[0 carbon]

As well as the obvious effects (desertification, flooding), we have to worry about the death of 99.99% of organisms in a couple of centuries. And we may have passed the tipping point already. http://journalstar.c...d381c51c2e.html

[billw55]

PassedOut, on 2012-July-30, 08:45, said:

Hope we can focus now on the difficult part.

Agree, adapting to climate change will be challenging, but humanity is ingenious and I believe we can and will succeed.

[Daniel1960]

Ah yes, the old doomsday prediction. Remind me, how many have been accurate thus far. With the more rain AND more drought simultaneously prediction. I guess some people are able to hold contradicting ideas in their minds at once. The concept of a tipping point is pure speculation at this point.

Based on history, I have no doubt that we will be able to adapt to whatever climate changes occur.

[Al_U_Card]

hrothgar, on 2012-July-30, 07:48, said:

BEST is now in the process of releasing a more complete analysis. The full papers should be live on the BEST website tomorrow.

In the meantime, here's a useful Op Ed piece that Muller published in the NYT over the weekend along with a key quote:

http://www.nytimes.c...&pagewanted=all

Good grief! Even the elite of the CAGW-crowd are savaging BEST and Muller's hasty and inaccurate (as well as unpublished in the peer-review) "attributions".

Meanwhile, from: Take Dr. Roger Pielke Sr.'s word for it. BEST and all the rest are in for some work to come.

His latest BEST claims are, in my view, an embarrassment. The statement that he makes in his op-ed that [highlight added]

My total turnaround, in such a short time, is the result of careful and objective analysis by the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project, which I founded with my daughter Elizabeth. Our results show that the average temperature of the earth’s land has risen by two and a half degrees Fahrenheit over the past 250 years, including an increase of one and a half degrees over the most recent 50 years. Moreover, it appears likely that essentially all of this increase results from the human emission of greenhouse gases.

is easily refuted. See, for example,

National Research Council, 2005: Radiative forcing of climate change: Expanding the concept and addressing uncertainties. Committee on Radiative Forcing Effects on Climate Change, Climate Research Committee, Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate, Division on Earth and Life Studies, The National Academies Press, Washington, D.C., 208 pp.

[hrothgar]

Daniel1960, on 2012-July-30, 12:32, said:

Ah yes, the old doomsday prediction. Remind me, how many have been accurate thus far. With the more rain AND more drought simultaneously prediction. I guess some people are able to hold contradicting ideas in their minds at once. The concept of a tipping point is pure speculation at this point.

Based on history, I have no doubt that we will be able to adapt to whatever climate changes occur.

This is one of the stupidest posts that I have seen in this entire thread, which is a very real accomplishment in its own way.

1. Predicting both more rain and more drought is hardly contradictory. It simple reflects the fact that climate change impacts has different effects across geographies and seasons.

2. The archeological record is chock full of examples of complex civilizations that collapsed because they were unable to deal with climate change.

I haven't seen any serious claims that humanity will be unable to adapt to climate change. Humans are like cockroaches (Damn hard to wipe out). I have seen lots of claims that we aren't going to like the adaptations that are going to be necessary, nor the resulting political instability.

[Winstonm]

From the Richard Muller op-ed:

Quote

These facts don’t prove causality and they shouldn’t end skepticism, but they raise the bar: to be considered seriously, an alternative explanation must match the data at least as well as carbon dioxide does

I believe I have stated nearly exactly this same sentiment. I have yet to see a denier offer a valid explanation that fits the data.

[Zelandakh]

Daniel1960, on 2012-July-30, 12:32, said:

The concept of a tipping point is pure speculation at this point.

No, really it is not. There is very strong evidence from the historical record that masss extinctions were triggered by reaching a tipping point and it is probable that temperature was the major factor in this. What is currently speculation is precisely where these tipping points occur along the way. But their existence is based on very good science.

As hrothgar points out, many civilisations throughout history have collapsed with the primary cause being climate change. That said, I am confident that the matter will be dealt with in the end. We basically have the technology already to remove greenhouse gases directly from the atmosphere. It is really just a matter of deciding who pays and when. In the meantime, it makes sense for countries like China, India and Brazil to grow as much as possible so that they can better afford the bill when it is finally necessary to pay it and so that they can get a chunk of the pie for building whichever technology ends up being agreed.

[hrothgar]

Zelandakh, on 2012-July-31, 01:24, said:

We basically have the technology already to remove greenhouse gases directly from the atmosphere.

Other than planting trees, I'm not aware of any kind of solution for removing carbon from the atmosphere that isn't cost prohibitive.

Removing small amounts of atmospheric CO2 is relatively cheap, however, doing this on a large scale requires massive amounts of energy.
As a rule, its a lot more energy efficient not to dump the C02 in the atmopshere in the first place than trying to remove it later on.

If we had wide scale cheap solar, thermal, wind, tidal online this would be another story.
I can easily imagine a wind generator being used to opportunistically power a C02 scrubber of some kind. However, this is a long ways off...

[Daniel1960]

While local pockets of civilizations have collapsed due to local climate changes (The Mayan empire), they are the exception, rather than the rule. This is completely separate from the mass extinctions recorded throughout history, and to which was referred earlier. These past extinctions, which average about 50% of life (not the 99.99% mentioned previously), have been theorized to have been caused by more sudden, catastrophic events, like supervolcanic eruptions, asteroid impacts, or continental breakup leading to changes in ocean currents. These events caused large scale cooling, not warming (which is never mentioned as an extinction cause). Of these, only the continental breakup theory could be classified as a "tipping point," but it is still separate from the idea postulated about climate change. The others occurred suddenly, resulting in reduced sunlight, large scale cooling, and loss of plant life. Nowhere in history has large scale warming been implicated in any extinction event or civilization collapse. The most common climate-oriented theory for the collapse of civilizations is drought, which correlates with cooler, rather than warmer temperatures - the Mayan collapse is thought to have occurred during several multi-year droughts during the 8th and 9th century cold period. Historically, warmer periods lead to more rainfall, and consequently more flooding. Cooler periods have the opposite effect. While there are always locations around the Earth experiencing flooding and others experiencing drought-like conditions, past climate changes have lead to an increase of one or the other, not both. Several paper support this contention, including the following:

http://www.nature.co...ina.2012.4.html

Some people seem to thing this is stupid. To those, I suggest a more scientific understanding of the subject.

[Zelandakh]

Daniel1960, on 2012-July-31, 06:25, said:

These events caused large scale cooling, not warming (which is never mentioned as an extinction cause).

Blatantly untrue according to the current ideas. The Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum is a good example of sustained warming that led to mass extinctions. Warming (something like 6 degrees) is also related to the Permian–Triassic extinction event (aka the Great Dying) where more than 95% of marine species became extinct and it is not unlikely that it played a role in other events too.

[hrothgar]

Daniel1960, on 2012-July-31, 06:25, said:

While local pockets of civilizations have collapsed due to local climate changes (The Mayan empire), they are the exception, rather than the rule. This is completely separate from the mass extinctions recorded throughout history, and to which was referred earlier.

Just so we're clear: Collapse of civilizations is considered acceptable, while mass extinctions are not?

FWIW, rather than stating that the collapse of large civilizations like the Mayan Empire is a rare event, you might do better by considering "What type of events cause large / complex civilizations to fail". Changes in climate rates as one of the biggies... (Especially if you're allowed to factor in migration patterns)

[Winstonm]

Daniel1960, on 2012-July-31, 06:25, said:

While local pockets of civilizations have collapsed due to local climate changes (The Mayan empire), they are the exception, rather than the rule. This is completely separate from the mass extinctions recorded throughout history, and to which was referred earlier. These past extinctions, which average about 50% of life (not the 99.99% mentioned previously), have been theorized to have been caused by more sudden, catastrophic events, like supervolcanic eruptions, asteroid impacts, or continental breakup leading to changes in ocean currents. These events caused large scale cooling, not warming (which is never mentioned as an extinction cause). Of these, only the continental breakup theory could be classified as a "tipping point," but it is still separate from the idea postulated about climate change. The others occurred suddenly, resulting in reduced sunlight, large scale cooling, and loss of plant life. Nowhere in history has large scale warming been implicated in any extinction event or civilization collapse. The most common climate-oriented theory for the collapse of civilizations is drought, which correlates with cooler, rather than warmer temperatures - the Mayan collapse is thought to have occurred during several multi-year droughts during the 8th and 9th century cold period. Historically, warmer periods lead to more rainfall, and consequently more flooding. Cooler periods have the opposite effect. While there are always locations around the Earth experiencing flooding and others experiencing drought-like conditions, past climate changes have lead to an increase of one or the other, not both. Several paper support this contention, including the following:

http://www.nature.co...ina.2012.4.html

Some people seem to thing this is stupid. To those, I suggest a more scientific understanding of the subject.

I can't seem to keep up with your train of thought. First, (if my memory serves and that is growing more doubtful), you seem to imply that GW is not really occurring. Next, you seemed to say that GW may be occurring, but it certainly isn't AGW. Now, it appears as if you are arguing that regardless, any type of GW is unimportant and should be ignored until required to face - if ever.

To me, you seem to be someone who is fighting hard to maintain the status quo, regardless if the status quo reflects reality.

Curious. In my limited experience, I seem to find this type thinking more with the right wing of the Republican party than anywhere else, and particularly with the Christian Right branch of Republicans. The oddest aspect is that the higher the degree of education, the more certain this thinking becomes.

I don't understand that type thinking but I'm not from Texas, either.

[Daniel1960]

Winstonm, (and also Zelandakh and hrothgar),
While both of our memories may be fading with age, I have no recollection of making any of those claims. First, I have responded repeatedly that the planet has warmed over the past 150 years or so. Secondly, I have never stated that the observed GW is not AGW, although I have certainly argued about how much is natural compared to manmade. This is probably the biggest area of uncertainty in the scientific data. I do not agree with either the claims of 0% or 100% (some even higher) warming due to CO2, but would not object to values around 50% (acknowledging that values significantly higher or lower are plausible). With regards to GW being unimportant, that was only in regards to mass extinction and civilization collapses. While history tells of the collapse of many civilizations due to climate, the most common causes are drought or severe cold, both of which affect agriculture. Compare the expanse of human civilization with the temperature plot.

http://ars.els-cdn.c...1001457-gr8.jpg

FYI, the Mayan collapse occurred around the time of the temperature dip just before the Medieval Warm Period. Why are you suggesting that the collapse of a civilization is acceptable?

Yes, the P-E extinction has a corresponding temperature increase, and it is the exception rather than the rule (and a smaller extinction event also), affecting primarily plant life, less so animal. The cause of the Great Drying is largely unknown, but speculation centers on volcanism or an asteroid.

I like to confine my analyses to the scientific aspects of GW, and generally ignore political, social, and religious beliefs. In science, any new theory which detracts from the status quo has to pass rigorous muster before being accepted. Some (plate tectonics) become the new status quo, while others (static universe) fade away. If catastrophic global warming becomes reality (or enough evidence suggest that it will), then it will become the new status quo, otherwise, it will fall onto the junk pile alongside cold fusion. Science is all about truth and reality. While some people are predicting a catstrophic climate collapse, unless science evidence supports these predictions (which may occur), I will not jump aboard the bandwagon. Maybe, you can understand that type of thinking.

[luke warm]

hrothgar, on 2012-July-31, 04:58, said:

If we had wide scale cheap solar, thermal, wind, tidal online this would be another story. I can easily imagine a wind generator being used to opportunistically power a C02 scrubber of some kind. However, this is a long ways off...

what do you suggest, while we wait?

[hrothgar]

luke warm, on 2012-July-31, 15:21, said:

what do you suggest, while we wait?

Significant cuts in carbon emission implemented with a carbon tax
(Same policy I've been advocating for several years on this board)

[luke warm]

hrothgar, on 2012-July-31, 18:46, said:

Significant cuts in carbon emission implemented with a carbon tax (Same policy I've been advocating for several years on this board)

and those "remedies" would have no adverse effect on the economy?

[Cyberyeti]

luke warm, on 2012-August-01, 04:02, said:

and those "remedies" would have no adverse effect on the economy?

Tax just shovels money around, it doesn't create or destroy it. Given what governments usually do with it, probably not great for the economy, but if the carbon tax is used to fund renewables, cleaner industry and carbon capture technology, needn't be a disaster.

[phil_20686]

luke warm, on 2012-August-01, 04:02, said:

and those "remedies" would have no adverse effect on the economy?

Well you would be building renewable energy instead of non renewable, since the price is higher, that means you will be devoting more of your economic production to energy than otherwise, which is a `cost' in some sense, but given how much you might save in the long run its not obvious that you can evaluate the possible costs sensibly at all.

[hrothgar]

Cyberyeti, on 2012-August-01, 04:24, said:

Tax just shovels money around, it doesn't create or destroy it.

IN this case, shoveling money around is precisely what we're trying to do

The cost of using carbon to produce energy is artificially low because of externalities.
Therefore, people consume more of it than is considered optimal.
To compensate, burning carbon should be taxed so that the cost born by the individual reflects the one paid by society.

This is econ 101 stuff as taught in any undergraduate program.

[hrothgar]

luke warm, on 2012-August-01, 04:02, said:

and those "remedies" would have no adverse effect on the economy?

"No adverse effect on the economy" isn't an appropriate design criteria.