Climate Change Fanatics Confront Growing Evil - Climate Lukewarmers

[maxparrish]

Folks on the far right might totally deny man's influence on global warming and climate change (e.g. Limbaugh), but that does not mean the left is correct on the scope of public policy "problem" or their demanded policy "solutions". There are (at least) a five questions that need to be answered before the world invests tens of trillions into wind-mill charging.

First, how likely is it that the world will undergo dramatic temperature rise over the foreseeable future?
Second, how likely is it that it will result in dramatic climate change?
Third, how likely is it that it will cause substantive net harm, rather than being a 'wash', or even beneficial?
Four, how likely is it that we know how to fix it, and if it is worth it?
Last, how likely is it that it is going to be solved given international politics?

Even if we were 75% certainty for each step, the likelihood that this is worth the "investment" is very low. It's only about a 23 percent chance it will have been worthwhile. And the reality is that WE DON'T have certainty percentages anywhere close to 75%. At best (sequentially for each question) it is 50, 50, 33, 20, 10 meaning there is a microscopic .165% chance that spending tens of trillions over several decades will be worthwhile. EVEN if the IPCC best guess were accurate, do you really think lowering world temperature rise a half degree centigrade in 2100 will make a big difference?

Matt Ridley, former science editor of the Economist, mirrors my view:

Yesterday saw the publication of a paper in a prestigious journal, Nature Geoscience, from a high-profile international team led by Oxford scientists. The contributors include 14 lead authors of the forthcoming Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change scientific report; two are lead authors of the crucial chapter 10: professors Myles Allen and Gabriele Hegerl.

So this study is about as authoritative as you can get. It uses the most robust method, of analyzing the Earth’s heat budget over the past hundred years or so, to estimate a “transient climate response” — the amount of warming that, with rising emissions, the world is likely to experience by the time carbon dioxide levels have doubled since pre-industrial times.

The most likely estimate is 1.3C. Even if we reach doubled carbon dioxide in just 50 years, we can expect the world to be about two-thirds of a degree warmer than it is now, maybe a bit more if other greenhouse gases increase too. That is to say, up until my teenage children reach retirement age, they will have experienced further warming at about the same rate as I have experienced since I was at school.
At this rate, it will be the last decades of this century before global warming does net harm. As the economist Bjørn Lomborg recently summarized the economic consensus: “Economic models show that the overall impact of a moderate warming (1-2C) will be beneficial [so] global warming is a net benefit now and will likely stay so till about 2070.”

Now contrast the new result with the Met Office’s flagship climate model, the one that ministers and their advisers place most faith in. Called HadGEM2-ES, it expects a transient climate response of 2.5C, or almost double the best estimate that the Oxford team has just published. Indeed, the latter’s study concludes that it is more than 95 per cent certain that the response is below 2C, considerably short of the Met Office model’s estimate.

Why trust the new results rather than the Met Office model? The new study not only uses the most robust method, but joins several other observationally based studies from the past year that also find lower climate sensitivity than complex climate models exhibit.

Notice that this new understanding is consistent with what we have actually experienced: about 0.1C per decade over the past 50 years. The most remarkable thing about the recent milestone of 0.04 per cent carbon dioxide in the atmosphere (400 parts per million) is that it comes after 15 years of no net warming at all.

The new paper also fits the known physics of the greenhouse effect, which predicts a warming of 1.1C for a doubling of carbon dioxide. Only unverified assumptions by modellers about the added effects of water vapour and clouds have allowed politicians and activists to claim that a much higher number fits the laws of physics. Only now-disproven claims about how much the sulphur pollution in the air was masking the warming enabled them to reconcile their claims with the actual data.

It is true that the “transient climate response” is not the end of the story and that the gradual warming of the oceans means that there would be more warming in the pipeline even if we stopped increasing carbon dioxide levels after doubling them. But given the advance of nuclear and solar technology, there is now a good chance we will have decarbonised the economy before any net harm has been done.

In an insightful new book, The Age of Global Warming, Rupert Darwall makes the point that “in believing scientists and politicians can solve the problems of a far distant future, the tangible needs of the present are neglected”. The strong possibility that climate change will be slow and harmless must be taken seriously before we damage more lives, landscapes and livelihoods in its name.

http://www.rationaloptimist.com/blog/the-implications-of-lower-climate-sensitivity.aspx

Climate alarmism shares a commonality with WMD alarmism, it is based on speculative fears, imagination, and highly uncertain evidence. And like WMD alarmism, not only do we know what we don't know (and that's alot), we don't know how much we don't know.

 

[PyramidHead]

EVEN if the IPCC best guess were accurate, do you really think lowering world temperature rise a half degree centigrade in 2100 will make a big difference?

This totally ignores the other benefits of adopting clean energy. All of the proposed changes must be weighed not only against the likelihood of global catastrophe, but the needs of society in general.

 

[maxparrish]

EVEN if the IPCC best guess were accurate, do you really think lowering world temperature rise a half degree centigrade in 2100 will make a big difference?

This totally ignores the other benefits of adopting clean energy. All of the proposed changes must be weighed not only against the likelihood of global catastrophe, but the needs of society in general.

All other things being equal a half degree is not going to be much of a difference. The question of the net benefits and costs of "clean" energy is a different question - the point is that the net benefit to climate change is very small.

 

[PyramidHead]

This totally ignores the other benefits of adopting clean energy. All of the proposed changes must be weighed not only against the likelihood of global catastrophe, but the needs of society in general.

All other things being equal a half degree is not going to be much of a difference. The question of the net benefits and costs of "clean" energy is a different question - the point is that the net benefit to climate change is very small.

I respectfully disagree that it's the point, is what I'm saying. The point is, whether or not it makes a dent in climate change (and whether or not climate change is worth denting anyway), it's smart to have multiple sources of energy that are more sustainable and friendly to the environment than oil and coal. All of the facts of climate change can be denied while still holding to that principle, and it's the place where lukewarmers and doomsayers should be finding common ground. It's a different question, but the same answer. Perhaps the mistake of the left is that we framed the energy debate as a nested element of the climate change debate, when it stands on its own merits, making the "why" part a moot point.

 

[Valjean]

People underestimate the effects of global warming. They don't understand the ecological ramifications. Altering an ecosystem has widespread ramifications -- there's a butterfly effect.
We see only the surface -- desertification, extinction of large, charismatic mammals -- but all this rests on a foundation of phytoplankton, bacteria, subterranean fungi, &c. Alter these and the whole edifice collapses.
Ecology is complicated!

It only took a few degrees of cooling to initiate the last ice age. There have been several previous mass extinctions. Most seem to have been initiated by alterations of greenhouse gasses.
The rate of climate change in our current mass extinction is greater than in most previous catastrophes.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

All other things being equal a half degree is not going to be much of a difference.

How do you know? What evidence do you have to back up this claim?

 

[bilby]

Matt Ridley, former science editor of the Economist, mirrors my view

Ah, Max, we can always rely on you for an object lesson in humility.

Are you sure that it is not you who mirrors his view?

 

[bilby]

First, how likely is it that the world will undergo dramatic temperature rise over the foreseeable future?

That depends on what you mean by 'dramatic'. If we instead ask about 'harmful' temperature rise, the answer is 'almost certain'.

Second, how likely is it that it will result in dramatic climate change?

Given that this is the same question as your first, the answer is the same. You can try to pretend that there are multiple uncertainties here, but you are not fooling anyone - these first two of your points do not describe two uncertainties, they are two ways of looking at one 'very likely indeedity'.

Third Second, how likely is it that it will cause substantive net harm, rather than being a 'wash', or even beneficial?

Very likely indeed. Google is your friend; if you don't know what the scientific consensus is, you must be living under a rock; and if you think there is a better epistemology than scientific consensus to arrive at an answer, you are a fool.

Four Third, how likely is it that we know how to fix it, and if it is worth it?

100% certain. We can fix it by replacing coal, oil and gas power with nuclear, solar, and wind. The only obstacles to this are political, not technical.

Last, how likely is it that it is going to be solved given international politics?

Very unlikely, as long as people like you are lobbying against the idea that there is a problem, and people like your political opponents are actively lobbying against the biggest part of the solution.

When you have a bipartisan system, and both sides are hell-bent on doing the wrong thing (albeit for different reasons), then it is time for the non-partisan masses to rise up and tell the political game-players to fuck off.

 

[maxparrish]

All other things being equal a half degree is not going to be much of a difference. The question of the net benefits and costs of "clean" energy is a different question - the point is that the net benefit to climate change is very small.

I respectfully disagree that it's the point, is what I'm saying. The point is, whether or not it makes a dent in climate change (and whether or not climate change is worth denting anyway), it's smart to have multiple sources of energy that are more sustainable and friendly to the environment than oil and coal. All of the facts of climate change can be denied while still holding to that principle, and it's the place where lukewarmers and doomsayers should be finding common ground. It's a different question, but the same answer. Perhaps the mistake of the left is that we framed the energy debate as a nested element of the climate change debate, when it stands on its own merits, making the "why" part a moot point.

If the "common ground" is little more than how smart it is to increasing efficiency, sustainability, sustainability of inputs to production and outputs to consumption - well ya, of course, that is the nature of all technological growth. At one-time it was smart to use wood and tallow, then coal and whale oil, now its cheaper to use petroleum and natural gas. So what? You don't think technological progress and transitions to cheaper alternatives happened without a manufactured "crisis", government carbon taxes, and greenhouse gas emission throttling? Nonsense.

It's just another excuse for a wasting 300,000,000 people's earnings and savings (taxes on wages and folks investments) on yet another pet enthusiasm that would never make it in the market place.

 

[bilby]

I respectfully disagree that it's the point, is what I'm saying. The point is, whether or not it makes a dent in climate change (and whether or not climate change is worth denting anyway), it's smart to have multiple sources of energy that are more sustainable and friendly to the environment than oil and coal. All of the facts of climate change can be denied while still holding to that principle, and it's the place where lukewarmers and doomsayers should be finding common ground. It's a different question, but the same answer. Perhaps the mistake of the left is that we framed the energy debate as a nested element of the climate change debate, when it stands on its own merits, making the "why" part a moot point.

If the "common ground" is little more than how smart it is to increasing efficiency, sustainability, sustainability of inputs to production and outputs to consumption - well ya, of course, that is the nature of all technological growth. At one-time it was smart to use wood and tallow, then coal and whale oil, now its cheaper to use petroleum and natural gas. So what? You don't think technological progress and transitions to cheaper alternatives happened without a manufactured "crisis", government carbon taxes, and greenhouse gas emission throttling? Nonsense.

It's just another excuse for a wasting 300,000,000 people's earnings and savings (taxes on wages and folks investments) on yet another pet enthusiasm that would never make it in the market place.

300,000,000? So global warming doesn't affect the 95% of humanity who don't live in the USA? I find that greatly reassuring.

 

[maxparrish]

All other things being equal a half degree is not going to be much of a difference.

How do you know? What evidence do you have to back up this claim?

First, I have read widely on the issue and yet to run across any evidence that 1/2 degree Celsius is going to make a worthwhile difference.

Second, the burden of proof is on those who claim we need to change growth in greenhouse gases BECAUSE they claim there will be a disaster AND that the various bromides will make a worthwhile and substantive difference.

Till such alarmist evidence is shown to more than problematical (if not speculative), there will be no evidence that 2 or 3 degrees in 2100 (or a 1/2 degree difference within that range) is worth a parsley sprig of concern.

 

[maxparrish]

If the "common ground" is little more than how smart it is to increasing efficiency, sustainability, sustainability of inputs to production and outputs to consumption - well ya, of course, that is the nature of all technological growth. At one-time it was smart to use wood and tallow, then coal and whale oil, now its cheaper to use petroleum and natural gas. So what? You don't think technological progress and transitions to cheaper alternatives happened without a manufactured "crisis", government carbon taxes, and greenhouse gas emission throttling? Nonsense.

It's just another excuse for a wasting 300,000,000 people's earnings and savings (taxes on wages and folks investments) on yet another pet enthusiasm that would never make it in the market place.

300,000,000? So global warming doesn't affect the 95% of humanity who don't live in the USA? I find that greatly reassuring.

That is an odd, even daffy, reply. I mentioned that the earnings and savings of 300,000,000 would be used to solve a non or insoluble problem (i.e. wasted) and you prattle on about the other 95% of humanity. You are aware that if it is a non or insoluble problem that can't be solved by wasting our wealth, then why would you expect that the other 95% of humanity WOULD benefit if we did pursue a folly?

 

[bilby]

300,000,000? So global warming doesn't affect the 95% of humanity who don't live in the USA? I find that greatly reassuring.

That is an odd, even daffy, reply. I mentioned that the earnings and savings of 300,000,000 would be used to solve a non or insoluble problem (i.e. wasted) and you prattle on about the other 95% of humanity. You are aware that if it is a non or insoluble problem that can't be solved by wasting our wealth, that it should be expected that 95% of humanity also can't benefit from the pursuit of our folly?

Of course. I am just astonished that your concern extends to all Americans, but somehow manages to stop at the border. It's almost as if you are barely aware that there is a world outside the USA; or as though you think the Americans are the only ones being asked to do anything about it; or as though you have no clue what the word 'global' actually means.

Or perhaps you have some odd idea that there is a club of 300,000,000 taxpayers spread worldwide who are the only contributors to anything.

Frankly, I have no clue what you are thinking, but your use of the number 300,000,000 in this context is truly daffy, and probably deserved a genuinely daffy response. Perhaps I should just go back to ignoring your more incomprehensible posts.

This is one issue that genuinely needs to be considered without the shackles of small-mindedness, so the least you could do is try to break those bonds.

 

[bleubird]

If the 300,000,000 had the wealth this might make some sense.More like 299,999,980.
Max,what could be the cost to most if nothing is done?

 

[arkirk]

It's not as if climate change isn't dangerous: our civilization is well adapted to the current interstadial climate, but we know things have been very different in the past and there is no reason to assume they cannot change in future, whatever the reason. For instance, it is very unusual for there to be ice caps at both poles simultaneously, and apart from "Snowball Earth" episodes, the current global temperature is quite cool. Could it be that warming would have happened eventually anyway, basically the planet reverting to normal?

Also it surprises me that so much can be inferred from only a few decades of measurements, but by the time we know for sure, it'll either be too late or else we will have perhaps squandered efforts on solving a problem that doesn't exist, leaving a bigger problem unsolved (overpopulation?) What to do? Difficult to predict the future of a species.

You know, nature itself sequestered most of the carbon underground. If you understood that the petroleum you use all comes from dead living things, and how toxic this stuff is to life, maybe the "normal for the earth" could be quite toxic and hot. It remains obvious however that if we return all the sequestered carbon to the atmosphere, the aqueous environment will become acidic and toxic while the atmosphere gets hotter. The mining of petroleum products and other toxic materials has become a massive undertaking and even if the earth were to someday NATURALLY get hotter again, we are merely hastening that returned heating. The denier simply turns his head away and says...what about overpopulation or perhaps sin or evil communism. You are one of those who wishes to drag all our feet when we have work to do to minimize human suffering. Your denial of the obvious is an EXTREME POSITION.

 

[Togo]

Matt Ridley, former science editor of the Economist, mirrors my view

Ah, Max, we can always rely on you for an object lesson in humility.

Are you sure that it is not you who mirrors his view?

Hm.. This would be viscount Ridly, the conservative peer (member of the House of Lords) with extensive coal-mining interests? Presumably he's the former science editor because the Economist now takes the line that denying cliamte change occurs is simply wishful thinking?

A quick search reveals a fairly lengthy account of how climate change deniers have good science, those who think cliamte change is a problem have bad science, and how people attack and persecute him personally online because they can't possibly attack his position. Because that hockey stick thing? Noone has ever discussed that. http://www.conceptdraw.com/How-To-Guide/picture/Designelements-Flowchart.png

He claims to base his position on the fact that the climate simply isn't warming very fast, although he does acknowledge that if it were that would be a problem. As such he's a climate change denier of the old school - the climate isn't changing fast enough to worry about.

Max has a similar position - of his five points, the first three are around whether this climate change thing is really happening fast enough to worry about. Which is just a respun version of denying that it's happening at all. That's where he matches Ridly.

 

[untermensche]

This is the way it moves.

First outright denial there is a problem.

Then denial there is an overwhelming scientific consensus.

Now some have reached the point where they understand there is a problem.

But they deny it is a big problem based on the fact that it is not that big a problem where they live presently.

But when the ice caps suddenly start melting something real is happening.

One thing we should be doing is providing incredible incentive and spending incredibly large on developing alternative energy sources.

We should also be punishing oil consumption, not facilitating it.

Our national and international goal should be to leave as much oil in the ground as possible.

 

[maxparrish]

Both Togo and untermenshe seem to be more interested in telling us how Ridley and Lukewarmers are insufferably old school, as well as cavorting with "coal interests", rather than actually demonstrating that he/we are wrong. As I am someone who would rather be correct than modish, that sort of non-argument does not impress.

Any rational public policy proposal to "cure" a predicted future must be justified on cost-benefit, incorporating risk and uncertainty. Many of us reject the childishly partisan assumption that one must either believe in Al Gore alarmism or Rush Limbaugh denialism, as we reject the notion that the presence of climate change itself can answer the other issues of economic or ecological impact, cost-effectiveness, and likelihood of success.

Before the other questions can be answered, the robustness of predictions must be determined. And recently, after a 15 year leveling of surface temperatures, some are beginning to wake up to the fact that the models are failing and the earth is less sensitive to greenhouse gases than once thought. For example:

http://www.cato.org/blog/current-wi...t-climate-model-predictions-25-going-35-years

 

[maxparrish]

And as one of the lead authors of the IPCC report notes:

United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change lead author Hans von Storch told Der Spiegel that climate models are having a difficult time replicating the lack of global warming during the past 15 years.

“So far, no one has been able to provide a compelling answer to why climate change seems to be taking a break," said Storch.

Storch said the models say the planet should be warming much more than it has.

"According to most climate models, we should have seen temperatures rise by around 0.25 degrees Celsius (0.45 degrees Fahrenheit) over the past 10 years. That hasn't happened. In fact, the increase over the last 15 years was just 0.06 degrees Celsius (0.11 degrees Fahrenheit) -- a value very close to zero," Storch told Der Spiegel. "This is a serious scientific problem that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) will have to confront when it presents its next Assessment Report late next year.

http://news.heartland.org/newspaper...c-lead-author-says-climate-models-are-failing

The alarmist foundation is beginning to crumble.

 

[arkirk]

This is the way it moves.

First outright denial there is a problem.

Then denial there is an overwhelming scientific consensus.

Now some have reached the point where they understand there is a problem.

But they deny it is a big problem based on the fact that it is not that big a problem where they live presently.

But when the ice caps suddenly start melting something real is happening.

One thing we should be doing is providing incredible incentive and spending incredibly large on developing alternative energy sources.

We should also be punishing oil consumption, not facilitating it.

Our national and international goal should be to leave as much oil in the ground as possible.

Thanks for a little bit of reason here. It is not a matter of the deniers being "old school" as max would have us think. It is a matter of powerful people trying to order the tide to not come in. Climate change deniers are recommending on the basis of dysfunctional economic systems that we pursue a course of action that is a clear and present danger to all of humanity. They cast the debate as being merely one of personality. I am sure that max will say he is unimpressed. He wants far too much importance be given to what he thinks of us and no importance given to the facts in this matter. He is not lukewarm, but rather ice cold.