Climate Scientist Calls For Austerity To Avert Warming

[vt]

Re: Climate Scientist Calls For Austerity To Avert Warming

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/06/sc...ents.html?_r=0

[radon]

Re: Climate Scientist Calls For Austerity To Avert Warming

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/06/sc...ents.html?_r=0

So attorneys are climatologists now? My prediction is that this thread is about to be deposited into the rant and rave/climate change bin where it belongs.

[Woodsman]

Re: Climate Scientist Calls For Austerity To Avert Warming

...deposited into the rant and rave/climate change bin where it belongs.

Doesn't even belong there. EJ spent a fair amount of time writing as honest and balanced view of climate change as I've ever read and it was to serve as the coda for the subject here at iTulip. It was supposed to be the last word here and the close of the Climate Change topic.

But the wingnuts can't let it go.

Here's my view at this time and as it is my site I get the final word.

I believe that most of the arguments made on this site are valid.

I think it is obviously a bad idea to dump thousands of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere for decades on end.

A preponderance of the evidence indicates that this activity is causing the earth to warm up.

However this part of the argument that the current anthropogenic climate change is bigger and faster than naturally occurring changes in the past is incorrect and leads to invalid conclusions.

The following scientific paper on climate history was written in 1997 before the global warming debate became politicized and the motives of scientists involved in the debate started to be questioned.


The time span of the last 130,000 years has seen the global climate system switch from warm interglacial to cold glacial conditions, and back again. This broad interglacial-glacial-interglacial climate oscillation has been recurring on a similar periodicity for about the last 900,000 years, though each individual cycle has had its own idiosyncrasies in terms of the timing and magnitude of changes. As is usually the case with the study of the past, data are in short supply, and only a few sketchy outlines are known for the earliest cycles (Winograd et al. 1997). Even for the most recent oscillation beginning around 130,000 years ago there is still too much ambiguity in terms of the errors in geological dating techniques, in the gaps in the record, and in the slowness of responses by indicator species, to know precisely when certain events occurred and whether the climate changes were truly synchronous between different regions. The general picture summarized here (and in the separate map sections below) roughly reflects the present consensus gained from ice cores, deep ocean cores, and terrestrial and lake sediments around the world.

[snip] (The best data are of the most recent events)

Warming, then a cold snap. Around 14,000 years ago (about 13,000 radiocarbon years ago), there was a rapid global warming and moistening of climates, perhaps occurring within the space of only a few years or decades. In many respects, this phase seems to have resembled some of the earlier interstadials that had occurred so many times before during the glacial period. Conditions in many mid-latitude areas appear to have been about as warm as they are today, although many other areas - whilst warmer than during the Late Glacial Cold Stage - seem to have remained slightly cooler than at present. Forests began to spread back, and the ice sheets began to retreat. However, after a few thousand years of recovery, the Earth was suddenly plunged back into a new and very short-lived ice age known as the Younger Dryas. Although the Younger Dryas did not affect everywhere in the world, it destroyed the returning forests in the north and led to a brief resurgence of the ice sheets. This map by D. Peteet shows the possible distribution of Younger Dryas cooling around the world. The main cooling event that marks the beginning of the Younger Dryas seems have occurred within less than 100 years, according to Greenland ice core data (Alley et al. 1993). After about 1,300 years of cold and aridity, the Younger Dryas seems to have ended in the space of only a few decades (various estimates from ice core climate indicators range from 20 - 70 years for this sudden transition) when conditions became as warm as they are today. Around half of the warming seems to have occurred in the space of a single span of 15 years, according to the latest detailed analyses of the Greenland ice core record (Taylor et al. 1997).


Point #1: Earth's climate can change drastically and rapidly independent of human activity.

Point #2: The scale of climate change in the recent past, at least in geologic time, has been so drastic as to make the worst-case Global Warming scenario pale to insignificance.

Last Ice Age, one of many, approximately 40 thousand years ago.
At the maximum of the cycle most of the northern hemisphere was covered in glaciers up to 1.5 miles thick.
Ocean levels fell by 120 meters. Now that's climate change.
Humans survived.

Point #3: China and other developing countries account for 51% of CO2 emissions and for the largest increases over the past 20 years. The largest and fastest growing CO2 emissions producers are going to increase not decrease CO2 emissions over the next 20 years. Here is the official word on China's long-term policy regarding economic growth and CO2 emissions:
Energy Economics: CO2 Emissions in China

10.1 Main driving forces of CO2 omissions in the procedure of urbanization and industrialization in China (page 304)

In accordance with the development goal of "quadrupling the per capita GDP of the year 2000 by 2020 on the basis of structure optimization, economic performance improvement, consumption reduction and environmental protection", people`s living standards will be improved substantially, the urbanization process will speed up, household electric appliance consumption will grow rapidly,and the automobile will become affordable for more and more families, hence resulting in the increase in energy consumption by households. “To fundamentally realize industrialization in China by 2020" implies that the manufactural scale will still go on expanding. Meanwhile the booming development of urbanization will also greatly drive the development of service and transportation industry. Therefore, energy consumption from production will also increase dramatically in this period, and CO2 emissions from energy consumption will increase unavoidably.

GDP per capita (current US$)

Data from World Bank

China plans to catch up with the West.

Conclusions:

1) Asking China to reduce CO2 emissions is asking them to cancel their 2000 to 2020 plan to quadruple per-capita GDP and they are not going to do that.

2) The scale worst-case anthropogenic climate change scenario is minor in comparison to the scale of naturally occurring climate changes that may occur at any time independent of human activity so it's not logical to ask China to cancel growth plans in the first place.

3) Eventually fossil fuels will become too expensive to burn in volumes that produce climate change. Hopefully this occurs before the impact of climate change is too disruptive to the ecosystem.

Bottom line: I think anthropomorphic climate change is unfortunate but given the above I think the planet is going to have to live with it and can.

All of the above said, I reserve the right to modify this view if new evidence demands it.

[santafe2]

Re: Climate Scientist Calls For Austerity To Avert Warming

Doesn't even belong there. EJ spent a fair amount of time writing as honest and balanced view of climate change as I've ever read and it was to serve as the coda for the subject here at iTulip. It was supposed to be the last word here and the close of the Climate Change topic.

But the wingnuts can't let it go.

As annoying as this thread has become, I'm not concerned about the "wingnuts". Year by year their politically driven idiocracy becomes obvious and the tragedy of this folly is more clear. I am concerned with the reposting of EJ's idea that this isn't a problem because it's been "bigger and faster" in the past. Comparing the speed and magnitude of naturally occurring climate change to an ongoing extinction event is a massive mistake when it's made by a group's leader. When it's just one of the politically motivated posters I still have some hope but when it's the moderator and owner of the site, it's tragic. And, that a normally very clear thinker like you is defending this post is just as depressing.

Human survival is not based on a geologic climate scale. We came to prominence ~7,000 years ago. Making geologic time scale arguments for our survival during this massive change in climate and the concurrent sixth extinction event is a fools errand.

However this part of the argument that the current anthropogenic climate change is bigger and faster than naturally occurring changes in the past is incorrect and leads to invalid conclusions.

[vt]

Re: Climate Scientist Calls For Austerity To Avert Warming

The why has the left kept global warming getting worse by being against nuclear power, which has been one of the best ways to reduce carbon footprints:

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/...uclear-energy/

Who is the real wingnut here?

Remember the first post was about an inane writer that wanted to solve global warming by austerity. Let's make the plight of the middle class and poor worse by stopping any job creating growth?

There are plenty of similar examples on the right, so this is not political.

How do we solve the problem? Conservation, technology, solar, and nuclear. Get the political crap out of it and move forward.

[Woodsman]

Re: Climate Scientist Calls For Austerity To Avert Warming

As annoying as this thread has become, I'm not concerned about the "wingnuts". Year by year their politically driven idiocracy becomes obvious and the tragedy of this folly is more clear. I am concerned with the reposting of EJ's idea that this isn't a problem because it's been "bigger and faster" in the past. Comparing the speed and magnitude of naturally occurring climate change to an ongoing extinction event is a massive mistake when it's made by a group's leader. When it's just one of the politically motivated posters I still have some hope but when it's the moderator and owner of the site, it's tragic. And, that a normally very clear thinker like you is defending this post is just as depressing.

Human survival is not based on a geologic climate scale. We came to prominence ~7,000 years ago. Making geologic time scale arguments for our survival during this massive change in climate and the concurrent sixth extinction event is a fools errand.

Give folks a little credit, SF. I think they are sensible enough to note that EJ's last word is not THE last word on the matter. I posted it in the hope that some folks would respect the call to table the discussion.

I also think it mischaracterizes EJ's position to reduce it down to "this isn't a problem because it's been "bigger and faster" in the past." That said, EJ can defend his own views and if he needs a surrogate, I would recommend Woodsman be among his last candidates. I don't have a "leader" and I'm not in the market for one.

I don't believe I expressed a position on the matter in these most recent posts except to agree that vt is a fool and that I would like to see no more posts on climate change from him or anyone else, re. El Jefe's "no mas" post. That said, I am closer to your sense of urgency than EJ's but share his skepticism that anyone will do the slightest thing about it. We are joined together, determined to undergo a series of global climate experiments starting first with the 2 degree centigrade experiment and continuing until such point as the reality is clear to all humanity everywhere.

It's quite nice that someone of your cognitive chops considers me a very clear thinker, but you should be clear that I wasn't defending anyone or arguing to EJs authority on anything expect terminating these idiotic denier postings. As for human extinction, the misanthrope in me has bets on nuclear war or asteroid impact. "And there will be the most beautiful silence never heard, born out of that. The sun still hidden there awaiting the next chapter."

[lektrode]

Re: Climate Scientist Calls For Austerity To Avert Warming

The(n) why has the left kept global warming getting worse by being against nuclear power, which has been one of the best ways to reduce carbon footprints:

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/the-curious-wavefunction/top-5-reasons-why-intelligent-liberals-dont-like-nuclear-energy/

....a purely personal, short list of reasons which in my opinion drive a lot of liberal objections to nuclear power. These are by no means exhaustive, but it just seems to me that there are some simple answers at least to a few questions raised by well-meaning liberals regarding nuclear energy, and it's worth delving into them.

1. Ignorance: This simple reason remains remarkably pervasive. I am not trying to sound preachy or elitist here but reading two or three books would greatly benefit people who have a gut reaction against nuclear energy. The whole set of beliefs about any kind of radiation in any proportion being harmful, about nuclear plants releasing large amounts of radiation (when in reality they release fractions of what everyone naturally gets from the environment),
...
In addition coal-fired plants emit much more radioactivity than any nuclear power plant. The small casualty rate from even the two worst nuclear accidents in history attests to the generally outstanding record of nuclear safety all over the world and in the US in particular. The large-scale adoption of nuclear energy in the US has been thwarted more by political inertia and gut fears rather than by a sound assessment of the costs and benefits. The high costs are mostly capital and have stemmed from unrealistic standards and layers of bureaucracy.
...
The main obstacle to the testing and use of these designs is again political rather than scientific.
....
2. Bad psychological connections: There are two bad connections in the minds of many liberals, both of which are rather unjustified and contribute to their dislike of nuclear power. One is the connection between nuclear power and nuclear weapons.
...
Another flawed connection is between environmentalism and the boycott of nuclear power. Unfortunately die-hard environmentalists are mainly responsible for reinforcing this connection. Their decades-long opposition to nuclear energy started with some reasonable premises, but then mainly descended into irrational, uninformed and exaggerated polemic
...
Solar and wind energy could provide a small percentage of our energy needs over time, but Lovelock realizes that nuclear technology is already here and it's the only form of energy that can be deployed quickly on a large scale to prevent the grim consequences of climate change. The fact is, liberals need to know that nuclear power is completely compatible, if not especially so, with environmentalism.
...
3. Waste: A point again related to the first point above. Many people think that this is the single greatest threat from nuclear power, that we will all be inhabiting vast atomic wastelands if we allow nuclear power to flourish. Many of the books cited above have detailed sections on nuclear waste. It's not a trivial issue, but many of the problems have to do with inefficiency and increased proliferation threats from burying valuable plutonium-containing nuclear waste. If we reprocessed the waste from nuclear reactors on a large scale, much of it would become much more benign and could be handled much more safely in low volumes. Yucca Mountain was a failure because it was a hasty, politically-motivated project that was a public relations disaster. But other enterprises like the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant are much more sound and should be vigorously pursued.
...
[lek's comment: but for the fact that it was in prince harry reid's district, was allowed to be funded to the tune of 10's OF BILLIONS thru-to completion AND THEN SHUTDOWN (???!!!!!) - is a 'tribute' to the/their politicization of this issue - energy policies that fling BS into the face of rational scientific debate - and a prime example of the ABSOLUTE CORRUPTION OF THE DEMORAT-LIBERAL PANDERING POLITIX and
WHY THEY ARE ULTIMATELY RESPONSIBLE for 'global-climate-warming change' - or whatevah the hell they'll be calling it next month]
...
4. Damn them Republicans: There is actually a third connection- that between nuclear weapons and belligerent right wing political leaders that drives liberals' disdain for all things nuclear. If the erroneous connection between power and weapons takes hold in your mind, then it is not too difficult to perceive a connection between nuclear energy and right wing excesses.
...
The only way to stop oneself from making such flawed political connections is to be reminded that this is not a political issue.

[lek's comment: even tho the liberal-demorats have used it as a wedge issue for decades, corelating DIRECTLY to the vast increase in the combustion of coal for electric generation + acid raid = the acidification of the oceans + the rise of petro dollar-funded islamic whackos + terrorism and TA-DA!! 'global-climate-warming change' and more to the point: DIRECTLY TO 11SEPT2001 + the patriot act, the TSA gestapo/homeland 'security' - never mind the great wipe-out of 2008-9 along with the election of the MOST INEPT+CORRUPT administration in US history, etc etc ad nauseum!]
....
Objections to and support for nuclear power should go beyond political partisanship. The merit of nuclear power lies in the science and thus bows to no political or partisan mongering, and especially not to dedicated deniers like Inhofe. It's important for liberals to separate the scientific pros and cons of nuclear energy from the political credentials of those who support or oppose it.
5. Fear of the unknown: This is again related to the first point. Fear of the unknown has unfortunately driven negative liberal reactions to many other promising technologies, including vaccines and GMOs...
...
[and other irrational output from the luddite brigade...]

Who is the real wingnut here?

Remember the first post was about an inane writer that wanted to solve global warming by austerity. Let's make the plight of the middle class and poor worse by stopping any job creating growth?

There are plenty of similar examples on the right, so this is not political.

How do we solve the problem? Conservation, technology, solar, and nuclear. Get the political crap out of it and move forward.

and the latest from the wingnut/luddite brigade ?
was listening to NPR last night and happened to catch the latest 'controversy':

Did Exxon Mobil Lie To The Public About The Risks Of Climate Change?

N.Y. Attorney General Investigates Whether Exxon Mobil Lied On Climate Change

what i find particularly HILARIOUS (read: outrageous) is that they on the liberal/left media have had precious little to say about the criminally-inept+CORRUPT dept of 'justice' and their abject FAILURE as evidenced by their miserable lack of prosecution by Holder&co of their largest campaign contributors in the 2008 election cycle

and this along with the demorat party's idiot-logical anti-nuclear stance is PURELY POLITICAL!!

[lektrode]

Re: Climate Scientist Calls For Austerity To Avert Warming

wingnuts indeed - the scientific american op/ed spells it out purrrrfectly, IMHO

and altho i had just spent/wasted over an hour on comments pertaining to this issue in particular - one of my better 'signature' rant/raves (even if i do say so myself) - that somehow i fat-fingered and dumped/deleted before it got posted (unprintable comment left out)

and altho hadnt intended on participating in this one, it was something i heard last night on NPR that motivated me to jump in:

Did Exxon Mobil Lie To The Public About The Risks Of Climate Change?


N.Y. Attorney General Investigates Whether Exxon Mobil Lied On Climate Change


kinda funny, make that HILARIOUS (outrageously so) that they in the liberal media - along with NY AG's office - to pounce on this one, even while their lack of much to say = DEAFENING SILENCE regarding the ABJECT FAILURE OF THE MOST INEPT+CORRUPT ADMINISTRATION in US history to effectively prosecute the BIGGEST ORGANIZED CRIME SPREE IN HISTORY ???
(which just so-happened to be their biggest campaign contributors in the 2008 election cycle) ?

and the lib-dem-run media op/ed depts got plenty of time to ask 'what did exxon know and when did they know it' ?

riiiiiigght...

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!



and whataya know - what i thot had been lost, somehow made it up here anyway....

[santafe2]

Re: Climate Scientist Calls For Austerity To Avert Warming

I posted it in the hope that some folks would respect the call to table the discussion.

Thanks Woodsman, tabled. I'd like to see the day when we can talk about mitigation strategies without the denial crap. I'm deeply concerned that the US conservative tribe is so dysfunctional that our tribe will lead the spending without strong, smart conservative voices. I said this the other day, we spend over $600B a year on our military, isn't it the job of conservatives to call BS on that level spending and take care of the environment, (conserve it), take care of US jobs, (conserve them) and take care of each other, (conserve our families and communities).

[santafe2]

Re: Climate Scientist Calls For Austerity To Avert Warming

...kinda funny, make that HILARIOUS (outrageously so) that they in the liberal media - along with NY AG's office - to pounce on this one, even while their lack of much to say = DEAFENING SILENCE regarding the ABJECT FAILURE OF THE MOST INEPT+CORRUPT ADMINISTRATION in US history to effectively prosecute the BIGGEST ORGANIZED CRIME SPREE IN HISTORY ???
(which just so-happened to be their biggest campaign contributors in the 2008 election cycle) ?

and the lib-dem-run media op/ed depts got plenty of time to ask 'what did exxon know and when did they know it' ?

lek, I think the biggest difference between your opinion and mine is that I would never defend a criminal like Holder or apologize for the criminals at Exxon. One of these days the light bulb is going to go on and you'll realize that the criminals own both parties and the system. You're tilting at windmills.

[vt]

Re: Climate Scientist Calls For Austerity To Avert Warming

Tabled.

[lektrode]

Re: Climate Scientist Calls For Austerity To Avert Warming

lek, I think the biggest difference between your opinion and mine is that I would never defend a criminal like Holder or apologize for the criminals at Exxon. One of these days the light bulb is going to go on and you'll realize that the criminals own both parties and the system. You're tilting at windmills.

not sure how you get that i was defending or apologizing for either, sf - and i certainly agree that the criminal+whitecollar crowd have come to own the system

my OUTRAGE is directed at the current occupant with his merry band of criminally incompetent cronies
who have done more to F__K this country THAN ANYTHING osama&co could have EVER DONE.

and i'd rather bet my future (and that of The USA) on the likes of exxon THAN ANY of the current occupant's apologists and bedfellows...