Third Party & Independents Archives

Andrew Cuomo Shows the Way Forward From Paris

Yes it must be tres jolie to fly to Paris and save the world from a possible 1.8 C increase in temperature over a multi-decade period. And then indulge in some of the City of LIght’s notorious (and no doubt notoriously expensive) temptations. But we shouldn’t assume that climate lobbyists and experts are quite at the level of a Dominique Strauss-Kahn. They may even be rather self-righteous zealots, in their own way.

Here's the thing though. The future of environmental guidelines, rules, regulations, laws, by-laws, penalties, and general brow-beating may not be determined in places like Paris or Washington going forward. At least not in America.

Andrew Cuomo has launched a pledge (to go along with a presidential bid most likely in oh say 2+ years) to unite Jerry Brown's California and Washington State under a set of regulations that will promise substantial reductions in emissions over the coming years. They will be the Three Musketeers of Climate Change, clasping hands in a holy trinity in order to save the exiled Prince's Clean Power Plan.

You know something Andrew? Go for it! If your voters in the good state of New York want to burden themselves with additional taxes and regulations in order to reduce emissions that may be contributing to a slight increase in temperature, then they have that constitutional right. As a proud state in the United States of America.

And if the voters of the good state of West Virginia for example see otherwise and plan to support America's withdrawal from the Paris Accord, ca c'est parfait aussi. Sure, Senate ratification - something Obama skipped because it would have been voted down and something Trump could theoretically use to deep six the Paris Accord - is a constitutional guarantee that any treaty has to have broad support. But how about if environmental standards became mostly a state matter?

Yes, pollution flows across state lines, but imagine trying to establish the level of a fine based on scientific estimates of what level of pollutants are estimated to have moved from somewhere inland - like Ohio - to say New York. Breaking News! Pollutants are now over Newfoundland! Canada demands reparations! Ohio tells them to get lost! Also happening right now! Juarez and El Paso sue each other!

Environmentalists would have us feel guilty for drought in Somalia. And give 70% of what we have to cure the problem, and give a few private-client bankers in Zurich some new customers. Everything is connected. Especially in Zurich.

How about instead, every state in America decides it's own level of environmental regulations? Gasps of horror and denouncements from progressives/environmentalists. You can't do that! Well, Cuomo just did. Didn't he?

Posted by AllardK at June 5, 2017 6:22 PM
Comments
Comment #417026

AllardK,

Have you ever heard of something known as a “collective action problem”? If some states stick their necks out and do what it takes to mitigate anthropogenic global warming, it isn’t quite fair that other states get to reap those rewards despite not having contributed to the solution.

Posted by: Warren Porter at June 5, 2017 6:36 PM
Comment #417028

“collective action (solution) problem”

Also known as Communism.

What the hell is this mantra of “fair” that the Left likes to banter about? They only promote “fair” when it suits their cause.

Can anyone be so naive as to believe that some state “sticking its neck out” should encumber others states to follow suit. Does Warren believe that some states get to lead while others must simply follow?

Posted by: Royal Flush at June 5, 2017 7:07 PM
Comment #417030

RF,

If collective action is such a problem, perhaps we should return responsibility for the nation’s defense to the individual state militias? After all, I’m sure Texas wouldn’t mind if Maryland and Massachusetts free rides on the back of its taxpayers.

Posted by: Warren Porter at June 5, 2017 7:20 PM
Comment #417031

Warren, stop writing such nonsense. Is that the best you can do? Do you understand how ignorant your comment sounds?

Posted by: Royal Flush at June 5, 2017 7:29 PM
Comment #417032

Royal Flush favors collective action when it comes to the nation’s defense, but paradoxically yells Communism! when the concept is raised in other arenas. What a hypocrite.

Posted by: Warren Porter at June 5, 2017 7:32 PM
Comment #417034

I believe I will let Warren stew awhile in his dirty diapers. He relishes making outrageous statements as he requires the attention of others; and apparently can’t find it any other way.

Posted by: Royal Flush at June 5, 2017 7:42 PM
Comment #417041

The US has been beating the emissions lowering of every agreement on the books, even when we haven’t been in them. The hysteria that somehow not being in a voluntary agreement means we won’t meet them now is ludicrous. This is just something the left is either using as political ammo or they have deified the issue to the point that reason and logic play zero part. Their anti-science rants are usually filled with such slaves to their beliefs, even when you point out the flaws and legitimate skepticism of parts of the research, they see it as an attack on their religion, so much that so daring to do the proper scientific thing, question and point out flaws in theories, is met as a heresy.

I learned long ago to stay away from religious debates unless I get agreement from the other side that they are willing to listen. The left isn’t, so there’s really no point.

Carry on with your daily devotions, the rest of us will move the country/world forward despite you.

Posted by: Rhinehold at June 5, 2017 11:38 PM
Comment #417043
The US has been beating the emissions lowering of every agreement on the books, even when we haven’t been in them.

If you don’t cherry pick the baseline, our record is not as impressive as you purport. Whether we discuss intensity per unit gdp or per capita emissions, the US lags behind its peers in the rest of the developed world.

The hysteria that somehow not being in a voluntary agreement means we won’t meet them now is ludicrous.

I’m not making a huge deal out of this. Paris was always a voluntary agreement. Pulling out of it is much more consequential diplomatically than climatically. With Trump, the damage was already done when he rolled back Obama-era EPA regulations earlier this year. Regardless, I am still hopeful that subnational entities including states, counties and cities can do what it takes to meet the voluntary goals promulgated by Obama last year. Nonetheless, it is disappointing that some part parts of this country will reap the benefits of mitigating global warming while contributing nothing to the effort.

Their anti-science rants are usually filled with such slaves to their beliefs, even when you point out the flaws and legitimate skepticism of parts of the research, they see it as an attack on their religion, so much that so daring to do the proper scientific thing, question and point out flaws in theories, is met as a heresy.

As you are aware, I am an atmospheric scientist by profession and I am currently working on earning my PhD in this field. This is one issue where I can actually claim a bit of first hand expertise. I have no problem answering questions from curious people with open minds, skepticism is a healthy part of any scientific discipline.

However, my experience discussing this issue over the years tells me that cognitive dissonance is quite rampant among libertarians or conservatives who attribute recently observed global warming to natural mechanisms. For these people, opposition to AGW mitigation efforts is such a core part of their identity that rational self-reflection is impossible. Some even project this religious devotion to political dogma onto others and incorrectly ascribe the scientific community as quasi-religious, but the reality is they are only describing themselves.

The scientific community is always eager to upend old ideas and learn new things. People who do exactly that are awarded with science’s greatest prestige, the Nobel Prize. If the greenhouse effect could be disproven or a large and substantial negative feedback identified, then it would represent a truly monumental advance in our knowledge of how the Earth operates.

It would be my dream to do something like that, but alas, every observation known points to the same conclusion. Anthropogenic GHGs are warming the Earth and the atmosphere is likely sensitive to those gases such that it will warm by 2 to 6 degrees C in reaction to a doubling of CO2 concentrations. If Climate warms by 3 degrees or more, the economic consequences would be tremendous. Closer to 6 degrees, they would be absolutely catastrophic. Hence, the need to do what we can to limit the warming to just 2 degrees or less, which involves reducing CO2 emissions drastically by midcentury.

Posted by: Warren Porter at June 6, 2017 12:41 AM
Comment #417046

Warren,

Very few people disagree that greenhouse gasses warm the planet, the issue is how much is normal and the effect of the multipliers, the feedbacks. The computer predictions have all been wrong as observed, the increase in CO2 is not showing the increases they thought and the data is showing that the feedbacks predicted are not as originally thought. To date, there are some theories as to why but none of them have held up yet to observed data. Does this mean they aren’t there? No, just that the calculations are not taking in the right understanding of how all of the inputs work.

Remember Mann’s hockey stick? That’s kind of where we are now. Heat was supposed to be trapped but in reality it isn’t as originally believed it would be. There was supposed to be a hot spot, but that hasn’t developed. Many things like this are where science has to conclude that the original beliefs were wrong and re-examine.

And don’t get me wrong I think scientists are. I do not think the politicians are or the religious, the ones who have turned this belief of catastrophic damage as a foregone conclusion and are using it for political gains. Don’t even get me started on Bill Nye… An engineer playing as a scientist who is really an entertainer, a jumped up actor who has believed his own hype. He’s as much a danger to real science as many of the ‘deniers’ are.

I have my own thoughts and theories on this, but my past fields have been nuclear science, not atmospheric. But I understand how the scientific method works and a religious fervor and ‘settled science’ is not it. It’s dangerous and needs to be put down, but it won’t because there is too much politics involved now to allow that to happen. The second that the community comes out and says anything that is remotely sideways to the current accepted beliefs are torn apart and scorned. I hope this changes soon because it could really cause so much damage…

And my last reading is that no scientists are expecting 2 degrees warming by the end of the century at this point, let alone mid-century, because of these observed realities.

BTW, humanity will get to better energy sources (should have been using nuclear for decades, but Jane Fonda made this movie… which is a great example about religion and damage that it can cause btw) with our without government intervention because it is good business. It makes sense. It’s what people what. And business will give people what they want, either the current companies or new ones who will take their place. That’s how this works. Too much government intervention is how we get less optimal advances.

Posted by: Rhinehold at June 6, 2017 1:51 AM
Comment #417049

Here’s a great example…

Because there is more co2, there has been a significant increase in vegetation (which is sequestering co2 from the atmosphere) at a much higher rate than browning.

A recent Science paper by J-F. Busteri and 30 named coauthors assisted by 239 volunteers found, looking at global drylands (about 40% of land areas fall into this category), that we had undercounted global forest cover by a whopping “at least 9%.”
We show a persistent and widespread increase of growing season integrated LAI (greening) over 25% to 50% of the global vegetated area, whereas less than 4% of the globe shows decreasing LAI (browning). Factorial simulations with multiple global ecosystem models show that CO2 fertilization effects explain 70% of the observed greening trend…

This will get ‘dismissed’ by many, but it does explain why the temps have not been increasing at the rate it should be compared to increases in CO2, based on previous calculations and models. One of the many reasons it could be happening.

More research needs to be done before we really fully understand all of the factors and multipliers and sinks, etc. The notion that the ‘science is settled’ is a huge misunderstanding of what science is.

Posted by: Rhinehold at June 6, 2017 2:07 AM
Comment #417053

Warren Porter recently challenged me with a question about the Pliocene Era and the absence of polar ice caps. I pointed out that the Pliocene era had the same amount of CO2 in the atmosphere as now. I asked him why we have ice caps now if CO2 in the atmosphere is to blame for their absence in the Pliocene era. Warren Porter suddenly lost interest in rising sea levels and C02 in the atmosphere as the cause.

Posted by: Weary Willie at June 6, 2017 10:48 AM
Comment #417055

I do not have any expertise in climate research. But, the assertion that the “science is settled” regarding climate change has always disturbed me.

It seems, to me, apparent that factors effecting climate and their interactions are incredibly complex and their measurement rudimentary at this point. In addition, almost all climate theories are based upon post-hoc analysis which has always been the weakest form of scientific method. Even if many of the basic factors and rules governing climate change were proven with rigorous experimental methods, it would still be a difficult task to produce a robust predictive model due to the complexity of their interactions.

On the other hand, it would be insane to dismiss strong observational evidence of climate change and the correlations with fossil fuel use. In addition, there are many other reasons (negative effects on human health, environmental degradation, etc.) that argue for alternative energy sources including as Rhinehold points out, nuclear.

Posted by: Rich at June 6, 2017 11:15 AM
Comment #417058

https://t.co/oQch7yTB3N

“That’s almost certainly the case with climate change, and is shown in the graph to the left. There were 102 models that predicted the temperature would be rising rapidly in the 2000’s – the red line. Compare that with the other two lines which are actual tests of real global temperatures. As you can see, the global warming scientists’ models are pretty far off. Global warming is real, but it’s not as drastic as propagandists like Al Gore have said. People should skeptical of climate change and the politicians who say the government has to fix it.”

Posted by: Rhinehold at June 6, 2017 12:08 PM
Comment #417059

Rhinehold,
Careful!

“The new study, Atmospheric changes through 2012 as shown by iteratively homogenized radiosonde temperature and wind data (IUKv2), by Steven Sherwood and Nidhi Nishant, takes a new approach. From the Abstract:

… (a) many studies have reported less-than-expected tropospheric warming, and (b) there has been a slowing of ocean surface warming in the last 15 years in the tropics. We support the findings of other recent studies … that reports of weak tropospheric warming have likely been due to flaws in calibration and other problems and that warming patterns have proceeded in the way expected from models.”

In other words, the models look pretty good. Are they perfect? Obviously not. This is a tremendously complex subject. But we are seeing predictions proven in reality. 2014 was the warmest on record. 2015 was warmer than 2014. 2016 was even warmer.

The oceans are warming.

The ocean acidity (ph) is changing due to absorption of C02. That is a BIG problem, but let’s move on.

“People should skeptical of climate change and the politicians who say the government has to fix it.”

No. There is no reasonable cause for skepticism. And because climate change is a problem that crosses national borders and literally involves the entire world, it is up to governments to cooperate and coordinate responses. This is not a problem one country can solve.

There is no planet B. This is not a problem we can afford to get wrong, especially if it turns out the effects are worse than predicted. That is possible. There are feedback loops.

Models have always shown the far northern latitudes would warm first, and fast. That has happened. It is not just a matter of the arctic ice cap melting and the changing albedo- from reflective white ice to absorptive dark water- causing more warming, faster. The warmer temperatures thaw permafrost. Permafrost contains enormous amounts of methane. Methane only persists about 4 years in the atmosphere, while C02 persists for a century; there is about 200 times more C02 in the atmosphere than methane; but methane is a MUCH more powerful greenhouse gas than C02- thirty times more powerful. This methane would be introduced into the atmosphere at high latitudes, and that means a risk of a vicious feedback loop.

Posted by: phx8 at June 6, 2017 12:39 PM
Comment #417060

And leave it to phx8 to come along and prove my very point for me.

In other words, the models look pretty good.

No. No they don’t. They are off by a factor… some measurements put that factor at 2. That means the predicted results are wrong. Period. Why they are wrong? That is still left to determine. But they are wrong. Science requires that observable data matches predicted behavior. You are preaching religion, not science.

As for ‘on record’, you mean in the last 100 years, yes. If you mean ever, you are way wrong.

The x3 Feedback that was predicted was due to some basic theories. For example, the more warming would cause more evaporation, which would cause more heat to be trapped, which would lead to greater warming. However, we are not seeing that. Heat is escaping the atmosphere where the original belief was that it would be trapped and not do that. Measurements show this quite clearly. This is just one example.

The easiest is to look at the predicted temp increases per CO2 level increase. CO2 levels have increased, but temps have not, not at the rate thought, because the feedbacks predictions were wrong.

Is the planet warming? Yes. Has it been warming since the little ice age ‘peaked’ in the 1600s? Yes. Is it going to warm as much as originally thought because of CO2 increases? The facts show it isn’t. In fact, we are seeing 25-50% increases in vegetation, a sequester of CO2 and increase of O2 levels, which is helping slow the warming even more.

In the late 90s, we were told ‘we’ll see as the decades ahead progress who is right and who is wrong’. We are seeing that now. Scientists are trying to save the dire predictions as best they can but are failing to do that because they are increasingly not matching up to predicted levels. The chart in the link I provided is a prime example of that. New theories/math/predictions are needed, and real scientists are looking for those, to better understand the science involved. The religious are out pounding on their chests, berating anyone who questions their doctrines, using scare tactics akin to threatening hell on those who don’t ‘believe’, and ignoring the observable facts.

We are not going to see a 2 degree warming by mid-century, there is even discussion that we won’t see 2 degrees by end of the century. This is a far cry from Mann’s original hockey stick nonsense…

Posted by: Rhinehold at June 6, 2017 1:22 PM
Comment #417061
It seems, to me, apparent that factors effecting climate and their interactions are incredibly complex and their measurement rudimentary at this point. In addition, almost all climate theories are based upon post-hoc analysis which has always been the weakest form of scientific method. Even if many of the basic factors and rules governing climate change were proven with rigorous experimental methods, it would still be a difficult task to produce a robust predictive model due to the complexity of their interactions.

Absolutely. Practically speaking, we will never be able to conduct a double-blind controlled experiment to test climate change theories as thoroughly as other scientific ideas. But, the tools we have are the best we’ve got and they still can provide enough insight to permit educated guesses to be made. Ultimately though, the atmosphere is a chaotic system and there are firm limits on the sorts of predictions that can be made.

Rhinehold,

The computer predictions have all been wrong as observed, the increase in CO2 is not showing the increases they thought and the data is showing that the feedbacks predicted are not as originally thought. To date, there are some theories as to why but none of them have held up yet to observed data. Does this mean they aren’t there? No, just that the calculations are not taking in the right understanding of how all of the inputs work.

Firstly, since the 2015 El Nino, the agreement between the CMIP5 models and temperature observations. Secondly, you have to understand what the models are supposed to predict what they aren’t supposed to predict. For instance, the models are not going to predict future CO2 emissions, so if people burn fewer fossil fuels than assumed in a particular RCP scenario, then the resulting temperature forecast isn’t going to match observations. Thirdly, we must understand that interannual variability is chaotic and cannot be predicted. At best, we are forecasting 30 year rolling averages of mean temperature anomalies.

Having said all that, it is quite hubristic to look at a sparse sample of little more than a decade and use the discrepancy to assume that postive feedbacks have been overestimated. Sure, it is certainly a reason to further investigate to determine why the discrepancy exists (or to reexamine whether something may be wrong with the observations). But, this isn’t a circumstance that warrants throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

If you actually wanted to use this result to prove that feedbacks are lower than previously imagined, it would require building a new ensemble of computer models that accurately hindcast temperatures from the past 150 years while simultaneously predicting only modest, nonthreatening warming for the rest of the 21st century. This hasn’t been done, which is why the incumbent ideas remain.

Remember Mann’s hockey stick? That’s kind of where we are now. Heat was supposed to be trapped but in reality it isn’t as originally believed it would be. There was supposed to be a hot spot, but that hasn’t developed. Many things like this are where science has to conclude that the original beliefs were wrong and re-examine.

I’m not sure what you are trying to say here. I think you are under the misimpression that Michael Mann’s paleoclimatic research was somehow disproved. That actually isn’t the case and his papers (including the notorious “hockey stick”) continue to be cited widely among the scientific community. In fact, his results were independently reproduced by many other researchers.

That said, there are certainly areas that require further study. One huge problem is figuring out how much of the excess heat accumulates in the ocean and how much accumulates in the lower troposphere. There’s a popular hypothesis that the models allocated too much of that heat to the troposphere and too little to the oceans. This lead to the overprediction of tropospheric temperatures between 1999 and 2014 and an underprediction of sea level rise over the same period (sea level at this point is still mostly a matter of thermal expansion, the impact of ice melt only becomes significant at higher temperatures). This idea lines up well with the observed pattern whereby each significant El Nino belches up far more heat from the deep ocean than predicted (which results in the reestablishment of agreement between observed and modeled lower troposphere temperatures). Of course, a single a data point doesn’t prove this idea, but it does bolster its credibility.

If I had to guess, I guarantee AGW skeptics discussing this issue will spend the next 5-15 years complaining about how global warming supposedly “stopped” in 2015 just like they spent the past decade claiming that the warming “stopped” in 1998. The truth is that just because the warming manifests as a step function rather than a monotonically increasing one does not mean projections of the mean temperature anomaly from 2070 to 2100 can’t be trusted.

And don’t get me wrong I think scientists are. I do not think the politicians are or the religious, the ones who have turned this belief of catastrophic damage as a foregone conclusion and are using it for political gains. Don’t even get me started on Bill Nye… An engineer playing as a scientist who is really an entertainer, a jumped up actor who has believed his own hype. He’s as much a danger to real science as many of the ‘deniers’ are.

I have my own thoughts and theories on this, but my past fields have been nuclear science, not atmospheric. But I understand how the scientific method works and a religious fervor and ‘settled science’ is not it. It’s dangerous and needs to be put down, but it won’t because there is too much politics involved now to allow that to happen. The second that the community comes out and says anything that is remotely sideways to the current accepted beliefs are torn apart and scorned. I hope this changes soon because it could really cause so much damage…

Personally, I attribute much this devolution to the aftermath of the CRU email hack. It was at this point that many people learned that entrenched political and economic interests were not going to pull any punches in their effort to undermine basic scientific research. To this day, vast numbers of people incorrectly believe Dr. Mann used a “trick” to “hide the decline”. It’s unreal and honest skeptics need to do their part to counter the spread of this sort of disinformation if they expect the scientific community to take them seriously.

And my last reading is that no scientists are expecting 2 degrees warming by the end of the century at this point, let alone mid-century, because of these observed realities.
Huh? Common consensus is that the sensitivity of climate to a doubling of CO2 is between 1.5 and 6.5 degrees C. We are already 40% of the way towards doubling CO2 and without strong mitigation efforts, it is very likely we’ll reach that point by 2100. Nobody worth their salt is going to get any more specific than that.
BTW, humanity will get to better energy sources (should have been using nuclear for decades, but Jane Fonda made this movie… which is a great example about religion and damage that it can cause btw) with our without government intervention because it is good business. It makes sense. It’s what people what. And business will give people what they want, either the current companies or new ones who will take their place. That’s how this works. Too much government intervention is how we get less optimal advances.

I think I have repeatedly made clear, I support free market solutions to the AGW problem. This means I prefer the elegance of a simple carbon tax over the crude command and control regulations that dominate the current political landscape. Ultimately, failing to internalize the environmental costs of CO2 pollution only serves to subsidize an obsolete industry. Without such mitigation, less optimal advances are assured.

Here’s a great example

A great example of what? The existence of the negative feedback due to CO2 fertilization has been well known for a long time and has been included in every model of the carbon cycle ever built. I think the CATO institute wanted to say that negative feedbacks were observed to be greater than those predicted by CMIP5 models, but they conveniently leave that claim out because it is false. Instead, the rely on gullible readers to fill that part back in. Nevertheless, I repeat what I said before: Anyone who identifies a significant negative feedback that was either ignored or mistakenly discounted in earlier studies would easily earn a Nobel Prize. There’s tremendous incentive for scientists to disprove the preexisting consensus. If such a negative feedback existed, it begs the question: why hasn’t anyone found it?

WW,

I am sorry if my busy work schedule got in the way of our earlier conversation. You ask me how present day glaciers survive when Pliocene ones melted away when both periods feature CO2 concentrations above 400 ppm. I respond by reminding you that we’ve only recently spiked CO2 this high. Just 200 years ago, CO2 was just 280 ppm. During the Pliocene, those CO2 concentrations were a teeny bit greater than today’s concentrations (416 ppm vs 400 ppm) and they stuck around for much longer (the Pliocene lasted decades).

Posted by: Warren Porter at June 6, 2017 1:46 PM
Comment #417063

Warren,

It all really comes down to the feedbacks (amplification and dampening). That’s the unfortunate thing that no one is talking about. There are literally thousands of different feedbacks into the system and scientists have to get these right in order to accurately predict what is going to happen. Understanding and observing how all of these work, predicting and then seeing the results of those predictions is how we measure the accuracy of the models long term. Yes, it is simplistic to say ‘the models said an increase of 50% of CO2 would result in this temp and it isn’t’, just as it is also simplistic to discuss the other way around.

The majority of predicted temperature increases comes from those feedback mechanisms. This is were the disagreement comes into play, not in the simple increase of 1.1c for doubling CO2 levels which pretty much everyone agrees with. It’s what else happens in the system that can take that from a 6c increase or a 1c decrease, etc. Amplification and Dampening. And yes, I know you understand this, but I’m trying to make sure others get this point because it is almost NEVER discussed by the media, where the majority of the religious get their information from…

I just want to take one predicted feedback amplification and discuss if you are ok with that. The prediction of every climate model has been that as temperatures increase, more water vapor is created which in turns traps more heat. Yet, we have been measuring heat escaping the atmosphere for well over a decade now and while every model has predicted that the amount of heat escaping compared to sea temperatures would decrease, it has in fact been increasing. This itself is a huge issue for the models because they predicted the exact opposite to happen. And it is this feedback amplification that results in the largest increase in predicted temperatures. It is where most of the dire predictions comes from, is it not?

So when observable data here shows the exact opposite happening to predicted behavior, a re-examination of the basic theory has to take place. Now, this is just one of the many many feedbacks (both amplification and dampening) so it does not mean that warming isn’t happening, but if you look at the data, the earth has been increasing .5c every century since the peak of the little ice age, around 1680. Yet most of the increase in CO2 has been since 1945… If we see that the net result of the temperature increase from 1945 to 2045 is approximately .5c to .6c, doesn’t at that point the scientific community have to admit that they overestimated the feedback amplification of CO2?

Just something to think about and discuss. I could very well be all wrong about all of this, but so could everyone else, which is my point. No one has ‘settled’ any science here…

Posted by: Rhinehold at June 6, 2017 2:17 PM
Comment #417065

As for Mann’s hockey stick, it was debunked long before ‘climategate’. This is why it was removed from all future discussions, including the IPCC reports. Some history can be found here:

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/403256/global-warming-bombshell/

Posted by: Rhinehold at June 6, 2017 2:20 PM
Comment #417066

“There is no harm in doubt and skepticism, for it is through these that new discoveries are made.” - R. Feynman

“Everything we know is only some kind of approximation, because we know that we do not know all the laws yet. Therefore, things must be learned only to be unlearned again or, more likely, to be corrected.” - R Feynman

Posted by: Rhinehold at June 6, 2017 2:30 PM
Comment #417071

I only have a quick minute between model runs to write this comment, so I’ll save a detailed response to your questions regarding the water vapor feedback for later. However, I will say that there is a great deal of uncertainty with some feedbacks, namely the forcing from aerosols and the forcing from clouds. Those are the two primary factors for the very broad estimate for equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) posited by the IPCC (1.5 to 6 degrees C per doubling of CO2). The IPCC has a nice figure illustrating the probability density function here, check out Figure 10.20 to see it. Generally speaking, the economic costs of global warming are only great enough to necessitate collective mitigation action if the temperatures rise more than 2 degrees C. Ultimately we are going to be playing the odds. We are never going to “prove” incontrovertibly that ECS is above 2 degrees until it is far too late. So, if you are waiting for that level of certainty then we need to have a different sort of conversation.

At this point, the onus on the skeptics is not to just poke miniscule holes in the preexisting consensus. That sort of thing only changes the chance of calamity quite marginally, which leaves the basic cost-benefit analysis unchanged. If we are going to continue to allow fossil fuels to be burned without restriction, we need to be >99 percent confident that it won’t warm the Earth so much that it harms our economy. That means one of three things must be proven:

1) Greenhouse effect doesn’t exist
2) Previously unknown significant negative feedbacks
3) Solid inconvertible evidence that positive feedbacks have been overestimated.

Regarding Mann:
I will mention that Mann’s Hockey Stick figure does appear in IPCC AR5. It’s figure 10.15

Posted by: Warren Porter at June 6, 2017 3:44 PM
Comment #417075

We aren’t talking about miniscule holes, Warren. That’s the point. There are a myriad of examples as to why the models are wrong and the feedbacks miscalculated, not the least of which is observable data on temperatures compared to CO2 increases recorded. When the temps weren’t rising, many called it a ‘pause’ and then tried to blame the oceans for holding on to the heat temporarily but aegis showed that to not be the case. The tropospheric hot spot was predicted to exist but has never shown up. Now we are talking ‘maybe it is aerosols’ but we banned those decades ago and the ozone hole is closing, so that is going to fall flat as a reason. The fact is, no one knows why the earth isn’t warming as much as it should be based on increased CO2 levels, except that the sceptics who say that the feedbacks are over calculated, and they are the only ones who are accurately predicting the current temperatures…

BTW if the original Hockey Stick is still in the report (not some modified version, I’ll have to check) then that shows you how unreliable the report is. You cannot have a model that produces the exact same results with random data and expect anyone to buy it.

Posted by: Rhinehold at June 6, 2017 6:02 PM
Comment #417076

BTW, this is another issue IMO. Mann has also bought into his own hype and will never, ever, ever admit he was wrong. At least, that’s my reading of him from the lectures and interviews he’s given.

Posted by: Rhinehold at June 6, 2017 6:03 PM
Comment #417080

We could all banter back and forth what the MMGW industry produces for years. To what end? Is it your foundation for the next law to be passed?

I think the only thing that will get people to believe in MMGW enough to modify their lifestyle is to experience the effects as described by the GWT enthusiasts, patrons, researchers, lawyers, bookkeepers, government agency employees, politicians, and others who make a living off of the GWT industry.

What’s the goal? Why are we doing all this research and discussion and lawyering and bookkeeping and politicing?

From what I can gather, the goal is to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels. That’s a great idea and I’m all for it.

What I’m against is the idea of frightening our children into modifying their behavior, making them do things, by instilling images in their minds of our world going up like a sulfur match head, if they don’t. That is fundamentally wrong!

Imagine the amount of money we’ve spent on research and discussion and lawyering and bookkeeping and politicing since the 70’s. Even if the CO2 theory was eventually proven, what good did it do proving it? If you really think about it, proof was gained but a solution is still non-existent! We’ll have to start over!

On the other hand, consider what those evil oil companies could have done with all that money were they charged with developing alternative energy sources back in the 70’s? Remember back in the 70’s when we suddenly needed a Dept. of Energy and a Dept. of Education? What did it get us? It got us a 40 year discussion of whether fossil fuels cause climate change or not. Hurrah! Big deal! We’re still discussing it!

If Royal Flush and I posted that we believe man made global warming is real, and it is caused by fossil fuels, what difference would it make? You still don’t have a solution. The fact, that you’ve needed half a century and billions of dollars to convince us, is grounds to fire you all.


Posted by: Weary Willie at June 6, 2017 7:42 PM
Comment #417081

Well said Weary Willie.

The solution to poverty was to spend Trillions of dollars and we have even more poverty today.

The solution to improving education was to spend more Trillions of dollars and we have even worse educational achievement scores today.

The solution to child obesity was to increase the cost of sugary treats and change school menus and today we have even more obese children.

The solution to illegal drugs was to legalize some of them and we have even more drug related problems today.

The solution to low wages was to mandate higher wages and we have even more unemployed teens and first-time job seekers.

The solution to the high cost of medical care was to force Obamacare down American throats and we have much higher medical costs today.

And…we are told by some that the solution to MMGW will be in spending Trillions of dollars. Please excuse my scorn.

Posted by: Royal Flush at June 6, 2017 7:57 PM
Comment #417083

Good posts Royal and WW. I am really, really hopeful Trump is a true populist and carries thru on the wall, stopping drugs, reducing and tightening immigration. new health care policy, creates jobs, tightens the purse strings and so on - - -

Currently, I am really pleased with what he has done/doing.

Be interesting to see how hard the GOP/corpocracy fights Trump on health care, the wall and other big issues. Corpocracy ain’t daid and they ain’t sleeping either. Just keepin a low profile and trying to stay out of Trump’s way.

Posted by: Roy Ellis at June 6, 2017 10:17 PM
Comment #417095

Thanks for the link dbs. I enjoyed the read.

Roy, just imagine the good work President Trump could accomplish with a little help from his Republican “friends”.

Posted by: Royal Flush at June 7, 2017 1:08 PM
Comment #417098

Drum-roll please as we await the huge crashing sound Obamacare makes as it falls into oblivion.

Anthem won’t participate in individual health insurance exchanges in Ohio in 2018, marking a nightmare scenario for Obamacare

https://www.aol.com/article/news/2017/06/06/anthem-wont-participate-in-individual-health-insurance-exchange/22129573/

Posted by: Royal Flush at June 7, 2017 2:26 PM
Comment #417099

RF,
Both Anthem and Blue Cross in NC announced they would not participate in the exchanges because of Trump. The private insurers can not take the risk that Trump will make good on his threat and withhold the CSR’s. I don’t blame the insurers. I would drop out too if I knew the federal government was even thinking about not paying.

Posted by: phx8 at June 7, 2017 2:31 PM
Comment #417101

Of course there is a good reason phx8. Obama promised profits no matter the cost to premium payers and taxpayers.

Blame Trump? It’s Obama’s boondoggle.

Posted by: Royal Flush at June 7, 2017 2:36 PM
Comment #417102

RF,
You might be interested to know the state of CA calculated it could provide cradle-to-grave universal health insurance with no lifetime caps and no deductibles, as well as full vision and dental coverage, for 15% of its GDP. As a country we currently spend 17% of GDP.

Posted by: phx8 at June 7, 2017 2:39 PM
Comment #417103

LOL…I read the California idea weeks ago. As I recall, legislators can’t figure out a way to pay for it.

Posted by: Royal Flush at June 7, 2017 2:40 PM
Comment #417104

“… legislators can’t figure out a way to pay for it.”

Right. As long as the current system is in place, there is no practical way to set up the CA plan. But it is a good indicator that universal health care can be provided at a substantially lower price than private health care insurance. The Canadians pay for their health care with a 12% sales tax. Every major country in the world is already providing health care through their government. We can pick and choose among them for the most successful way to pay.

Posted by: phx8 at June 7, 2017 5:04 PM
Comment #417111

China’s healthcare system is struggling. Russia’s healthcare system is in crisis.

Posted by: Weary Willie at June 7, 2017 9:25 PM
Comment #417116
Every major country in the world is already providing health care through their government.

And the left, like they did with the Paris Accords, will call this ‘leading’… LOL

OR, since we have a different society with different base rules, the only country to have been founded on the Enlightment, maybe we are just fine going a different way? A better way? The myopic view that it’s either ‘everyone fend for themselves’ or ‘government control of everything’ is not healthy to finding actual solutions. People want to control and people want to be controlled. It’s a fight we in the US have been fighting against since the country was founded. But that doesn’t mean we just stop and give in to the authoritarian mindset just because it’s easier.

Posted by: Rhinehold at June 7, 2017 9:50 PM
Comment #417117

BTW, phx8, when those countries start paying for our defense instead of us paying for theirs, we can probably afford to do a LOT of things…

Posted by: Rhinehold at June 7, 2017 9:51 PM
Comment #417133

Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption of authority. It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters.
Daniel Webster

Posted by: dbs at June 8, 2017 6:57 AM
Comment #417138

Obama, the Democrat congress, and the CBO all informed us that Obamacare would lower costs, provide choice, and provide health care for all.

Today, Obamacare is falling under the weight of all these promises it can not keep. Without more subsidies, the insurance companies are pulling out of the market. We all know, or should know, that subsidies are paid for by working Americans paying income taxes.

Medicare, Social Security and now…Obamacare are all huge entitlement programs that were sold as being self-sustaining by payroll taxes or premiums. None were sold as being a constant drain on the US treasury and taxpayer.

The Democrats define the “goal-line” and then proceed to change it on a regular basis.

Posted by: Royal Flush at June 8, 2017 3:47 PM
Post a comment