From press release:
Scripps researchers outline strategy to limit global warming
Fulfilling Copenhagen Accord will require variety of efforts ranging from ‘Herculean’ to the readily actionable, scientists say
Image: Fast-action climate change strategies advocated by Ramanathan and Xu that curb aerosol pollution will also produce other societal benefits including improvements to public health.
Click here for more information. 
Major greenhouse gas-emitting countries agreed in December climate talks held in Copenhagen that substantial action is required to limit the increase of global average temperature to less than 2 degrees C (3.6 degrees F).
In a paper appearing May 3 in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), Veerabhadran Ramanathan and Yangyang Xu, climate researchers at Scripps Institution of Oceanography, UC San Diego, have identified three avenues by which those countries can avoid reaching the warming threshold, a point beyond which many scientists believe climate change will present unmanageable negative consequences for society.
“Without an integrated approach that combines CO2 emission reductions with reductions in other climate warmers and climate-neutral air-pollution laws, we are certain to pass the 2-degree C and likely reach a 4 degree C threshold during this century,” said Ramanathan. “Fortunately there is still time to avert unmanageable climate changes, but we must act now.”
Using a synthesis of National Science Foundation-funded research performed over the last 20 years, Ramanathan and Xu describe three steps that must be taken simultaneously to avoid the threshold, stressing that carbon dioxide control alone is not sufficient.
|
||||
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
  IMAGE: Scripps climate and atmospheric scientist Veerabhadran Ramanathan (gray shirt) looks on as Hafeez Rehman explains new clean-burning cookware and lanterns to rural villagers in India. Ramanathan and Rehman are co-principal investigators in Project…
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||
Recommended steps include stabilizing CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere, and fashioning warming-neutral pollution laws that will balance the removal of aerosols that have an atmospheric cooling effect with the removal of warming agents such as soot and ozone. Finally, the authors advocate achieving reductions in methane, hydrofluorocarbons and other greenhouse gases that remain in the atmosphere for short periods of time. The authors write that aggressive simultaneous pursuit of these strategies could reduce the probability of reaching the temperature threshold to less than 10 percent before the year 2050.
“By taking a comprehensive look at human induced climate change, this paper clearly separates the global actions which must be undertaken simultaneously — and how quickly these actions must be taken,” said Larry Smarr, founding Director of the California Institute for Telecommunications and Information Technology (Calit2) and a collaborator with Ramanathan on CO2 reduction strategies. “This paper should be required reading for all policy makers.”
|
||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 IMAGE: This is Scripps Distinguished Professor of Climate and Atmospheric Sciences Veerabhadran Ramanathan.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||
The 2-degree C global temperature increase limit translates to a radiant energy increase of 2.5 watts per square meter. Ramanathan and Xu note that even if greenhouse gas emissions stop increasing in the next five years, human activities will probably create almost double that much radiant energy, which is compensated partially by the masking effect of certain kinds of aerosols that are produced in large part by pollution. Tiny particles of sulfates and other pollutants serve to cool the atmosphere by reflecting sunlight rather than absorbing it, directing heat away from the earth’s surface. Therefore, the authors argue, pollution control measures must take into account and counterbalance the warming that will happen when certain types of pollutants are removed from the skies.
Ramanathan and Xu acknowledge that there are uncertainties about the nature of aerosols and the sensitivity of climate to mitigation actions that make the effects of their suggested course of action hard to determine with precision. They propose demonstration projects to clarify and reduce the uncertainties and verify the efficacies of the various mitigation avenues proposed in the study. The authors add that trends in energy added to the oceans would respond to mitigation actions even before 2050, making them an important diagnostic tool that can gauge the success of mitigation within 20 years.
Supporters of the so-called Copenhagen Accord agreed that the 2-degree C threshold must not be crossed, but the United Nations-sponsored conference did not produce hoped-for binding targets for greenhouse gas emissions reductions. Scientists have suggested that exceeding that temperature threshold would trigger irreversible phenomena such as widespread release of methane from melting permafrost and large-scale glacial melt, both of which scenarios would exacerbate climate change-related problems such as sea-level rise and acceleration of global warming.
Avoiding the threshold requires holding carbon dioxide levels to less than 441 parts per million, according to the authors, only slightly higher than today’s value of 389 ppm. This equates to a 50-percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 and an 80-percent reduction by 2100. Ramanathan and Xu acknowledge that such drastic reduction will require a “portfolio of actions in the energy, industrial, agricultural and forestry sections.” Some of these actions will require development of new technologies.
“A massive decarbonization of the energy sector is necessary to accomplish this Herculean task,” the authors write.
But the strategies not focused on CO2 reduction can largely take advantage of existing technologies and more aggressive enforcement of existing regulations. Actions that can be taken immediately include replacement of biomass-fueled stoves with cleaner alternatives in developing countries and retrofitting of diesel filters on vehicles throughout the world.
“The ‘low-hanging fruits’ approach to one of mankind’s great challenges is very appealing because it is a win-win approach,” said Jay Fein, program director in NSF’s Division of Atmospheric and Geospace Sciences, which funds much of Ramanathan’s research. “It cleans up the environment, protects human health and helps to sustain the 2-degree C threshold.”
The authors also point out that the world has already succeeded before in removing dangerous warming agents. The 1987 Montreal Protocol regulated the use of chlorofluorocarbons and the damaging effect of the chemicals on the planet’s ozone layer was diminished. Ramanathan and Xu note that were it not for the Montreal Protocol, the warming effect of chlorofluorocarbons would have added between 0.6 and 1.6 watts per square meter of extra heat energy by now.
Why do the idiots get to ride the horses?
If dinosaurs were intelligent, did they too think about saving the planet?
A mythological cause worthy of a mythological hero such as Hercules.
Since swift action is necessary, perhaps we should also summon The Flash.
“Supporters of the so-called Copenhagen Accord agreed that the 2-degree C threshold must not be crossed,”……….. yeh, ’cause they’ve proven………..something? Even if all the bs about us getting warmer is correct(it’s not, none of it is provable other than CO2 is a GHG), if the warming is during the winter(and the indications are that it is), then we’re enjoying more a moderate climate. Isn’t that a good thing? Longer growing seasons…….less snow ins, better economic activity, LESS FOSSIL FUEL CONSUMPTION!!!!…ect….
Scripp’s was the home of one of the great men and teachers of science- the late John Isaacs. Sadly, Scripps has forgotten Isaac’s wisdom:
“My point is, of course, that the intellectual qualities that we neither
teach nor know how to teach, and hence tend to suppress, are precisely
the ones essential to dealing with the complex systems of this planet, and
since these qualities are suppressed in our educational system, untutored
people often possess them in more highly developed form than do the
educated.
I have much greater faith in simple observations and untrammeled
thinking than I have in sophisticated observations and simplistic thinking!
And I have much greater confidence that man’s relationship to the sea and
its resources will be enhanced by thoughtful and observant people closely
involved and broadly acquainted with the sea—scientist and non-scientist
alike—than by frantic bureaucratic responses to public hysteria or by the
pontification of the scientific hierarchy. ”
May you rest in peace John Isaacs
Forget about CO2, and go back to the ‘other’ pollutants like SO2, NO and Mercury.
Control the particulates.
Stop dumping wastes into waterways, etc.
I’m not concerned about the hypothetical warming effects of a trace gas.
I am concerned about sequestering the element that 99.99% of life on Earth is based upon.
Don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater.
These “scientists” actually believe that we can turn down the earth’s thermostat through laws and regulations. Then they bring up as “proof” the banning of freon, which is quite possibly, another fraud foisted on an uninformed public:
http://thedeadhand.com/portals/thedeadhand/argee/reflib/Climate%20Warming/Ozone%20Hoax.pdf
@ Pat Moffitt …..That was a work of beauty, skill and knowledge. Thank God there were people like John Isaacs to state such things, and you to keep such things alive.
I have to laugh when I read stuff like this….”Fast-action climate change strategies advocated by Ramanathan and Xu that curb aerosol pollution will also produce other societal benefits including improvements to public health.”
OK, let’s see how well that worked…in the late 1970’s, the USEPA decided that the big US Steel plant and others like it along the south shore of Lake Michigan generated far too much fine particulates air pollution, and these exacerbated asthma, raised cancer rates a tiny bit etc. By instituting draconian air pollution control measures, these mills all closed down, laying off many thousands of workers.
This is why the South Side of Chicago is so notoriously violent….instead of dying of asthma or lung cancer, residents are now dying from gang warfare, drug use and other unintended benefits of this social engineering experiment. Had the EPA worked with industry to phase controls in and develop new technologies, much harm would have been avoided. It was a death sentence for an industry and all the neighborhoods dependent upon it.
I lived through it then, and I live with it today. Beware the academic social engineers with the cure for everything, and be especially cautious when they raise the “public health” banner!
BTW, RBateman’s comments are right on the money:
“Forget about CO2, and go back to the ‘other’ pollutants like SO2, NO and Mercury.
Control the particulates.
Stop dumping wastes into waterways, etc.”
Public health won’t improve with anymore clean air acts otherwise we’d already see that country folk live longer than city folk. This hasn’t been observed. The health and longevity of a person’s life is primarily genetic, then based on the amount of nutrition and physical activity one receives (which is already abundant for those who want it), and lastly the availability of vaccines and other medical treatments.
Cleaning up the air in modern western cities would make such a small difference it wouldn’t be quantifiable.
“CRS, Dr.P.H. says:
May 3, 2010 at 9:34 pm
I have to laugh when I read stuff like this….”Fast-action climate change strategies advocated by Ramanathan and Xu that curb aerosol pollution will also produce other societal benefits including improvements to public health.”
I tend to agree.
I find it rather laughable when we get some Greenie and Enviro Groups blaming the Clean Air Act of the 1970s for making Global Warming worse . 🙂
Waaaay OT, but CA appears to have dropped off the edge of the world. 404 error.
These scientists clearly have not followed the lessons of King Cnut too carefully.
(That famous apt-typo-like ancient king resorted to a practical demonstration to convince himself and followers that there were more mighty forces in nature than those afforded to the grandly titled).
“warming-neutral pollution laws” contradicts “other societal benefits including improvements to public health”. Let’s be real here. what they are saying is reduce black carbon, reduce warming, improve public health (Okay, I agree) but also stop declining emissions of sulfates and and other toxic particulates so they will slow warming instead of speeding it up, public health be damned! (Now, I don’t agree)
I say, yes, get Indian off of burning wood, grass, and cow crap. I say no to holding up levels of cooling air pollutants for the “benefits” on climate, and I say no to the idea of trying to do the impossible and supply the world’s energy needs without high emissions of CO2. In fact, India should stop burning crap and start burning Oil.
Whadda Wha?,….
Nothing wrong with:
a) Decreasing particulate pollution
b) Reducing Toxic industrial by products
c) Ensuring appropriate regulation checks blatant public endangerment.
Now,…can they get it into their heads, lumping C02 in with Hydrogen sulfide ain’t sensible.
How come every thing that comes out of a warmista’s face is, apart from actual C02, is,…we must reduce the C02.
Come on people!, deal with actual, kill you dead, wreck the earth, Toxic pollutants,….ah memories,…anyone recall when
WWF saved animals and Greenpeace stopped drums of formaldehyde being dumped in rivers?
Maybe we need a Greenpeace 2.0, the old version has reached its end of life, its buggy, often crashes, is open to all sorts of rear port attacks, and it can’t handle more than one day of memories. Plus theres almost no help desk support, and when you do get through, its been outsourced to Gen Y, where-ever that is. They don’t speak your language, tell you you’re out of warranty and then ask you for more money!
Everyone I know is moving from Greenpeace Version 1.0 to Skeptix 2010, its faster, has built in anti-moron and can handle One or more threads of logic at once.
Ramanathan and Xu are low-hanging fruits.
Speaking now in a rigorous and robust manner, Warmer Is Better.
Re climate change curbing strategies, let’s not and say we did. CO2 is our friend. I advocate doing nothing and enjoying the outcomes. You can thank me now, or thank me later. But you will thank me, of that I’m sure.
They acknowledge CFCs are a “dangerous warming agent.”
Previous research discussed here showed that CFCs (with cosmic rays) were the primary culprit of
global warmingclimate change.Yet here they are trying to fulfill the “so-called Copenhagen Accord” which is based on thinking CO2 (with positive feedback mechanisms) is the cause of climate change, represented by the blade of Mann’s hockey stick.
Huh? CFCs lead to warming, therefore they shall act as if the CO2 did the warming attributed to CFCs?
Also,
and
By plain math with the ratio, CFCs would have yielded 0.48 to 1.28 deg C by now. What was the “global average temperature rise” from 1950 to 2000 when the CFCs were going down? The linked piece already gave 0.1 deg C as the 1850 to 1950 increase.
I thought we already went past the so called ‘tipping point’? They just keep pushing it back and back until they get the laws they want. They’ve been saying “we must act now” for years.
CRS, Dr.P.H. says:
May 3, 2010 at 9:34 pm
in the late 1970′s, the USEPA decided
You hit a nail squarely yourself.
A government body decided…. and that’s when the dismantling of our industries really began.
Enter the post-industrial consumer society as the unintended consequence of those draconian measures.
Today, as then, the EPA imposes, an experiment at problem solving gone terribly wrong.
That simply moved the problem overseas to a place that marches to a different drum, and our jobs with it.
I’m not terribly thrilled at the idea of hoping that they get it right, as in ‘one-in-a-row’.
Funny how Mr. Ramanathan brings up the reduction in chlorofluorocarbons (freon) as a success story. Some may disagree. Those with COPD & asthma are quite familiar with albuterol. It’s a fast acting bronchodilator and, as such, is referred to as a rescue inhaler. Those with these medical conditions, when experiencing broncho constriction (which can make it difficult to pull air into the lungs) rely on albuterol. In the past the albuterol canisters were pressurized by freon and were available as generic drugs. But, now, noooo, these canisters (the size of a thumb) are going to destroy the planet. So, instead, the freon propellant has been replaced by an alcohol containing propellant. Not only have these (rescue) inhalers become unreliable they are also no longer available as generic drugs. Thus, the price has gone from about $20 to $40 per canister (or $240 year). No problem except it puts u closer to the Medicare drug ‘gap’. But then it keeps those research dollars flowing Mr. Ramanathan’s (I don’t know nuthin bout sociology, history, economy, human fashions and fads, religious impulse, etc.) way.
Have to disagree with Hologram. There is no need to control CO2 but definiately there is for other pollutants. While “dirty” air may have no impact on a healthy person, it is very dangerous to people who have breathing problems like asthma, people with cardio-vascular disease and seniors and young children.
So for those people at the margins of good health and for the sake of pure aesthetics, lets do what all our mothers told us to do and clean up after ourselves.
If we treat the problem aggressively, we may be ably to limit the projected temperature increase to 2 degrees C. over the next 30 years.
If we do nothing, the temperature will only fall .6 degree in the same period.
Seems like a good Idea to me. ;-q
“a point beyond which many scientists believe climate change will present unmanageable negative consequences for society”.
Who are these many scientists with their religious beliefs? They want us to decarbonise society and destroy civilisation as we know it because of the religious beliefs of anonymous scientists?
Karl says:
May 3, 2010 at 9:19 pm
That, amongst at least 25 other so-called “alarms” of mankind that were complete bunk, and turned out to be very expensive in terms of economy and/or loss of lives.
http://www.forecastingprinciples.com/paperpdf/Structured_Analogies.pdf
Ramanathan and Xu “have identified three avenues by which those countries can avoid reaching the warming threshold”:
“Recommended steps include stabilizing CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere, and fashioning warming-neutral pollution laws that will balance the removal of aerosols that have an atmospheric cooling effect with the removal of warming agents such as soot and ozone. Finally, the authors advocate achieving reductions in methane, hydrofluorocarbons and other greenhouse gases that remain in the atmosphere for short periods of time.”
Well, duh! Assuming for the sake of argument that AGW really is a problem that requires action, their “recommendations” do little more than state the obvious. That PNAS would even print such banal tripe says volumes about the sorry level or dogma and doggerel it has fallen to. It took these geniuses twenty years of public funding to come up with these platitudes? a “portfolio of actions in the energy, industrial, agricultural and forestry sections” some of which “will require development of new technologies.” Wow! Heavy. Future Nobel winners, no doubt.
Why are these climate scientists still obsessing on CO2?! Haven’t they realized the fact recently that CO2 keeps rising but the temperatures have declined over the past decade? Are they that dumb or just plain obstinent?
Interesting, this approach which includes references to concerns about human health. I just read the following piece and got a chuckle out of the first paragraph:
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=147617&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter
♪ Money, ♪
♪ We need money, ♪
♪ We need lots and lots of money! ♪
The source of all this concern is highlighted in the recently released report (April 22) from the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences:
http://www.niehs.nih.gov/health/docs/climatereport2010.pdf
At first I thought the above quoted para overstated the findings in the report, but after quickly reading over the 80 page report I see that it’s really a fancy pitch for more funding to study the health dangers of climate change. If we can’t get ’em excited about the cute polar bears, perhaps we’ll scare ’em with tales of sex not working out. Wonder what Indur M. Goklany would say to all that.
If I recall correctly, the Late Holocene climate optimum was about 2°C above where we are now. So, with the target limit of less than 2°C, the fix is in. Within the limits of the apparent normal maximum, these guys can claim success for limiting the rise to less than 2°C! Ain’t that great!?
But if the trend towards cooler continues, will they suggest they over did it? Will they try to warm it back to the 20th Century average? Twenty years forward, will it matter?
It seems to me that the aerosols we get as described in both Lindzen’s and Svensmark’s adaptive iris theories seem to work just fine.
These aerosols. I note that they have recently made an appearance in Warmist modelling discourse. Are they tiny particles suspended in the air that reflect sunlight?
What are they made of? Would that include water droplets, and ice?
Do these particles form clouds? ARE they clouds? I think we should be told.
“A massive decarbonization of the energy sector is necessary to accomplish this Herculean task,” the authors write.
Accessible, storable, transportable and cost effective energy from hydrocarbons has directly and indirectly lifted the western world into our modern age, with all of its attendant benefits including long life, low infant mortality, incredible wealth & productivity, readily attainable individual rights & freedoms, and ironically the luxury to feel guilty about our high standard of living. Hydrocarbons have helped to elevate mankind to this unprecedented level in our predominantly brutal history, and given us the ability (if not the willingness) to support all of us on this blue marble. Only nuclear comes close in potential.
So of course lets decarbonize and stop it all. Sure, makes perfect sense. Bleh…
He we go again, another bunch of ideological, propaganda dressed up as science. This is only a press release and we know how misleading they are. It must be grant renewal time at Scripts again. It seem to me I read another press release some months back that said all the clean air efforts of the past 30 years, and there have been many and successful ones too, have not produced significant health (lung and breathing) improvements. Oh well I guess these guys are entitled to their opinions. I don’t think we know enough about aerosols to even make any recommendations that would be meaningful.
I find using these temperature thresholds which are bogus to begin with as a reason to identify atmospheric CO2 as pollutant political dogma not science. I’m disappointed. But to be fair, will withhold final judgment until I can read the entire paper.
Ramanathan and Xu note that were it not for the Montreal Protocol, the warming effect of chlorofluorocarbons would have added between 0.6 and 1.6 watts per square meter of extra heat energy by now.
Now we know why we got such a cold winter in the northern hemisphere , despite the merrily rising CO2 🙂
Maybe they can also tell us how to stop the world from cooling 2 C by the end of the century.
Joe d’Aleo last week: “Based on the theory originally proposed by Friis-Christensen and Lassen, this implies that cooling of up to 2.20 C may occur during Cycle 24 (compared with temperatures during Cycle 23) for the mid-latitude grain-growing areas of the northern hemisphere”
http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/the_transition_between_solar_sunspot_cycles_23_and_24_sun_back_in_mini_slum/
Scripps plans for saving the planet. You bet.
I wasn’t aware that Copenhagen actually produced an accord.
Still, it’s good to know that learned scholars are coming up with innovative and far-reaching solutions to imaginary problems.
“have identified three avenues by which those countries can avoid reaching the warming threshold, a point beyond which many scientists believe climate change will present unmanageable negative consequences for society.”
That’s a funny description for the “catastrophic” in AGW. Wait. Does it say that a changing climate is unmanageable? So, say, Ecuador with its near-constant climate good, Germany with cold winters and hot summers bad? Because it always changes?
This is all so silly, these people i think, they never read again what they wrote.
… but they refuse to “acknowledge that there are uncertainties about the nature of [CO2] and the sensitivity of climate”, which is an obvious problem to start with.
Some projects “clarify and reduce the uncertainties” regarding the ability of CO2 to cause us any problems at all would be a good idea first and foremost. Those I would support.
So we must be taxed and constrained for 20 years before we can demonstrate that nothing made any difference at all. Of course, if it makes no difference, it will be lauded as a success, as the ‘projected’ warming never occured. We can’t win!
If it did, I think we should consider looking at the issue. It has occurred in the past, and no problems ensued. It looks very much like it is not happening, so we can all relax.
These never happened in the past even when the temperatures rose faster and higher. There is no evidence whatsoever that anything at all has changed in this area. Pure speculation.
Sorry, I call BS. That was to prevent the spreading of ‘Ozone Holes’ (and that is still dubious at best), and there was absolutely no concern about warming, because there was none. funny, that.
(The blog format has gone all wonky (‘flippy/floppy’? ‘rotten’?) for some reason)
One thing I still don’t get.
Apparently, mere mortals, or academics from disciplines like geology, or even meteorologists are not allowed to comment on [dah dah dah daaahhh] “climate science”.
But apparently “climate scientists” [a paradoxically fungible term] are allowd to comment on all many of social or economic issues or policies as they see fit.
I just don’t get it.
CRS, Dr.P.H. says:
May 3, 2010 at 9:34 pm
“OK, let’s see how well that worked…in the late 1970′s, the USEPA decided that the big US Steel plant and others like it along the south shore of Lake Michigan generated far too much fine particulates air pollution, and these exacerbated asthma, raised cancer rates a tiny bit etc. By instituting draconian air pollution control measures, these mills all closed down, laying off many thousands of workers.”
Steel mills closing down in US was part of the global restructuring of
the steel sector, it was about e.g. subsidies, competition, wage levels and
productivity.
The costs of air pollution control were not a problem for otherwise viable
production in the 80’s.
James Sexton says:
May 3, 2010 at 9:00 pm
“Supporters of the so-called Copenhagen Accord agreed that the 2-degree C threshold must not be crossed,”……….. yeh, ’cause they’ve proven………..something? Even if all the bs about us getting warmer is correct(it’s not, none of it is provable other than CO2 is a GHG), if the warming is during the winter(and the indications are that it is), then we’re enjoying more a moderate climate. Isn’t that a good thing? Longer growing seasons…….less snow ins, better economic activity, LESS FOSSIL FUEL CONSUMPTION!!!!…ect….
—–
Again and again: it is GLOBAL warming and the GLOBAL impacts.
Some regions might enjoy the benefits, but the most populated,
naturally arid and low-income regions are already sensitive to
climate. But, it concerns the South West of USA also.
Slightly OT here, but following this blog, I read over, and over again, that C02 increase follows rising temperatures with a 600-1000 year lag. Say, 800 yrs. Could the current (unalarming) increase in carbon dioxide levels be simply the, presumably anticipated, bounce from the MWP? If not, why not?
Also, it seems to me that, besides the 60-70 year cycle of climate recently posted here, there is a, perhaps too obvious, a 1000 year cycle. A thousand years ago, there was Lief the Lucky probing the coast of Labrador, finding both grapes and hostile Skraelings; a thousand years earlier, the Roman Optimum ruled the Mediterranean, and Tunisia and Libya were breadbaskets, and a thousand years (plus or minus) earlier, the Minoan Warming was happening, until Thera blew…
Come on, folks, I can’t be the only one to have noticed this; how about some more detail on this from the experts here? Until proved wrong, I will maintain that the climate fluctuates (due to natural causes) on an about a thousand year cycle, and it is also likely that a larger cycle, say 10,000 years is also in place. Move it up an order of magnitude to 100k yrs and, viola, the ice returns. Someone must have done research in this area, no?
So this would be imposed on us by a wise, beneficent, class of philosopher kings ” For our own good” and more in sorrow than in anger. That excuse has had awful results all through human history but is very popular,
“The tyrant of the Chersonese
Was freedom’s best and bravest friend;
That tyrant was Miltiades!
O that the present hour would lend
Another despot of the kind!
Looks like the Scripps Institute is interested in a little despotism.
“The authors write that aggressive simultaneous pursuit of these strategies could reduce the probability of reaching the temperature threshold to less than 10 percent before the year 2050”
All that to reduce the probability of of reaching the temperature threshold to less than 10% before the year 2050. Reduce the probability from say oh,maybe…possibly …1% if we tell these wankers to take a hike.
How about a few really painless and positive steps with real impact on global CO2 levels like…
1] A complete moratorium on climate change conferences with casts of thousands in various garden spots across the globe
2] For any celebrity or politician who has or will make public statements hectoring the rest of us about our “carbon footprint”, immediate confiscation and destruction of all mansions, automobiles, aircraft, or other luxury items not enjoyed by the bottom quintile of income earners.
3] Immediate cancellation of public subsidies for alternative energy systems that aren’t economically viable without them and usually generate more environmental damage than they prevent
4] Extend the moratorium from 1] to cover smaller conferences not conducted by conference call
Well you get the idea. Feel free to contribute your own suggestions.
Have you seen this video?
If not, you should.
These are intelligent, educated people saying really stupid things. I guess they are paid to do that.
By Hansen’s work, “…black soot may be responsible for 25 percent of observed global warming in the last century.”
CFCs (with cosmic rays) can account for just about all the warming from 1950 onward.
As mentioned in this Scripps press release, certain aerosols (pollutants, like sulfurous emissions) have a cooling effect. Thus in the great fight against acid rain when we put scrubbers on the smokestacks and reformulated the liquid fuels to low-sulfur versions, we actually allowed there to be more warming than otherwise.
Add up these and any other man-made sources of warming like land use changes while excluding (theoretical) CO2-based warming, and more than 100% of the warming can be accounted for without invoking CO2.
Phil Jones agreed there has been no statistically significant warming from 1995 to the present. The global average has flatlined, looks like there might be cooling. And the CO2 concentration keeps heading up.
Going by just all of that, putting it all together… I’m starting to wonder if CO2 has a cooling effect. At least according to those numbers, that is. (Lies, damned lies, and statistics).
Could someone please chart that? Showing that statistically CO2 can be having a cooling effect, that could be worth a Nobel Prize. Or a free beer. Maybe more than one.
I like the Script very much! It’s beautiful. They are as stupidly rigid as communist used to be working hard with their intrusive propaganda, regardless its washiness, on their own commitment. I was afraid they would come down to a “perestroika” to be palatable for public again. But their exhilarate me. They are more stupid then communist used to be. They are not capable for any kind of “perestroika” to keep at least little bit of credibility. The Carbon Berlin Wall is about to collapse.
“Supporters of the so-called Copenhagen Accord agreed that the 2-degree C threshold must not be crossed,”
Hasn’t it been crossed before? Have we not had higher co2 levels in the atmosphere before? Has the Arctic ice not completely melted in summer before? Why are we still here?
Word of caution before embarking on massive sacrifices:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/20/historic-parallels-in-our-time-the-killing-of-of-cattle-vs-carbon/
Wasn’t there a post here on WUWT, or possibly a link by a commentator explaining that the “magical” 2 degree C number was never an absolute proposed by the contributing authors to IPPC 4, but somehow got the elevated exact number when the political and policy hacks got hold of it. I seem to recall reading something along those lines??? This is always a problem when a number takes on its own importance regardless of its origins and even more problematic, its accuracy.
Feel like monkeys jumping through hoops? Imaginary number 441 CO2 threshold. You better bring this CO2 down before you reach that number and increase my funding for this research.
First of all CO2 controlled experiments in a lab with no actual mechanical interference by actual forces is bogus science. Hence, create your own outcome science for funding purposes.
Climate is a mechanical process. From evaporation to precipitation, wind, currents,etc. any movement is a mechanical process. Iteracting gases, chemical processes, all use some movement which is a mechanical process.
Sunlight is a mechanical process and so is electromagnetics.
So why is science so hooked on gases? Oh ya, stupid me. Scientists and physicists are not mechanics. And since they have a degree, a god complex.
Sorry to offend anyone here with a degree. At least people here are seeking answers and not one given to them.
” mikael pihlström says:
[…]
Again and again: it is GLOBAL warming and the GLOBAL impacts.
Some regions might enjoy the benefits, but the most populated,
naturally arid and low-income regions are already sensitive to
climate. But, it concerns the South West of USA also.”
If significant land surface warming happens it will happen in the regions that are cold now, and during the times that are cold now (nighttime, winter). Why? Because of the Stefan-Boltzmann law. The least impact is expected in Africa. What is your example “most populated, naturally arid and low income” region? Arid places are usually not heavily populated (for they are arid).
Religion for centuries used to explain the world and its origins or at least religious documents gave us humans the comforting belief we understood the world, the world must make sense, we cannot live in a world that does not. Then science took over for a while, uncomforting proving old certainties wrong and fundamentally questioning new certainties. Along with it came the understanding that complex systems may be beyond man’s capacities to understand and predict. And now we are back to religion, “AGW”, to help us make the world make sense: “many scientists believe”. What any scientist believes is hardly relevant, what is relevant, is that we have still not much of an idea of the climate system and its cycles and that any consideration of potential harmfull consequences on a global scale is likely to be meaningless. Meanwhile, if you want the attention of the crowds, make sure you create suspense- “tipping point” -is an oldy but a goody. And make sure you write policy reports in a PR style: focus on the message do not worry about the facts. The bottom line is that we all will need to be patient, deal with uncertainty, endure our ignorance and wait and see what this planet has in mind.
“…have identified three avenues by which those countries can avoid reaching the warming threshold…”
Wow. I thought it was global warming not country warming. The tropics are supposed to warm much less than polar regions. I guess those countries that are closer to the equator are out of luck. No need to send money to them.
John M Reynolds
Their heads are in the clouds, like many warmist scientists who just hand-wave over the immense costs of CO2 mitigation with phrases like “take action”, “do something,” “take steps,” “phase out,” etc. Very unworldly.
Ten Years ago, Michaels and Balling wrote a compelling overview of the “evidence” to that point in time of AGW. In a very elegant and scientific manner they debunked the Warmist falsities of the 90’s. What we are seeing now is the cycle beginning again with the same falsities being peddled slightly harder. It’s as if we will believe if the repetition is maintained.
This is despite none of the alarmist predictions being fulfilled.
Botanists have shown that a doubling of CO2 greatly benefits agriculture and crop yields thereby assisting the very people who stand to lose the most from the the Carbon Reductionist’s suicide plan.
Could I recommend that we all buy copies of “The Satanic Gases” by Michaels & Belling and pass them on to our MP’s Senators Congressmen…with the offer to read them the hard parts!
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Satanic-Gases-Clearing-Global-Warming/dp/1882577922/ref=sr_1_fkmr0_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1272972309&sr=8-1-fkmr0
kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
May 4, 2010 at 1:33 am
“Phil Jones agreed there has been no statistically significant warming from 1995 to the present. The global average has flatlined, looks like there might be cooling. And the CO2 concentration keeps heading up.”
BBC question – Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming
P. Jones – Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.
The basic problem is best explained by a non-existent social pilosopher in a book never written.
How can hierarchical society be maintained when (due to technology) strict hierarhy is no longer needed for a reasonable standard of living?
IN: The Theory and Ppractice of Oligarchical Collectivism by Emmanuel Goldstein
Goldstein’s, Orwells’s & Bush Jr’s answer is permanent warfare (although only one of them took it seriously enough to actually implement it). An alternative, conceivaby less dangerous solution is to make energy supply so outrageously expensive that all of it should be saved for defense purposes and for perpetuation of hierarhy.
The rest can perish in miserable in poverty.
Which one do you choose? You can vote for it. Democracy was invented for promoting freedom of choice.
mikael pihlström says: [ … ]
May 4, 2010 at 4:40 am,
Jones calculated the trend, did he? Let’s see the raw data he used.
…oh, that’s right. He lost the data.
Smokey says:
May 4, 2010 at 4:58 am
mikael pihlström says: [ … ]
May 4, 2010 at 4:40 am,
Jones calculated the trend, did he? Let’s see the raw data he used.
…oh, that’s right. He lost the data.
———–
The data are SO available. And you know it.
This is a joke, right? They can,t be serious. Replacing dung as fuel is low hanging fruit? Replace it with what? How (and who) to pay? Is there anything worth saying in this article?
I see the Warmenistas are up to their usual trick of conflating real pollution with “carbon pollution”. The best way to clean up real pollution, of course is to raise the living standards, i.e. wealth of individual countries. Unfortunately, by attacking “carbon pollution”, and forcing energy costs up they will be doing the exact opposite.
Pseudo-science and lies imposed worldwide raise the spectre of planetary fascism. Vaclav Klaus
is right, we are in danger of becoming a “Blue Planet in Green Shackles”.
Mikael Philstrom,
“This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level.”
The problem is, if the “trend” is not statistically significant, you cannot ascribe it to either a causation or to chance.
But even if the “trend” passes a statistical test, it still has no predictive power. Lubos Motl has written an elegant article examining CET temp trends since around 1750 at time scales from months to decades randomly selected. All graphs were self similar at all time scales. This is very interesting, since what looks like a “trend” on a decadal scales always reversed -up down, up down. In other words, these “trends” may not be random events, statistically speaking, but their causations remain as yet, unknown.
Ref – R Shearer says:
May 3, 2010 at 8:51 pm
“If dinosaurs were intelligent, did they too think about saving the planet?”
________________________________
Indeed! And I believe they came to the only intelligent decision and, as they say, “bit the bullet” to save the planet. A ‘decision’ that we will no doubt arrive at sooner rather than later. The three objectives that the author’s would have us achieve, are only going to be met with the mass extinction of all mammalian life forms on this poor, dying, overly infested little planet. Fat Albert knows this. George Sorenose knows this. O.B.Yauna, the current British PM, and The Raiders of the Treasury & The Lost Arctic Ice (Congress/Parliament/etc) know this. Every Environmentalist, Climatologist, Sociologist, Anarchist, Biologist, Archaeologist, and New York City Sanitationologist knows this. It’s the stupid, worthless, uneducated lemmings among us (you, I, and a few others) that are holding our fingers in the little dike holes and keeping the inevitable at bay. But, sadly, its only a matter of time before we go the way of all flesh and they are permitted to divert a comet (or two) into the planet so as to cool things down a little and wipe out all the pollution causing pests. (Well, except for a few; you know there’s always an exception or two –where do you think birds came from?)
Let’s consider the urgent plight of the tens of thousands of pro-Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming advocates in academe, main-stream-media, green-jobs, and government. What on Earth will these workers do if their taxpayer-based funding dries up? What will happen to media outlets if predictions of catastrophic global warming no longer sell newspapers or attract TV viewers? How will university professors pay their million dollar mortgages if pro-CAGW research funding ends? Please, we implore you to send money now to your local university, main stream media outlet, green company, and government agency. Suggested beneficiaries include:
Scripps Institute of Oceanography, La Jolla, California. Real estate in La Jolla and Del Mar is expensive; check out the videos of jimtherealtor on Youtube. The crusading “professors” at Scripps enjoy ocean views from their offices. Please help these professors pay their mortgages. The federal research grant monies just aren’t enough;
University of California, Berkeley, c/o Regent Richard C. Blum, multi-millionaire investment banker, former Chairman of the Board of Regents, and husband to Senator Dianne Feinstein (no conflict there, nothing to see, move on please.) The Blum-Feinsteins live in a Pacific Heights mansion with a view of the Golden Gate Bridge and belong to a tony private lunch club in Frisco, the Villa Taverna. In 2009, Regent Blum authored a mailed plea for donations to the University of California, which was facing a financial shortfall. Apparently the results were not enough, as the University subsequently raised student fees. Gotta pay all those pro-CAGW professors, who are doing their very best to bring in the Federal grant monies;
University of California, San Diego, c/o Dr. Nancy Oreskes who famously documented the consensus of scientists in favor of CAGW; for her work, she was promoted;
California Academy of Sciences, San Francisco, which boldly displays a pro-CAGW exhibit;
San Francisco Chronicle, whose writers are pro-CAGW and have produced hit pieces against Joe-The-Plumber and other truth-to-power types;
New York Times: the declining-readership money-losing pro-CAGW NYT paid its CEO some $10 million in 2009, about the same amount sacrificed by the Boston Globe workers in an agreement to keep their jobs. The NYT urgently needs your donation;
Pennsylvania State University, c/o Dr. Michael Mann. Dr. Mann may be facing charges of fraud from the Attorney General of Virginia, over Dr. Mann’s state-funded research at the Univ. of Va. Please help fund Dr. Mann’s defense;
United States National Academy of Sciences;
Hadley Meteorological Centre;
Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia;
NASA GISS, New York City, c/o Dr. James Hansen and Dr. Gavin Schmidt. In an interview available on Youtube, Rep. Lindner (R-Ga) stated that Dr. Hansen has refused to turn over his temperature data to Lindner even though ALL OF
HANSEN’S WORK HAS BEEN DONE ON THE GOVERNMENT DIME. Lindner added that if a cancer researcher so behaved, he/she would be arrested;
California State Teachers Retirement System, generously benefitting all those pro-CAGW science teachers for life;
CalPers, the State of California pension fund, which has lost $billions due to poor investment choices, has fired its chief real estate investment advisor, and closes the monthly gap between cash on hand and generous pension payments by borrowing from the “general fund”, i.e., the taxpayers. Baby boomer civil servants are retiring in larger numbers every year at 70% of their final annual salary with medical benefits for life. Please donate to their pension fund;
Environmental Protection Agency, c/o Administrator Lisa Jackson;
The Senate, c/o Senators John Kerry, Joseph Liebermann, and Lindsey Graham. The senators are working hard to pass Cap & Trade. Please donate now, so they can retire with generous pensions and Cadillac health plans for life;
Wikipedia, San Francisco;
Dr. William M. Connolley;
Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, who was elected to govern center/right. After losing some battles to a tsunami of Democrat voters, a corrupt main-stream-media, and wealthy and powerful public employee unions, Arnold turned both left and pro-CAGW. At least he’s smart enough not to stand in front of an oncoming train;
And last but not least, the long-suffering green investor and debater-in-hiding Vice President AL GORE.
A minimum donation of $300.00 U.S. is suggested.
mikael pihlström says:
“The data are SO available. And you know it.”
OK, where do I find it?
$46 trillion points out the absurdity of AGW.
Here is a quick financial seminar on big money negotiating that comes to mind:
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTmXHvGZiSY&hl=en_US&fs=1&]
Hurry, hurry, quick, quick. Our models work so well that they are off by a factor of N where N is large. So lets spend trillions of dollars on the basis of these models before the public comes to their senses. Woops, the public already came to their senses: http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/environment_energy/voters_give_mixed_reviews_to_global_warming_legislation_but_56_don_t_want_to_pay_for_it
Scripps has been taken over by eco-fanatics who have both front feet in the public trough. It’s a shame that this once great institution has become so infested from the top down with CAGW propagandists. For proof of this, read Richard Somerville’s 6 point diatribe in the Scripps link in this post, and the interesting comments from WUWT readers that respond to it.
In Paul Brunton´s “Secret India”, Brunton was telling his Indian Guru, around 1917, how he could make to change the world, to avoid wars, etc. The Indian guru answered him: “Want to change the world?…Well, then change yourself and the world will change”
If we are unable to change a single trait of our character how do we dare to even imagine to “change the world”!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
This is why WE SHOULD SEE, once again, the following George Carlin´s Video on: “Saving the Planet”:
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7W33HRc1A6c&hl=en_US&fs=1&color1=0x234900&color2=0x4e9e00&border=1]
This is yet another plea for money and attention. After all, these poor researchers have to labor under such adverse conditions in….Cancun!!
http://www.cop16.mx/en/recinto.htm
Viva climate change
vacationsconferences!My favorite word was ‘unmanageable’, as in “…unmanageable negative consequences for society.” Whenever you see a word like that in a paper, you can toss it out as propaganda. It is a ‘scare’ word, used to provoke fear. It has no quantifiable meaning.
Distinguished Professor of Climate and Atmospheric Sciences Veerabhadran Ramanathan says:
Ok chaps, here’s the plan: we have £n billion to do the job. If we leave enough dust in the air, we can stick 20% of the wonga in investment.
With the interest off that each year, we meet any shortfall to our commitment, then after 25-30 years, we still have the 20% left.
“…..a point beyond which many scientists believe climate change will present unmanageable negative consequences for society.”
Hey!! Progress!! Now they are claiming only that “many” scientists are screaming about future disaster. It used to be “scientists” with no indication that it was not 100% of them.
Incidentally, I am finding that often clicking on a hotlink and then returning to the main text does not return me to where I exited, but at the beginning of the posting. Can anything be done about this glitch? Am I the only one experiencing it?
IanM
Distinguished Professor of Climate and Atmospheric Sciences Veerabhadran Ramanathan says, “oh yes we can reduce outgoings by leaving some dust in the air, but not in my backyard thanks.”
rbateman says:
May 3, 2010 at 9:15 pm
CRS, Dr.P.H. says:
May 3, 2010 at 9:34 pm
I completely agree with you but would also include Methane (CH4).
From the 2010 U.S. Greenhouse Gas Inventory Report
• Landfills accounted for approximately 22 percent of total U.S. anthropogenic methane (CH4) emissions in 2008
• Wastewater treatment accounted for approximately 4 percent U.S. anthropogenic methane (CH4) emissions
• The incineration of waste in the United States in 2008 resulted in 13.1 Tg CO2 Eq. emissions, nearly half of which is attributable to the combustion of plastics.
• Between 1990 and 2008, (CH4) emissions from agricultural activities increased by 14.4 percent, while N2O emissions fluctuated from year to year, but overall increased by 7.0 percent.
• Energy-related activities accounted for approximately 37 percent of total U.S. anthropogenic methane (CH4) and 13% of nitrous oxide (N2O) emissions in 2008
The majority of VOCs come from flora so getting rid of smog isn’t likely but limiting the SO2, (N2O), and (CH4) would at least make it taste better?
Is it me, or does the message here say: “This looks like a job for…!”
And what is all this “we saved the world before” crap? No tin foil hatless person ever saved the world!
DirkH says:
May 4, 2010 at 3:59 am
“If significant land surface warming happens it will happen in the regions that are cold now, and during the times that are cold now (nighttime, winter). Why? Because of the Stefan-Boltzmann law. The least impact is expected in Africa. What is your example “most populated, naturally arid and low income” region? Arid places are usually not heavily populated (for they are arid).”
OK, say areas with Mediterranean climate type (like California). They
will warm less than the Arctic, but still considerably. Spain, Greece will
cope better, but how about Tunisia? Tunisia has through tremendous
Water management efforts (small reservoirs, rain-harvesting) achieved
a 100% yearly use/replenishment level. Precipitation might be reduced
50% … And a lot of other Meda countries use 140-160% (that is live
on diminishing deep reservoir water). Sahara and Kalahari will warm,
not very populated, but so will Central Asia, parts of China and India.
Ok. decarbonziation. Castle, moat, carriage for lord and lady. Then: Serf’s Up!!
Except this time the Carrage house also holds the Gulfstream hangar….
Vincent says:
May 4, 2010 at 5:38 am
Mikael Philstrom,
“This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level.”
“The problem is, if the “trend” is not statistically significant, you cannot ascribe it to either a causation or to chance. But even if the “trend” passes a statistical test, it still has no predictive power.”
So we wait until 2011 and that segment will most probably have a
significant trend. Then comes a sceptic and says; ‘well, now 2003-2011
has no significant trend. My point is, could you sceptics just discard
some old issue, so we could possibly discuss the point you brought up,
that is causation.
TomTurner in SF says:
May 4, 2010 at 5:39 am
“Let’s consider the urgent plight of the tens of thousands of pro-Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming advocates in academe, main-stream-media, green-jobs, and government. What on Earth will these workers do if their taxpayer-based funding dries up? What will happen to media outlets if predictions of catastrophic global warming no longer sell newspapers or attract TV viewers? How will university professors pay their million dollar mortgages if pro-CAGW research funding ends? ”
Not much sense in that, I would say. The IPCC scientists are established
frequently publishing guys; no trouble to find projects and grants under
any scenario. The responsible media covering Climate likewise; they could
write about any other issues (How about ‘your journalists’, Daily Express
etc – they don’t get paid?). Government is rather stable career-wise.
So, please stop trying to find motives, which are not plausible and certainly
unprovable.
Additionally, where do you get your ideas that these are huge amounts of
money? If we talk about research money: the US federal yearly research
budget is some 380 billion – most of it defense and health research.
Energy research is a tiny stream and climate research even less.
Nupty of Nashville, Patchy Morals, Mann, I-pee cc:
Rule # 1: Ban all private jets except for heads of state!
Once you’ve got over that low hurdle…come and see me! To be the conscience of the planet you first have to have one.
When I was reading the article, I swear I could hear a Pied Piper compelling me away from my village, ….. and what would my village do without its idiot? Now there is some self-deprecating humor. Speaking of speculativebs, ……..
How much CO2 do idiots produce when they say nonsense?
If the big issue is aerosols, the Indians and the Chinese mostly use coal, wood, charcoal and trash to heat and cook. How is that my problem?
Two things.
1. What is the origin and significance of the 2 degree threshold?
2. Where is the evidence that CO2 has any effect on temperature?
Beyond that, the Scripts prescription looks like an exercise in mental gymnastics.
It is good to publicize these silly researches because they are directed to give support to the november ¨climate change¨ Cancun´s jamboree. It seems that these jamborees are joyful gatherings, to say the least, as there are a lot of “post-normal (and sub-normal too) scientists¨ anxious to participate in them. We must propose their wifes/husbands should be invited too. Ah!, and russian hackers too -but these a month before the event-☺
We will be waiting for a nice “Cancun Gate”
OT but interesting
Underwater Asphalt Volcanoes Remained Hidden for 40,000 Years
http://www.scientificcomputing.com/news-DS-Underwater-Asphalt-Volcanoes-Remained-Hidden-for-40000-Years-050310.aspx
REPLY: Thanks but we covered that last week here. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/04/26/who-says-asphalt-isnt-natural/
If global temperature tracked CO2 levels, these scammers might just have half a leg to stand on. It doesn’t, so they don’t.
http://www.osta.com/gw/GWanalysis.htm
Their most ridiculous statement was actually this one:
———
They propose demonstration projects to clarify and reduce the uncertainties and verify the efficacies of the various mitigation avenues proposed in the study. The authors add that trends in energy added to the oceans would respond to mitigation actions even before 2050, making them an important diagnostic tool that can gauge the success of mitigation within 20 years.
————-
They are at once admitting that they don’t actually know what the effects of the various strategies will actually be, and that 20 years of experiments (read 20 years of funding) are required with the thermometer being used to verify effect being… Ocean Heat Content? Duh say WHAT? Convenient to use a proxy for global warming that is already declining and has been for 4 years! Now they’re cherry picking the data IN ADVANCE! Yes we’re worried about surface temps increasing over the next few decades so we will run some experiments (read 20 years funding) and use the OCEAN which has cycles in the CENTURIES to see how we’re doing?
I propose instead the Precautionay Principle. There are three possibilities of roughly equal probability:
1. Earth isnt warming.
2. Earth is warming, but it is natural
3. Earth is warming, human caused.
Since there is no point doing anything about 1. and we can’t do anything about 2. consider that we have three roughly equal possibilities for 3.
1. Warming makes no real difference
2. Warming makes things better
3. Warming is a disaster
No point in worrying about 1. or 2. so, three possibilities for 3
1. We take action which accomplishes nothing
2. We take action which makes things worse
3. We solve the problem by cutting CO2 emissions by 50% or more.
Analysis:
Getting to “solve the problem by cutting CO2 by 50%” being beneficial represents 1 of 27 chance of being true.
Result of cutting CO2 by 50% has an 80% chance of causing 3 billion people or more to starve to death.
Based on the Precautionary Principle….do nothing.
Well, there is one action which scientists can take quickly.
Stop citing Scripps products.
As one of the parents of modern day Global Warming fear promotion. The best way to counter act the effects of global warming is to eliminate those organizations who are responsible for the Chicken Little promotion. Without them there would be nthing because little or nothing exists in the real world to support their fantasies.
Henry chance says:
May 4, 2010 at 7:19 am: Response:Literally, it is not your problem. Figuratively, it is all our problem. The idea of restricting economies and infrastructure will debilitate these countries, and prevent them from advancing. The myth of the noble savage. None of these poor people want to live that way. The false notion that they pollute less because they have less is not based on reality. I have worked hard to buy a newer vehicle that is far more efficient and cleaner running than my old ’70 Chevy half-ton (God , I miss that truck/tank). There is no longer any “killer smog” in London and those who can recall Lake Erie in the ’70s will tell you it is a whole lot cleaner today than back then (just a couple of examples, there are a lot more). With strong economic foundations, it is much easier to tackle the problems of footprint. Who has the right to decide for these people that they have to stay impoverished = higher infant mortality, shorter lifespans, etc? Henry, it is our problem to stop the wrong thinking of the ” earthsavers”.
So, if they know/predict what the increase of radiant energy increase will be, do they have any historical evidence of what it has been?
Wouldn’t it be a whole lot better to prove the hotspot predicted by all the models actually exists? According to the old scientific method — Proof lies with the ones offering the theory.
I wonder, has anybody seem this site: http://firefly.geog.umd.edu/firemap/
If not, I wonder why the hoaxers don’t make it more available, like show it on TV? It really is a decent site run by diligent researchers. It catalogs all the fires on earth, using satellites. The majority of the fires are controlled burn agricultural fires …
In the US, air quality has improved every year since 1970. It is cleaner now than it has been since before WWII. (I believe most of Europe can say the same.) When do we admit diminishing returns and notice that the funding could be used more wisely? When do we notice that the regulations cause more harm in lost opportunity than benefit in marginal, unquantifiable health or environmental gains? ALARA is a bad principle after initial gains.
http://www.epa.gov/airtrends/aqtrends.html
http://www.epa.gov/airtrends/images/comparison70.jpg
mikael pihlström says:
May 4, 2010 at 6:52 am
Well, there are a few dollars going into this;
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/climate_money.pdf
Here is where the original idea came from;
http://www.wikeroy.com/DonaldDuck1.aspx
Then this guy picked up the wonderful idea;
http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/2007/09/global_warmer_h.html
When they saw the reactions from this, I’m sure they learned something…..?;
Like for eksample;
-Models can predict scary outcomes. (of course)
-Scary outcomes can be documented as a peer reviewed paper.
-These peer reviewed papers can be called Science
-These papers can be fed to the media and can produce scary news.
-Scary news can get you more Grants.
After that the gravy train has been rolling ever faster…..
hehe
“Skip says:
May 3, 2010 at 10:53 pm
Have to disagree with Hologram. While “dirty” air may have no impact on a healthy person, it is very dangerous to people who have breathing problems like asthma, people with cardio-vascular disease and seniors and young children. ”
I’m afraid asthma and cardio-vascular disease have been around much longer than modern urban pollution and occur just as much under any conditions. I grew up with a chain smoking father who drove me around all the time in the days when air pollution was higher. I had no breathing problems. My brother was born many years later when my father had quit smoking and we moved to a cleaner, greener part of the world. My brother contracted asthma at 4 years old. My brother no longer has asthma years later. It cleared up after he moved to one of the dirtiest cities on the planet, Mumbai.
The sometimes rather random behaviour of genes are simply the strongest factor when it comes to a person’s health. This is something chemophobes have failed to understand for years.
DANGER do not trust this man:
Veerabhadran Ramanathan, University of California – San Diego
Next thing he might well be climbing up Sir David King`s backside on a geo-engineering crusade based on CO2 SNAFU spin and the completely undetermined magnitude of volcanic forcing. So what if we find out there was another reason for 1816 summer being so cool?
Mike Davis says:
May 4, 2010 at 8:14 am
“As one of the parents of modern day Global Warming fear promotion. The best way to counter act the effects of global warming is to eliminate those organizations who are responsible for the Chicken Little promotion. Without them there would be nothing because little or nothing exists in the real world to support their fantasies.”
I’m sorry Mike, but there’s WAY too much money in the global warming industry now. For proof, here is Exhibit A:
http://www.latimes.com/features/home/la-hm-hotprop-gore-20100428,0,4103538.story
I love davidmhoffer’s “Precautionary Principle” analysis! Can we get that published in the New York Times? Front page?
But these people aren’t going to stop trying to peddle AGW until Manhattan and the UN are crushed under a kilometer of ice. Mankind is doomed. The alarmists are going to kill us one way or another. (Must – take – more – Prozac!!!)
Actions that can be taken immediately include replacement of biomass-fueled stoves with cleaner alternatives in developing countries
They have counted the particulates and the Co2 molecules of the cooking fires of the poor in developing countries, and determined that it isn’t the right kind of fire: it needs to be “cleaner alternative” fire, and that their grand ecocolonialist services are needed to stop it. And quickly, too.
The decarbonization of society should start with institutions such as Scripps. And quickly. Then it should stop.
AGW AND HUMAN STUPIDITY – THERE IS A CONNECTION
There is an inexplicable correlation between human stupidity and warm temperatures (see link below). I so wish some Ivy League genius would pick this up and run with it. But, alas, it is warm and kids today aren’t as smart as they were a few score and seven years ago. I just know I’m on the right (or left, if you prefer) track, and that this would be a tremendous area of very productive (and money making) research. There’s just tons and tons of material too. I dare to even predict, on the pittance that I have already discovered on this subject, that the Greatest Depression and WW3 are gonna’ be lulus. And they aren’t far away neither. Don’t you get the impression we’re going through the period 1912-2012 all over again? Must be solar.
http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c0120a69cab61970b-pi
L says:
May 4, 2010 at 12:39 am
About 1150yrs, one quarter of the time between Heinrich Events.
3 Heinrich`s back from the LIA is the Older Dryas. 3 Heinrich`s forward from the Younger Dryas is around AD3600, when it will be seriously cold at times.
One has to say it quite a few times before it sinks in!
mikael pihlström says:
Steel mills closing down in US was part of the global restructuring of
the steel sector, it was about e.g. subsidies, competition, wage levels and
productivity.
The costs of air pollution control were not a problem for otherwise viable
production in the 80′s.
———–
REPLY: I agree somewhat with your first point, the US mills were obsolete compared to the modernized facilities in Japan (which we helped build), Korea (ditto) and a few other places. Our plants were labor intensive, energy inefficient and pretty dirty places.
Good bit of history here: http://www.encyclopedia.chicagohistory.org/pages/653.html
However, I worked in the public health sector back then, met with the president of one of the companies (father of a good friend of mine) and have a lot of “skinny” on what really happened. Air quality in Chicago wasn’t too great back then, and the target was big steel. Regulators succeeded, at the cost of much of the Chicagoland industrial base.
If regulators had worked with steel, they could have saved much of this industry. Vast tracts of land along Lake Michigan sit eerily vacant, resembling the surface of Mars (red-tinted soil), all the Bessemer furnaces, coking ovens, rolling mills etc. dismantled and gone.
Mission accomplished, marginally clean air at the cost of destroying thousands of jobs and decimating the tax base of IL and IN. With success stories like these, the US can’t survive many more.
BTW, tobacco use is still the number one cause of preventable death in the USA. I don’t buy the PH arguments of the AGW crowd, all BS.
Re: mikael pihlström onMay 4, 2010 at 4:40 am
I carefully dug up the Phil Jones line, made certain the “agreed” and “statistically significant” parts were in there. I supplied the actual reference where it can be easily checked for correctness, said supplying rarely done in this site’s normally relaxed style of commentary. That line was used with my own lines of commentary, in a frequently-used acceptable manner found in all manners of media besides the internet.
What reason can you have, sir, for copying that full section as found in the reference I supplied? What possible reason can there be other than to imply, to say without outright saying, that I tried to put words in Dr. Jones’ mouth? You supplied no extra commentary as to why you supplied that entire bit. What am I expected to think other than that you, without the forthright honor to explicitly say so, are stating that I have lied about what Dr. Jones said?
At this point I should start laying out the terms of the code duello for such a grievous insult. However, I have instead decided to say
Now why don’t you go off and do some more of such sterling online work. With a wireless broadband connection. In traffic.
They propose demonstration projects to clarify and reduce the uncertainties and verify the efficacies of the various mitigation avenues proposed in the study.
This is their definition of modeling.
kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
May 4, 2010 at 1:33 am
“What reason can you have, sir, for copying that full section as found in the reference I supplied? What possible reason can there be other than to imply, to say without outright saying, that I tried to put words in Dr. Jones’ mouth?”
Very unclear your paragraph; where does PJ end, where does kadaka
begin? And why not let PJ say the whole phrase YES – BUT. You only
gave us the YES.
“avoid wars” . . . best way to do that is to make sure that the population is “fat and happy” It is exceedingly difficult to arouse a reasonably well fed and reasonably well housed people to go to war . . . or to goad them into bloody revolution. Oppressive government and general poverty is the historical setting for war and bloody revolution.
These extreme (and useless) measures being proposed will without question impoverish people in general in countries of western civilization, and those who make a living exporting to countries of western civilization. Continue on this absurd course and strife and discord will increase to the point that world war and bloody revolutions will become inevitable.
A bit of warming if (and a big if at that) it is even happening will be far easier to survive than will be world war and bloody revolutions.
These “catastrophic warmists”and western civilization politicians had best read a good bit of history before making more of the dreadful decisions they have been making as of late, and completely reverse the dreadful and absurd decisions they have already made. There is indeed a “tipping point”, for world war and bloody revolution, that is, and on the course we are on, is close and getting closer rapidly.
mikael pihlström said on May 4, 2010 at 10:34 am:
I used a widely-circulated frequently-mentioned line about Dr. Jones, easily recognizable as such, making sure it was accurate, and supplied the reference. Anyone with a passing familiarity of Dr. Jones work and that line can distinguish what came from him and what came from me, and one can readily check with the link I provided if they are unsure. And THIS is your great all-explaining CYA rebuttal?
C-YA later!
I thought that I had heard that the replacement for CFC was a more potent GHG than the CFC’s? Does anyone have any links to debunk or substantiate that?
You want dust Mr Ramanathan, we`ll get you dust no problemo. Take a whole side of PV cells to the Sahara, plug `em into some wind turbines, and hey presto, a dust storm.
Crap, I almost over looked the massive carbon footprint of the concrete foundations for the turbines. Shucks, looks like we will have to wait for a change in the weather, we`ll be sure to get some dust storms after a cold snap, maybe a couple of volcanoes too.
Well I have a suggestion for Ram and Xu;
Why not take the bull by the horns and go to some place where your programs could really have some benefit. Like India and China; and convince those people to stop burning fossil fuels.
Now that’s a program I could support.
CRS, Dr.P.H. says:
May 4, 2010 at 9:54 am
“If regulators had worked with steel, they could have saved much of this industry. Vast tracts of land along Lake Michigan sit eerily vacant, resembling the surface of Mars (red-tinted soil), all the Bessemer furnaces, coking ovens, rolling mills etc. dismantled and gone. ”
You mean taking into consideration the precarious situation of the
industry regulators could have been more flexible? Maybe, but once
emission guidelines have been written down, if you back of , the most
sensitive groups (asthmatics, children) have cause for grievance. At
about that time it was also essential to stop acidification of lakes
downwind.
It i sad to visit these places (in Europe), mostly on account of the
workforce stripped of their professional dignity, doing one of the
thoughest,most dangerous jobs ever. Ironically, before the bank
crisis, China was buying all the steel they could get.
Would Greenpeace and other ecoterrorist groups accept taking an 80% chance of killing 3 billion people in exchange for eliminating a 4% chance of upsetting the habitat of some obscure critter?
I think the answer is yes.
Anthropogenic carbon emissions are causing global warming – TRUE or FALSE? Should we do something about it – Yes or No?
Here’s the answer matrix
The only path to avoiding a 100% man-made catastrophe is “business as usual.”
Mike McMillan says:
May 4, 2010 at 12:02 am
> I wasn’t aware that Copenhagen actually produced an accord.
It did, but barely.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/18/guardian-headline-low-targets-goals-dropped-copenhagen-ends-in-failure/
The so-called Copenhagen accord “recognises” the scientific case for keeping temperature rises to no more than 2C but did not contain commitments to emissions reductions to achieve that goal.
Re: “The authors also point out that the world has already succeeded before in removing dangerous warming agents. The 1987 Montreal Protocol regulated the use of chlorofluorocarbons and the damaging effect of the chemicals on the planet’s ozone layer was diminished. ”
The elimination of this and other warming agents and pollution (e.g., Sulfur Dioxide) has been acheived by converting them into a non-toxic trace gas that is essential to life on earth — Carbon Dioxide — as byproduct of the fossil fueled energy diverted from economic use, to pollution reduction of the energy generation process (e.g., fly ash removal, sulfur dioxide scrubbing, etc…).
So their analogy doesn’t hold.
George E. Smith says:
May 4, 2010 at 11:32 am
“Well I have a suggestion for Ram and Xu;
Why not take the bull by the horns and go to some place where your programs could really have some benefit. Like India and China; and convince those people to stop burning fossil fuels.
Now that’s a program I could support.”
————–
India is going for nuclear. China does a lot of wind energy and
BTW invests 3% of its GDP in green technology. Ergo, they are
not stupid. Ergo, they will say something like: ‘since most of
the anthropogenic CO2 up there is courtesy of USA, Europe,
the Soviet Union, you lead the way’.
mikael pihlström says:
May 4, 2010 at 1:06 pm
“Third world countries like those, with thousand of years of history, carry in their blood, in their genes, how to deal with silly “greengoes”:
1.They greet them cheerfully
2.They joyfully receive their money.
3.They respectfully bow before them.
4.When they turn around to leave, they fart at them.
5.They joyfully continue their unchanged joyful existence.
Skip says:
May 3, 2010 at 10:53 pm
“….So for those people at the margins of good health and for the sake of pure aesthetics, lets do what all our mothers told us to do and clean up after ourselves.”
_________________________________________________________________________
Most skeptic have no problem with the “clean up after ourselves” but it is expensive and the passage of the World Trade Organization treaty (no tariffs & open borders) exported the problem to countries with cheap labor and no pollution control. This of course was intentional. It gets rid of high priced unions and obsolete factories and puts the blame on the EPA so you do not get boycotts. A win win situation all around.
invests 3% of its GDP in green technology
But NOT FOR THEM, to sell it to the only ones who could buy it: YOU.
The USA no longer leads the way as top carbon emitter… USA v Red China
The Red Chinese have achieved an asymptotic carbon emissions growth rate.
mikael pihlström says:
India is going for nuclear. China does a lot of wind energy and
BTW invests 3% of its GDP in green technology. Ergo, they are
not stupid. Ergo, they will say something like: ‘since most of
the anthropogenic CO2 up there is courtesy of USA, Europe,
the Soviet Union, you lead the way’.>>
I would think China would say something more like “Cut what ever you want, just don’t forget you have to make enough money to pay back those loans we gave you…”
Leon Brozyna says:
May 3, 2010 at 11:10 pm
♪ Money, ♪
♪ We need money, ♪
♪ We need lots and lots of money! ♪
…. If we can’t get ‘em excited about the cute polar bears, perhaps we’ll scare ‘em with tales of sex not working out. Wonder what Indur M. Goklany would say to all that.
______________________________________________________________________
I guess no one told them the USDA funded research for developing spermicidal corn
“…… Astonishing to learn was that Epicyte had developed its spermicidal GMO corn with research funds from the US Department of Agriculture, …..”
Not to mention the fact that corn is wind pollinated and although Mexico had banned GMO corn to keep their native corn pure, testing showed native corn is contaminated with Starlink, a corn that is not approved for human use.
mikael pihlström says:
May 4, 2010 at 1:06 pm
India is going for nuclear. China does a lot of wind energy and
BTW invests 3% of its GDP in green technology. Ergo, they are
not stupid. Ergo, they will say something like: ‘since most of
the anthropogenic CO2 up there is courtesy of USA, Europe,
the Soviet Union, you lead the way’.
Wind is still 20 to 40 percent more expensive than coal power, and Solar power is still at least twice as expensive as coal, so tell us again how “smart” investing in “green” technology is.
Yes, India hopes to increase its nuclear energy capacity from its current 4.2% to 9% within 25 years. Yawn. Meanwhile, here in the U.S., where nuclear energy has foundered since the 70’s, it still represents close to 20% of our electric power generation.
Funny how no country, including the U.S. wants to tie an anchor onto its economy and throw it overboard. The really great news, which the climate bed wetters hate to hear is that there is absolutely no need to.
Pat Moffitt (09:01):
Amen to your take on John Isaacs! Wish he were still around to counter the impractical “solutions” to admittedly poorly understood problems now emanating from SIO. He never brooked any academic nonsense. Nor did Roger Revelle ever take the alarmist stance that eco-crusaders posthumously attribute to him.
“”” David Middleton says:
May 4, 2010 at 2:23 pm
mikael pihlström says:
May 4, 2010 at 1:06 pm
[…]
India is going for nuclear. China does a lot of wind energy and
BTW invests 3% of its GDP in green technology. Ergo, they are
not stupid. Ergo, they will say something like: ‘since most of
the anthropogenic CO2 up there is courtesy of USA, Europe,
the Soviet Union, you lead the way’.
The USA no longer leads the way as top carbon emitter… USA v Red China “””
Well the USA never was the world’s top carbon emitter; in fact the USA has always been the largest land based Carbon Sink; in fact just about the only land based carbon sink; apart ffrom some fringe places too small to amount to a hill of beans.
Canada would also be a net carbon sink; except it is so far north that its growing season is severely curtailed. If the earth warms up a bit; then Canada too would becoem a net carbon sink; just like the USA is.
So get off our backs; we ain’t the problem.
It would be less expensive to just give China and India everything of value and let them do with it whatever they want. That’s were all this is heading anyway. The tribes with the highest birthrates always stomped those with low birthrates. This little piece of wisdom is in the first chapter of Adam & Eve’s “History of the World, Part I – The Rise of Modern Man”. Its a little dated, but worth the read.
mikael pihlström says:
May 4, 2010 at 1:06 pm
“India is going for nuclear. China does a lot of wind energy and
BTW invests 3% of its GDP in green technology…..”
__________________________________________________________________
You just proved you are a troll spreading disinformantion.
“If China’s carbon usage keeps pace with its economic growth, the country’s carbon dioxide emissions will reach 8 gigatons a year by 2030, which is equal to the entire world’s CO2 production today. That’s just the most stunning in a series of datapoints about the Chinese economy reported in a policy brief in the latest issue of the journal Science.
Coal power has been driving the stunning, seven plus percent a year growth in China’s economy. It’s long been said said that China was adding one new coal power plant per week to its grid. But the real news is worse: China is completing two new coal plants per week.
That power is being used to drive an enormous manufacturing expansion. China has increased steel production from 140 million tons in 2000 to 419 million tons in 2006, the authors report…..” China’s 2030 CO2 Emissions Could Equal the Entire World’s Today
That is why the Chinese gave Obama the cold shoulder at Copenhagen. Al Gore’s pal Maurice Strong promised at Kyoto that American tax payers would foot the bill for China’s economic expansion. Oh I am sure the Chinese are investing in “green technology” but that is so they can SELL it to the idiots in the West, not use it.
Oh, and Mikael, Climate Science: Follow the Money So that argument on how little money is spent on CAGW doesn’t fly here either.
L says:
May 4, 2010 at 12:39 am
“Slightly OT here, ….
Also, it seems to me that, besides the 60-70 year cycle of climate recently posted here, there is a, perhaps too obvious, a 1000 year cycle…
Come on, folks, I can’t be the only one to have noticed this; how about some more detail on this from the experts here?”
__________________________________________________________________________
Since no one has addressed this I will. Yes there are cycles that have been identified.
The 100,000 yr Milankovitch cycle
: http://corior.blogspot.com/2006/02/part-15-ice-ages-confirmed.html
Persistence of the Gleissberg 88-year solar cycle over the last ∼12,000years: Evidence from cosmogenic isotopes: http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2003/2002JA009390.shtml
2001: the Second Solar Cycle and Space Weather Euroconference: Gleissberg cycle of solar activity http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002ESASP.477..151M
Implications of Gleissberg cycle Ap 02 2001 Department of Astronomy, Faculty of Science, Cairo University, Cairo, Egypt http://www.cosis.net/abstracts/COSPAR02/01487/COSPAR02-A-01487.pdf
UK http://www.jstor.org/pss/53604
The short term ocean cycles (about 60 years)
One person’s analysis of the 60 yr cycle: http://www.sfu.ca/~plv/60yearCycles.htm
Louis Hissink on Climate Modeling: Ocean Oscillations + Solar Activity R²=.96 SEE: http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2010/01/climate-modeling-ocean-oscillations.html
The Pacific Decadal Oscillation: http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/5686
And if you REALLY want to talk cycles: http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/GandF.htm
Another site to look at is: http://www.landscheidt.info/?q=node/50
This site documents cycles and presents a theory that the planetary alignment influences the sun (It comes in for a lot of attacks) However the Layman’s Sunspot count is worth following at this site.
From this start just use the search window here and phrases to get lots of additional information. There have been some really great posts on many of these cycles especially concerning the ocean.
Oh and I forgot. The solar system also ocillates through the galactic plane.
oscillation of Sun about the mid-galactic plane: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1993BASI…21..125D
The SMOG photograft, when was it taken and what city is it? To me, it looks like Denver, Co back in the mid 70’s.
I have a rather different Plan:
1. Survive this year by injecting SO2 AND cloud-more & more-reflective Seawater, plus route as many Planes over the Pole. This (mostly Natural) problem of the Arctic Melting = 300 mph winds = 6 BILLION dead IF it occurs in the MOST PERFECT PRECISE WAY — unfortunately it is doing this NOW !
The Pacific Oscillation produces low Ice every 60 years (plus is likely half the General Global Warming — of course it is produced by the Sun/C-ray, etc.) — to melt OFF from a nearly full Arctic Basin the previous year takes
a. Thin Ice (courtesy of the 30 More+Stronger El Nino-than-La Nina years that just ended), resulting in 5800 cubic Km last year.
b. It has to recover to fill the basin (2 La Nina=cool years since 2007)
c. A SUPER EL NINO — courtesy of Volcanic Activity off Tonga, this year, tripling what should have been a Weak El Nino to a 1.8 — there was only 1 such in the 1950-77 time-frame so we are seeing a 1 in 2000 bad Luck Event.
d. 2007’s El Nino was a 1.1 = 4000 less cubic Km than 2006’s minimum.
Thus this year’s Ice should be 5800 – 4000 x 1.8/1.1 = WE ALL DIE. Well, currently, I give this about 25%.
Reasoning: IF we get an EARLY melt-off & the 24-a-day Polar Sunshine hits deep-blue-Sea not bright white ICE, quadrupling Solar Energy Absorbtion, for Long enough — I expect 150 degree air-temps & SOME Ocean Currents to reverse — BUT though the currents STOPPED after the Ice Age End-event (the +17 degerees F in 1 year) they are not EXACTLY as they were then — thus one 50-50. The other is all those IF’s for melting off early: IF we do not get a Volcano OR Quick Reversal to La Nina OR do not have 16% less Clouds, like 2007 OR the Wind direction does NOT flush out the ice, like 2007 OR the Nares Ice Dam does not break like 2007 — OOPS ! it already blew, & worse than 2007 !
This is why you see so many ARCTIC ICE POSTS.
And not only is it REALLY Serious BUT the normal Global Warming in the 1977-07 period was QUADRUPLED in the Arctic due to (a) 0.67 degrees C (Drew Shidell’s figures) SOOT from Carbon Cap & Trade “forgiving ” Diesels their Soot if they reduce CO2 & forgiving 3rd World Industry its’ “Dirty Dirty Coal with NO Scrubbers” policies, as Part of … Cap & Trade Again. Meanwhile Sulfur Cap & Trade added 0.42 degrees more because the USA cut SO2 from 31 million tons in 1970 to near 5 million/year Today. We need at least 1/1000th of that back up & at least 3 miles high & over the Arctic SPECIFICALLY, RIGHT NOW. Long term Plans such as Lovelock & Holdens’ would be 20 miles high & every year but right Now, I want it to not to last into the Winter so let it be 3 miles. (Cost = 6 CENTS per American, plus $1 if we add the Seawater idea).
In the Long Term, to prevent Recurrance, we must:
>2. Declare a LACK of Sulfur, high up where it Cools, as Pollution — In fact, I suggest the DEATH Penalty for failing to add 1/1000th of any Sulfur Cut.
>3. War on SOOT: do NOT forgive Diesels IF they cut CO2. CO2 is minor In Comparison but the USA’s 93% cleaner Diesels since 1995 show the way.
We have to realize ANYTHING we do can have bad Effects & not Cover them up. The Demonizing of CO2 by the “PPG’s = Political Phony Greens, is actually funded by the REAL PPG: the Particulated & Poisons Group — that is why they want to FORCE us to use Mercury, etc.
>4. Add Natural Gas to All Coal Plants, halving Soot at a Stroke
(once China realizes this actually SAVES money, they’ll do it, in line with the Abrupt Climate Change Task Force’s General Call for “No-Regrets” measures.
>4b– Get that Gas from Alaska DIRECT by ICEBREAKING TANKER. The new backwards-sailing ones are a third the cost of Pipes & would have 4 times the Sales because they’d access the Whole Coast — in fact I’d NOT wreck the Prudhoe Oil by taking the Gas that pressurizes it. This way, we can Pay Back China.
>5. Cut CO2 & get more Fish with No-fish Zones (as both “residence times” for CO2: 5.4 years & 100 years, are eminently confirmed & due to the confirming Effect of the 1500 A.D. 1-km Stewart Island Asteroid — which cut CO2 20 & 40 years later — I figure BOTH must be correct. The only way to reconcile is this: “Smokestack Carbon” is an INPUT –it is 5.4% of the rise, but the FAVORING OF BONELESS FISHlike Squid & Rays, Octopus, etc, reduces the OTHER side of CO2 because Fish BONES ARE THE MAJOR SEQUESTERING OF CO2. As they are mostly Tropical fish, the Boneless EXPAND when the temp rises, and ALSO when we fish as we tend to take the Bony ones. Whilst a Tidal Wave killing Fishermen over a third of the Oceans REVERSES the effect. Apparently the IPCC misinterpreted Geology to mean Bone is dissolved in Water — any Geologist will tell you it IS, But it TAKES 250 MILLION years ! Bones form layers of Limestone & Chalk & a LOOONG time later, rise up as Monutains, THEN they erode. So the “100 years” refers to INPUT Minus OUTPUT. … There is always this kind of Mess in problems that bridge more than 1 Specialty — that is why Systhesists were Proposed.
Unfortunately I seem to be the only 1.
>6. Ban Ethanol INCREASES — and Spread out the existing Eth. amongs ALL cars for, at 3% or less, it’s Engine-cleaning Doubles its’ value (whereas recent R&D has shown at 10% it is a Net Loss.
>7. MORE RESEARCH. Golly. How can we pay off ALL THIS STUFF in the Government with a Growth Rate cripled by by a third the %-of-GDP in publicly-available R&D that we did in the 1950’s. We may even do it the Way it was done then — with no NEAR TERM Challenge, Military R&D can be made PUBLIC — before Ike made it all Secret, he carefully added Civil Research to equal the Military. But after the late-1960s Research Massacre, GDP Growth dropped by 2% per year (per person– note we encouraged immigrants to appear to keep a similar Growth but we do not Feel Richer, do we? ) EXCEPT after Bush the Elder tripled Nasa Space Science. I know: the Growth, & the High Tech Revolution, was mostly under Clinton, but it was NOT his VOODOO LUCK — especially as it began before he took Office & ended in 1998, before he Left. In other Words: Bush Startted it & Clinton Killed it.
Remember, DOUBLING the Economy means + 14,000 Billion PER YEAR — OK, there is a Time Lag — but NOT in the Way Investors VALUE OUR DEBT. They would lose their fear of us not repaying them in 2040, and that would reduce the interest on our Debt … NOW.
PS. the Time-lag of CO2 of 800 years is from the rise of temp in the ANTARCTIC, which is very small, gradual & precedes the North Polar SUDDEN Warmings — and coolings. It became famous because of Al Gore’s Chart, which scales at 1000 years per inch but the REAL inciter of CO2 — and Methane changes is the NORTH — indeed the last time-lag was 300 years from the South change — because it is 20 years after whenever the North Changes — CO2 & CH4 always mirror that AND cause a further Warming/Cooling on the order of half a degree–just like now. But not the 19 degrees in 3 years. That happens BEFORE.
“Low-hanging fruit”…from the CAGW species of tree…is almost always rotten and has NO nutritional value whatsoever.
Save your ecosystem now…and cut down this opportunistic, invasive, useless species!
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
The argument is if global dimming caused by aerosols is greater than “we thought” then global warming must be also greater than “we thought”, it could be though that neither effect is significant, in that case how are we going to peg temperature rise by 2050.This dimming effect we were told in about the year 2000 was getting less so that global warming would accelerate but in 2010 I am still waiting for this acceleration to start,waiting for any catastrophic climate change to start in fact, could this not be an argument for the idea that co2 is affecting climate less than we thought then. Is it wrong for us to be sceptical when we see the predictions made by computer models go so badly wrong,when we see appeal to authority and consensus replace facts and when we see no catastrophic climate change at the moment only the threat of this produced by computer models in order to extract higher taxes from us all now.
old construction worker says:
May 4, 2010 at 6:16 pm
The SMOG photograft, when was it taken and what city is it? To me, it looks like Denver, Co back in the mid 70′s.
Looks like it’s a photo of L.A. from 2007. They are notorious for it, being in a basin, with millions of vehicles, and little rain to wash it from the air.
Gail Combs
Oh, and Mikael, Climate Science: Follow the Money So that argument on how little money is spent on CAGW doesn’t fly here either.
——
According to the source you provided the spending on climate
research would be under 4 billion /year, against total spending 380
billion/year, that is about 1% of the federal research budget
(+ some of CR money would come from foundations etc).
Clearly, the money grabber scientists should go for defense and
health research.
Gail Combs says:
May 4, 2010 at 5:13 pm
mikael pihlström says:
May 4, 2010 at 1:06 pm
“India is going for nuclear. China does a lot of wind energy and
BTW invests 3% of its GDP in green technology…..”
George E. Smith says:
May 4, 2010 at 4:02 pm
Bruce Cobb says:
May 4, 2010 at 2:38 pm
David Middleton says:
May 4, 2010 at 2:23 pm
davidmhoffer says:
May 4, 2010 at 2:31 pm
—————–
I am well aware that China is/about to become the largest
carbon emitter. But, who says the high Chinese growth rate will
be sustained for decades? I am also aware that China & India will
continue heavily with fossils for many decades. But, the quotation
above is meant to show that they also look for other ways, because
of competition for coal and oil, because of severe urban air pollution,
because they are rational…
The point is we need a global policy and that necessitates the
western countries to lead the way, because we are mainly responsible
for the existent atmospheric rise in CO2…
George, your figures are totally wrong. For the 20th century USA
was clearly the biggest emitter. If you sum up the EU countries we
are a good second. But per capita: you are the champions.
And your US carbon sink calculation is ‘sceptical’, no way could
USA sink offset more than 15-20% of the emissions, probably less.
If you believe all the sink estimates provided by different groups
and countries, there would be no build-up of CO2 in the atmosphere
– but there is.
Then the comments on China’s investement in green technology:
“they want to sell it”. Partly , yes – what’s wrong with that? Through
a market mechanism is would be correctly priced. The surprising
thing is that California does not want this business.
mikael pihlström says:
May 5, 2010 at 11:05 am
The point is we need a global policy and that necessitates the
western countries to lead the way, because we are mainly responsible
for the existent atmospheric rise in CO2…
Actually, no, there is no need for a global policy on C02, as C02 is an entirely beneficial gas, and further amounts of it in the atmosphere will have little effect on climate. It makes absolutely no difference who is responsible for any added C02, (actually, we humans are only responsible for a very small portion, contributing roughly 3%) and as a matter of fact, plants love it. If you want to control the earth’s climate you need to think of ways to control the sun as well as ocean oscillations, the two largest drivers of climate. Good luck with that.