble with this idea is that planting trees will not lead to the societal changes we want to achieve"
--(Kyoto Delegate, 05 December 1997)

"We must make this an insecure and inhospitable place for capitalists and their projects . . . We must reclaim the roads and plowed land, halt dam construction, tear down existing dams, free shackled rivers and return to wilderness millions of tens of millions of acres of presently settled land."
-- David Foreman, Earth First!

[secretagent]

"GtC yr-1"

Gigatons of Carbon per year?

[USFRIENDINVICTORIA]

Those are some great quotes. You don't need to convince me that the whole thing's a scam -- you're preaching to the choir there.

To clairfy my point, the best that can be said about a carbon tax is that it's the "least worst" thing to do. The best thing would be for everyone to just laugh the whole thing off. Unfortunately, it appears that governments are preparing to "do something" instead. There are so many worse things that governments could do, that a carbon tax is the least worst thing among a lot of very worst things. Here are a few worse ideas:

-- massive subsidies out of general taxes for "going green";
-- bans, and other coercive actions by governments to prevent people from doing things that might be "ungreen". (e.g. a proposed ban on incandescent light bulbs);
-- stringent regulations on automobile CO2 output -- the "benefits" (reduced CO2) are likely to be much more costly than a carbon tax, because regulations are more of a blunt instrument, and don't allow for people to make their own trade-offs.
-- global population control measures -- many moonbats would like to kill billions today, to possibly save millions tomorrow.

There are many more really bad ideas -- we're going to see them trotted out, and many of them will be imposed on us.

A carbon tax would be among the most-worst ideas if it's just a tax grab. The only way that it should be supported is if it's accompanied by reductions in other corporate and personal taxes. If everyone is going to be expected to get along with less, that should apply to governments too.