Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach [See also the follow-on post entitled “Why Revenue Neutral Isn’t”
I was pointed by a commenter on another blog to the Canadian Province of British Columbia, where they put a carbon-based energy tax scheme into effect in 2008. Before looking at either the costs or the actual results of the scheme, let me start by looking at the possible benefits of the scheme. I mean, on my planet if there are no benefits the costs are kinda beside the point. The BC carbon-based energy tax was sold on the basis that it would help in the fight against the theorized CO2-caused global warming. So how much will the actions of our northern cousins affect the world temperature?
Well, that’s hard to answer, but we could set an upper bound on the possible cooling by a thought experiment. According to the current climate paradigm, CO2 rules the global temperature, and the change in temperature is about 3°C for each doubling of CO2. That means if we know the emissions, we can calculate the resultant temperature change.
So here’s the thought experiment. Suppose British Columbia had been founded in 1850 as a separate country with the high ethical aim of achieving freedom from evil carbon based fuels. And instead of calling it “British Columbia”, the early colonists decided to call it “British Utopia”, because they were going to make the ultimate sacrifice in the fight against evil carbon dioxide. They weren’t going to use any fossil fuels ever, their country would be a true utopia. So they built a wall around British Utopia and didn’t trade with anyone, to keep out nasty carbon from trade. To avoid CO2 emissions they didn’t use any oil, either their own or from elsewhere. They didn’t make any cement, or import any, too much CO2 released in the manufacture. The Utopians didn’t use coal for heat or transportation or making steel, just wonderful organic renewable wood. Since the carbon in wood was recently taken from the atmosphere, burning it doesn’t add CO2 to the atmosphere, it just replaces what the tree removed from the atmosphere. And suppose further that they had kept true to that until today …
To me that sounds like they’d lead short lives under brutal conditions, breathing a hazy brown atmosphere from all the wood smoke. And if you run your country on wood you might well end up looking like Haiti … but we’ll let all that go for the moment and ask the important question:
If the British Utopians had made that noble sacrifice for humanity in 1850 and foresworn fossil fuels … how much cooler would the world be today?
Fortunately, given the assumptions made by the IPCC under the current paradigm, we can calculate how much cooler it would be if the British Utopians had given up emitting CO2. The CDIAC has data for both Canada and the World ms showing CO2 emissions since 1750. And since for a given country the CO2 emissions are a function of population, and we know the historical BC population as a fraction of the total, we can figure the total BC emissions, and thus, the amount of Utopian cooling. So here’s the true Canadian hockeystick, showing how much cooler, year by year, the world would be from the British Utopians’ self-sacrifice:
Figure 1. How much cooler the world would be if the British Utopians had abjured the evil carbon habit in 1850.
Now, the blue line in Figure 1. shows how much the virtuous actions of the British Utopians have cooled the planet over the last century and a half. If they had “Just Said No” to fossil fuels, the blue line shows how much cooler we’d be today. That would be about five thousandths of one degree … man, those Utopians really know how to get the most bang for their buck, huh? Give up all the modern comforts for a century and a half, live in the dark ages for decade after decade while everyone else is partying down, and what do they have to show for a hundred and fifty years of self-deprivation?
Five thousandths of a degree of cooling.
But wait, it gets worse … think of the grandchildren!
Over on the right hand side of the graph I’ve shown another fifty years of projected emissions. For a young couple just starting a family today, in fifty years their grandchildren will be in their thirties. So what might the BC carbon-based energy tax achieve for these grandchildren?
I’ve shown two possible futures. One is fifty years of the “Business As Usual” scenario in red. This continues the post-1970 trend, which has been an average of about a 1.5% annual increase in British Columbia emissions. That’s what we might pessimistically expect if there were no carbon-based energy tax of any kind. That’s worst-case.
And in green, I’ve shown what would be the absolute best-case result from the carbon-based energy tax. This is the total fantasy outcome, where the BC emissions remain at their 2008 value (the date of the BC tax), and they don’t increase at all for fifty years. Of course atmospheric CO2 levels would continue to rise because of the constant annual addition of the same amount of CO2 emitted in 2008, but not so much as in the “Business As Usual” scenario.
Now, the difference between those two possible scenarios, the worst-case and best-case scenarios, is the theoretical maximum possible cooling that might result from the carbon-based energy tax. That is shown by the black line in the lower right corner … and that cooling is three thousandths of a degree.
So there you have it. All of the pain that the folks of BC are going through, all of the miles of paperwork, all of the sacrifice, all of the damage done to the poor, all the taxes collected and bureaucrats coddled, for all of that, what the good Canadian folks have achieved for their grandchildren is three thousandths of a degree of cooling.
…
…
About all I can say is, I certainly hope than the grandchildren show a proper appreciation for that fantastic inter-generational gift, and that they send the old geezers a nice thank-you card like Miss Manners recommends. After all, it’s the thought that counts, and it’s not often you get a present that’s that significant …
Seriously, folks, the anti-carbon zealots must have hypnotized the masses. I know no other way to explain such idiocy. Here’s the thing:
Suppose someone came up to you and said “I can guarantee you that I can cool the planet by three thousandths of a degree over the next fifty years.” And suppose you checked them out, and found that they were telling the truth, in fact they could guarantee the three thousandths of a degree of cooling in fifty years.
How much would you personally pay for that?
Would you pay a thousand dollars to be guaranteed that amount of cooling, 0.003°C, and not today but in fifty years?
I wouldn’t. Not worth it. Too much money for too little benefit.
But the collective madness of the BC citizens has reached the point where they’re willing to establish an economy-slowing tax accompanied by a whole bureaucracy, with enforcement officers and piles of paperwork, and spend millions and millions of dollars in the mad pursuit of a best-case benefit of three thousandths of a degree cooling, not now, but in fifty years.
All I can do is shake my head in astonishment, and wonder at the madness of crowds. A plan is proposed, someone does a cost-benefit analysis, the benefits are too small to have a hope of being measured and don’t occur for decades … and in response people say “Great plan, let’s implement it immediately”???
Ah, well … I’m an optimist, I figure at some point our Canadian neighbors will wake up and go “Wha?” …
Best to all,
w.
PS—As I mentioned above, I wanted to take a look at the benefits, the costs, and the effects of the BC carbon-based energy tax. I’ve only discussed the (lack of) benefits in this post, so as you might expect, there will be a couple of additional posts to cover the effects and the costs. In fact they’re mostly written, because this started as one post and got unbearably long … so I’ll cover the costs and the effects of the BC tax in future posts.
PPS—Please don’t tell me that this is just the first step. The BC taxpayers have already spent half a billion dollars on this farce and that’s not the half of it. If your wonderful first step costs a billion dollars for a cooling of 0.003°C, I am not interested in your second step whatever it may be.
NOTE: This is one of a four-part series on the BC carbon-based energy tax. The parts are:
British Columbia, British Utopia
Fuel on the Highway in British Pre-Columbia
Why Revenue Neutral Isn’t, and Other Costs of the BC Tax
Correction after researching: second largest, after Volvo.
CodeTech , from what you say think you have got the impression that I am boasting about Norway. That is not my intention at all. Norway has a lot of negative sides and it is not better than any other country. To the contrary, I have had the joy of visiting the US a couple of times, both in In my profession and as a tourist and that has in fact made me to a huge supporter of the US way of life.
As a businessman I have always been met by the good combination of professionalism and friendliness. More informal activities in the evening are also a typical US habit which we perhaps should adopt more in Europe.
I am also impressed by the openness and friendliness I have experienced as a tourist in the US.
My experience is that we definitively have a lot to learn from the US
My reason for bringing in Norway was that I naturally know more about it than other countries, and it fitted as a example. I can now see that it was a mistake because it cased too much confusion. Germany would have served just as well for my example.
I am not a supporter of big government at all, and most European countries have a big government compared to USA. However, that should not be an obstacle for using an example from a specific item in a European country which seems to work well. That is what I have done and, regrettably, I used Norway as an example.
Jan wrote “Yes, I understand and admit that taxing changes behavior in a macro sense. It is the purpose of the carbon tax to change the behavior away from carbon intensive behavior and towards less carbon intensive behavior.
I just wanted to put Willis claim that a carbon tax in BC is such a big sacrifice to the citizens to debate
I have given a few arguments in favor of carbon tax, and I have got some insightful replies that I have enjoyed and learnt from, like the first replies from Willis and the link from Joanna. I have answered to those trying to be clear, honest and polite.”
++++++++++++
You have been polite and I appreciate the language barriers. You’re doing fine.
Please note that your point above does not consider that taxing Carbon directly hurts the poorest people in almost every way possible as Willis documents for you. You seem to think there is some benefit from curbing carbon emissions (CO2). But you do not seem to know that there is zero evidence that CO2 is causing any harm to anything. You’re suggesting curbing CO2 is good and and that belief is certainly causing major harm to poor people.
You owe it to yourself to understand exactly what harm CO2 causes. I cannot think of a single thing that missions of CO2 do to cause harm. Yes, it is clear that fossil fuels make life better for all people. This is not to be confused with pollution, which CO2 is certainly not.
Thank you Mario,
I am very well informed about CO2. I am one of the few who actually reads the IPCC reports, and for an alternative view I think this site is one of the best. My position can be described as lukewarm, I think CO2 is causing harm, but I think it is wildly exaggerated in the media.
But I have learnt that no matter how well informed you are you should always consider the possibility that you may have drawn the wrong conclusions. For my part it would then be that either you are right, that there are no harm, or the “warmists” are right. Perhaps man made CO2 emissions are causing very damaging climate changes, and perhaps the change to a less alkaline sea water is doing massive harm.
If you are right that there are no harm it will be pity that we have used so much resources for curbing it, but it is no catastrophe.
But then consider if the warmists are right. Should we go on as before until more evidence is shown, or would it be better to act now to be on the safe side?
If we go on, and the warmists are right there might be really bad consequences. I prefer to be on the safe side.
Jan Kjetil Andersen says:
July 15, 2013 at 10:05 pm
Yes, and if the warmistas are wrong there might be really bad consequences. We could piss billions more down the climate rathole In fact, right or wrong there are already bad consequences, and the BC energy tax is one of them.
Given that we have no information either way, which way is the “safe side”?
If you truly want to worry about something, you should worry about the ice age we’re living in. We’re temporarily out of it, but when it returns it will be very ugly …
Given a world like that, if you can find the “safe side” I envy you. Unfortunately, for you, the “save side” seems to involve screwing the poor by raising the price of energy …
That sounds eminently safe for you, being as how you’re part of the global 1%, sitting on your lake of Norwegian oil.
But for the poor? Your position is the opposite of safe for them.
w.
Jan you wrote: “If you are right that there are no harm it will be pity that we have used so much resources for curbing it, but it is no catastrophe.
But then consider if the warmists are right. Should we go on as before until more evidence is shown, or would it be better to act now to be on the safe side?”
++++++++
Jan, you really sound like a nice guy who wants to do something useful. Have you ever considered volunteering?
You have fallen into the trap that is “to act prudently”. In other words, act as if one side of the case were correct if that side proposes doom. Then by acting, you avoid doom and everyone’s happy. That is your stance. You say, you’ve done research and you know —that you don’t know —but you know how we should act. Seriously, I can tell you, you don’t know.
But let me address your reasoning in quotes above where you say “…but it is no catastrophe”
Someone here please tell Jan about how many lives have been lost because of more costly energy due to the CAGW initiatives. And – as Willis explained, acting by raising our energy costs as if the warmists were right will cost MORE than any effect claimed even if the IPCC story were 100% accurate. Doing something will cost many time more than doing absolutely nothing. It’s like taking chemotherapy for broken bone.
If you did any research, as you say you have, you’d then know you are on the side of killing poor people in order to make sure that certain people on the green side of the aisle become very wealthy. You have provided ZERO evidence that CO2 is causing any harm by any measurable means. NONE whatsoever, yet you have decided that we must punish society from wealth.
I live a pretty active life, so no time for that. Debating is enough.
This is a good point Mario, and I am aware of it. The challenge is to know whether the cure for the problem is more or less harmful than the problem left alone. Will the initiatives to curb carbon be more harmful to the citizens of the globe than CO2 emissions with no actions taken? It’s no easy answer, but I suggest to take a theoretical analyze on it:
Imagine that we could curb carbon emissions without any cost at all. In scenario A we would have a development with high and increasing carbon emissions and in scenario B we would have the exact same development in the world economy and welfare in all countries and for all people, but with only 50% of the emissions in scenario A.
Do you agree that, in this thought experiment, alternative B is to prefer?
If you do that, as most people do, we come to the question of how much we are willing to pay for the path to scenario B instead of scenario A.
I have no answer to that, but it is worth debating.
Willis, you main argument seems to be pretty similar to Mario’s comment; my answer to Mario applies to you too.
But you also say:
I don’t’ know why you say this, is it a joke or what? Our last real ice age ended approximately 10 k years ago and a new one is probably several millennia away. Do you seriously think we should sit around worrying about it?
Or is it the little ice ages you worry about? We do not know what underlying factors caused it, other than a theory that the Maunder minimum may have been a factor, but we do not what caused the Maunder minimum.
Do you want to start scare mongering about our current weak sunspot cycle or what?
Jan says:
“Or is it the little ice ages you worry about? We do not know what underlying factors caused it, other than a theory that the Maunder minimum may have been a factor, but we do not what caused the Maunder minimum.
Do you want to start scare mongering about our current weak sunspot cycle or what?”
+++++++++
Jan you fail continually to address statements pointed at you. Willis nor I are saying we need to take tax payers’ money, or make energy expensive because of the next ice age. It is your people who want to take tax payers’s money and raise the cost of energy because of something you say we should fear. Your words border on slander…
It’s really difficult being nice to you. You have a way of writing politely. But the words you choose are deceptive and non cogent.
Jan Kjetil Andersen says:
July 16, 2013 at 11:17 pm
Thanks, Jan. You say to Mario:
This is an excellent question. The naive view would be that B is preferable.
However, that assumes that there is some net cost to the carbon emissions. Because you see, the increase in CO2 is already estimated to have greened the planet by several percent. This is a benefit worth billions and billions of dollars to the planet, not to mention helping the environment.
So we know there is already a huge net benefit to raising the CO2 levels. And while there may be a downside to elevated CO2 levels, at present that’s only theory. There is very little evidence that changing the CO2 levels has any effect on global temperatures.
In any case, the downside of CO2 is alleged to only occur in 50 years, while we have the benefits of greening today. So we have real benefits now and for the next fifty years, compared to theoretical damage in fifty years …
Next, the descent into the next ice age is 1) unpredictable, 2) likely inevitable, and 3) overdue by geological standards—the Holocene is the longest of the interglacial periods.
Some people have theorized that the only reason that we haven’t gone into the next ice age is because of the combined warming effects of land clearing and CO2 production … and certainly, if that is the case we’d be huge fools to choose alternative B.
Next, suppose it were to cause warming. I don’t think so, but I have to examine the possibility. We’ve tried this experiment before. The land has warmed ~ 2°C over the last couple centuries. I defy you to find climate refugees, or huge expansions in diseases, or deaths from sea level rise, or any of the predicted disasters. Instead, coming out of the Little Ice Age was good for both humans and all species. So if we do get a couple degrees more warming, I don’t see the problem. Most of the warming is supposed to occur at night, during the winter, in the extratropics. I doubt if the folks sleeping under the freeway overpasses in Maine will complain … so where are the huge disasters from the last couple degrees warming?
Finally, me, I think that the CO2 level doesn’t do a damn thing, because the temperature of the planet is set by the action of the emergent phenomena—cloud albedo, thunderstorms, El Nino/La Nina pump, the PDO, and all of the rest. And in that case, it doesn’t matter in the slightest whether you choose A or B … except for the greening of the planet, which makes you choose A.
So I’d have to go for choice A for four reasons:
1. Guaranteed benefits vs. theoretical dangers
2. Present benefits vs. future dangers
3. Possibility of ice age avoidance
4. Lack of any significant negative effects and numerous positive effects from the last 2° of warming.
So no, Jan, even that question is far from simple. The only good news is, we don’t have that choice. Our choice is to have energy by burning fossil fuels, or to not have energy. We don’t have your magical choice. Sun and wind won’t do it. It’s nuclear or fossil, and for most of the world, that means fossil.
So I’d choose choice A even if I knew for a fact that it would result in warming the globe, since the other choice is not a choice of no CO2—it’s the choice of no energy.
All the best to you,
w.
Thank you Williis, I enjoyed reading this,
You think that carbon emissions do more good than harm and that it is better to continue with high emissions than with reduced emissions. That viewpoint is a bit more in the extreme end of climate skepticism than what I expected, but that does not mean you are wrong. A small group have stood against a massive majority before and been proven to be right in the end, but it does not happen often. More often the majority of scientists have right and the minority shrinks into irrelevance as times go on.
Because there are no doubt that the vast majority in the scientific community, if we defines this as represented by the peer-reviewed literature, regards CO2 emissions as harmful.
One can argue that this scientific community is either brain-dead or perhaps they are so corrupt that they do not allow any climate skeptics to publish their papers. I doubt that. But do think that the polarization in the climate debate where each side paint a picture of their opponents as similarly brain-dead or corrupt is very damaging to the scientific progress in this issue. Many opponents may stay out of the debate because they fear the stigma of being a “denier”. That is why I think it is interesting to hear dissident arguments like yours. Your view is in the extreme end but they seem not to be Illogical, I see no contradictions here.
So to my concrete opposition to your claims:
1. I think it is premature to conclude that the CO2 greening is only a benefit with no negative side effects. I therefore object to the guaranteed benefits claim, the benefits are no more proven than the negative effects.
2. More CO2 leads to less alkaline sea water, this may have damaging effects on the marine biology.
3. Sea level could rise up to 80 cm from 1990 to 2100 and it will continue to rise in the centuries after that. This can cause flooding in the coastal regions.
4. Higher air temperature hold more water which could lead to more extreme rainfalls and damaging flooding.
5. Higher temperature leads to higher evaporation, which could lead to more deserts in dry areas.
6. Higher sea temperatures could lead to more extreme tropical cyclones. We do not know all about cyclone formation but we do know that tropical cyclones grow in intensity when it is situated over sea with temperature above 27 Celsius. If the temperature is below that threshold it decreases. The theory is that when all sea water becomes warmer we may have more tropical cyclones and more extreme tropical cyclones. .
7. About the Ice-age concern I think the CO2 we have emitted to the atmosphere so far is a good buffer. The CO2 level is now 30% higher than before industrialization and it is increasing by 2 ppm annually. A cut to 50% of current emissions is probably not enough to reduce the level in the atmosphere.
Jan Kjetil Andersen says:
July 17, 2013 at 6:43 am
I don’t think that they are either brain-dead or corrupt, although a minority certainly are. Many of them, however, suffer from “noble cause corruption”, and many of the rest suffer from “I’d better keep my mouth shut” corruption.
I discussed up above that the greening is already happening. It’s guaranteed to help the world because it already has been helping it for decades.
The dangers, on the other hand, are only theoretical. Nobody’s come up with evidence that CO2 has killed one person or is costing a dime.
That’s called “Guaranteed benefits vs. theoretical dangers”. We already have the benefits. So that’s guaranteed. You keep warning us of possible future dangers. So that’s theoretical.
Yes, it may … but since in many places the pH of the ocean naturally changes more in a DAY than CO2 is said to cause in a century, again we’re woefully short on evidence.
Despite warming, and despite increasing CO2, there is no evidence of any acceleration in sea level rise. Come back when you have evidence.
Yes, that CO2, it will cause more floods AND more droughts … do you realize how stupid you sound, not to mention how frightened? This is all “mommy, it’s dark outside, I’m scared” stuff. We have NO EVIDENCE for either of those claims, and certainly no evidence that they will both occur.
Are you really that dense? What is it about “look at the historical record” that escapes you? The earth has been warming for centuries. We have NO EVIDENCE of any increase in cyclones from that warming. None.
Sorry, but that last one is incomprehensible.
Jan, are all people in Norway as terrified of the future as you, that it will bring droughts and floods and it’s all going to hell and the sky is falling and we need to do something NOW about the monsters under your bed?
Because that list of inchoate fears is … well … I don’t even know what to call it, but Roald Amundsen must be rolling over in his grave about what angst-ridden wretches his countrymen have become.
WE JUST HAD A 2°C INCREASE IN LAND TEMPERATURES OVER THE LAST TWO CENTURIES AND NOTHING HAPPENED!
So when you start whining and crying about all the terrible dangers from warming, I just have to point and laugh. We just went through 2° warming. Where are the corpses? Where are the drowned cities from sea level rise? Where are the climate refugees?
And where did you put your common sense? You’re predicting a temperature rise much like the one that just happened over the last 200 years … where are the climate tragedies from that rise?
w.
Jan: Let’s not forget that there are reasons for dissenters to the paid climate alarmists message.
Facts:
1) The only evidence that shows CO2 causes warming that we can actually measure, (all before 1998) was in the models. That’s when models could show correlation with increasing temperature. The models’ forcing inputs were CO2 and water vapor.
Once the correlation between increasing CO2 levels and increasing temperatures stopped, the models no longer appears to work. They gave the wrong answers. The models which showed correlation could NOT show a pause in the increase for 5 years, 10 years and now after 15 years the “scientists” admit they do not understand why. They even question the models – which are the only evidence of the bulk of the 0.6C warming.
2) Questioning the warmists’ claims will not get you funding. No one pays to be told there is no problem.
3) No skeptic, regardless of how nice or reasonable they are, is allowed in the peer review IPCC process. If they make it in under the radar, their papers do not get credence.
4) In the entirety of history from all proxies of CO2 and temperature, it is now shown that temperature has always led well before CO2 reacted. CO2 levels levels always rise many years following the increase in temperature. And they decrease many years after the decrees in temperature. ALWAYS.
5) The IPCC’s paid summary for policy makers tells us we must act. If you followed their reports from the 1st through the 4th assessment, you know that they have had to change their predictions lower and lower as their models always were shown to over predict future warming. They no longer say 5C of warming. Remember those days? Again, their models cannot predict a cooling trend, because they do not correctly consider non CO2 based forcings.
6) Satellite data show that the feedback effect of water vapor (which is a necessary component of the IPCC GHG warming theory) has been actually neutral to negative –not positive as was claimed by the IPCC. The IPCC’s models all show water vapor feedback as positive. This is now shown to be false based on all of the best observations.
7) Bob Tisdale has shown something that continues to be valid. ENSO processes store and release energy from the oceans in a way that can not be caused by CO2. The details of Bob’s work are very clear and can show where the heat came from, in quite clear steps changes. Our climate has never followed the CO2 curve shape. It has always goes up in step changes, following ENSO process. The ENSO process can show pretty much all of the temperature changes from the start of the warming trend (which ended 17 years ago). I suggest you read the book from Bob Tisdale. It’s an easy read.
8) Consensus: I am sick of the fabricated claim that consensus means anything. Science is not and never was based on consensus. But even if it were, there is no 97% consensus. That’s already been debunked. So if you use that term again, you should research the history of the deception.
So we know a few things.
1) Models’ assumption are wrong. They are programmed to show warming with CO2 and Water vapor as only varying degrees of positive feedbacks. Never negative!
2) IPCC could only show correlation while warming was happening. Correlation is not the same as causation. And as such, their models cannot predict what has been happening for over 15 years.
3) There is no reason to believe that CO2 is the cause of the warming. It used to be shown as proof that as CO2 up, temperatures were going up. That same argument if it were valid, would still hold true. CO2 is going up equal to their “worst case scenario” and temperatures over the past 17 years have not gone up.
4) We can see where the temperature rises and falls have come from by looking at the ENSO process.
So what does it matter what political scientists say when you owe it to yourself to think about what’s being said and try to seek truth?
Willis: If it does for some reason rise 2C, I doubt it will be due to CO2… at least I doubt it based on evidence thus far… By then hopefully we will have some sanity to stop nonsense that is climate science of today. By then I predict we’ll understand climate well enough to not do stupid things which unnecessarily make life harder to adapt to whatever is in store for us.
Fair enough, I don’t agree but I see your point.
It’s really hard to prove anything and although we see a greening in some areas, we cannot say with certainty that CO2 elevation is the reason. Neither can we say that this is a guaranteed benefit
Can you show me any published peer reviewed article which support that this is a guaranteed benefit?
Remember my premise for this was “ If the warmists are right then…” . I am also a bit skeptical to the claim that the marine biology is so sensitive to Ph changes, but they may be right.
It depends on what timescale you study. Satellite measurements show a remarkably steady rise of 3.2 mm/year, but they only go back to 1992, so what we see is that there is no acceleration for the last 20 years. However, sea level measurements did not start with satellite measurements. Older measurements indicate that the total sea level rise from 1900 to 2000 was approximately 17 cm, i.e. 1,7 mm/year. Since the current rate is 3.2 mm/year that mean an acceleration on this timescale.
The floods and droughts will of course not happen both at the same places and at the same time. I thought that was obvious. But it is a scientific fact that warmer air can carry more water. This means that a warmer climate may lead to higher problems with flooding in the areas exposed to flooding today.
It’s also a fact that warm dry air gives higher evaporation than cold dry air. The warmer it is, the more evaporation if the relative humidity is constant. In places where they have problems with drought this may lead to more severe droughts.
I hope not (chuckling). It is hard to give any exact measure of the global cyclone activity and reliable historical records of this do not go that far back. We do not know whether the current cyclone activity is the same as in the 19 century. However, over the satellite era (since 1979) increases in the intensity of the strongest storms in the Atlantic appear to have happened.
Please forget that I live in Norway. Would you say the same if I lived in Texas? How my God, do all Texans think like that? Of course they don’t and neither do all Norwegians. The debate on global warming is going on all over the world and you can find all kind of opinions here as you also can in Texas and Vancouver. I think this kind if comment is inane.
As I said above, we do not have reliable statistics for the globe going 200 years back. Perhaps there have been more disasters, perhaps not.
These possible dangers I have listed above is not something I have made up, all of this is described in the peer reviewed scientific literature. It should not be flatly rejected. Can you show me any peer reviewed scientific articles which reject the possible dangers above?
I give up, Jan. We just had a couple of degrees warming over the last two centuries. I ask you, where are the corpses and the climate refugees and the cities drowned by sea level rise.
Your reply is “we do not have reliable statistics for the globe going 200 years back. Perhaps there have been more disasters, perhaps not.”
I asked for EVIDENCE, Jan. Corpses. Drowned cities. Disasters that actually occurred, from the warming of the last two centuries.
In response you provide nothing. Instead you say “Can you show me any peer reviewed scientific articles which reject the possible dangers above?”
I give up. I ask for evidence, and your response is to ask me to prove that your inchoate fears are not realistic? Really?
It’s not my job to prove that your fears are unreal, Jan. That’s totally backwards.
It’s your job to prove that your fears are real. You want me to believe your tales of grave future danger, it’s your job to come up with EVIDENCE to convince me.
And since you don’t seem to be able to cite even one thermally induced disaster from two centuries of warming … well, I hope you’ll understand when I say, come back when you have some evidence of damage. I’m tired of discussing your fantasies of disaster. Bring in some corpses, or I’m outta here.
w.
That is not entirely true. We have both the models and the theory
It is a scientific fact that air with elevated CO2 level absorbs more infrared radiation that is easy to measure in a laboratory experiment. The theory says that this increased absorption give a greenhouse effect. Svante Arrhenius described the theory for this already in 1896
You think the scientific community is entirely corrupt. It is an extreme position though.
I agree, but what conclusion can we draw from this?
We are quite certain that the elevated CO2 levels are caused by human emissions. The conclusion we can draw from the time delayed correlation between natural occurring climate variations and CO2 levels is that we may have a positive feedback. If human CO2 emission causes global warming, that warming will lead to an additional, but time delayed, increase in CO2 from natural sources which will drive the temperature further up.
I think it is good and natural that they change their predictions as new evidence come up.
Best guess estimate have never been 5C, but the uncertainty range has been smaller.
Can you show to any scientific reports supporting that?
All the best /jan
Willis
A concern can be justified in at least two different ways. Fist it is the theoretical study which tells you something like:
Based on the physical properties of these elements we can foresee that if we do A it will lead to B, .
Then there are the observations which says something like:
Based on what we have observed we see a clear correlation between A and B. This may mean that A causes B.
If both theory and observations tell the same thing we have quite strong case, and if theory and observations show opposite results we have very weak case. The theory can be wrong or it could be counteracted by unknown factors.
However in some cases we only have a theory and no reliable observations, and that does not mean that concern is disproven by the lacking observations.
I have never claimed that cities have drowned; I have made a list of five concerns which is justified in the scientific literature. All those are either supported by theory or by observation or both.
The first, less alkaline sea water is justified both by observations and by theory. The evidence is solid, but the objections are that the change is so small that it is probably negligible, but we do not know.
The second, sea levels could rise to a destructive level, is supported by the observations that the rise has accelerated from approximately 1.7 mm/ year to 3.2 mm/year in one century.
The third, higher temperatures could lead to higher flooding, is supported by theory and not disproven by observations.
Similarly the fourth that higher temperatures lead to higher evaporation and drought is supported by theory and not disproven by observations
The fifth that higher sea temperatures could lead to more extreme tropical cyclones is supported by the well-established observation that tropical cyclones only grow when the sea temperature is above 27 Celsius, and is partially supported by observations that the Atlantic storms have increased in intensity since 1979
This is the evidence I have for now. Remember my premise for the discussion was “consider If the warmists are right”. I am not claiming that this is doom and gloom, but it should definitely be regarded as real concerns.
Jan:
You have backed yourself into a hole. You wrote and continue to write philosophical statements because you have nothing concrete. You wrote: “However in some cases we only have a theory and no reliable observations, and that does not mean that concern is disproven by the lacking observations.”
++++++++++++++++++++
This is pure nonsense Jan. Do not say “No reliable observations” The observations that we have were created by people who were hoping for continued warmth, but found none. I think we can reliably say that observations reliably rule out NO WARMTH. The observations belie the claims of warmists. People who want to act, want to do so saying that there is concrete undeniable proof of CAGW. The people who believe in CAGW, could not produce proof no matter how much they have tried. Rather, they have proven that there is no valid reason to believe in CAGW… yet, they want to act just in case they find a valid reason.
I have an idea Jan. Since you KNOW most people believe in CAGW. Why don’t we have a voluntary system in place where people who BELIEVE in CAGW, can pay for it with THEIR money. They can keep their solar panels and wind mills and not allow us deniers to use the green energy.
Jan: Perhaps you don’t have comprehension of reading. It is rare that a question can actually be wrong, but you succeed over and over again in posing questions to things not stated. You are so far off in the weeds, that you often cannot form cogent questions. I believe now that this is intentional.
First: A theory is not evidence of warming, just as a theory does not make someone a witch.
I never said the “science community is corrupt.” I made a cogent point about one aspect of the IPCC peer review process, and from that you create words and meaning out of thin air. It is quite offensive when people are trying politely to engage you and you produce drivel in response.
I find you quite offensive, and will refrain from further responding to your incorrect questions.
PS – there is plenty of scientific evidence from satellite data supporting the following:
6) Satellite data show that the feedback effect of water vapor (which is a necessary component of the IPCC GHG warming theory) has been actually neutral to negative –not positive as was claimed by the IPCC. The IPCC’s models all show water vapor feedback as positive. This is now shown to be false based on all of the best observations.
I will not do the work for the person who posed the question. But will offer that they start with Richard Lindzen, Roy Spencer.
With all due respect Mario, this is nonsense. Take a look at the different temperature records at
http://woodfortrees.org
Take a look at HADSST for global sea temperature, the GISTEMP or HADCRUT global mean, or any other of you choice.
You may also choose the BEST, which is the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature record which was created as a response to criticism of the current records. This open database should address your concern that The observations that we have were created by people who were hoping for continued warmth . To see a clear trend you need to smooth the data by for instance taking the mean of 13 samples.
The records go back to the 19th century. You see an increase don’t you?
You can for instance see that all years after 2000 were warmer than any year before 1990. Do that rule out any warmth?
A much debated fact we also see in the records is that the temperature increase seems to have stopped around 2000 and have since stayed on that high level without any further increase. Nobody know for sure why the increase has stopped and nobody know whether it will stay on that high level, or start rising or falling.
However, any conclusions on climate change cannot be based on the less than two decades of observations of steady state; one has to take at least a 50-years perspective. What we do know from these observations is that we live in a period with very high global temperatures compared to what we saw before 1990.
I am truly sorry if was mistaken there Mario. I hope you accept my apology
But what you said was:
I think the cause of this calamity is that you may have misunderstood the funding and peer review process.
IPPC does not fund any climate research. The climate research is funded by more or less the same sources as other scientific research such as universities, research institutions and governments.
The same with peer review. There is no such thing as the IPCC peer review process IPCC does not perform any peer reviews, they only set as a requirement that papers has to be peer reviewed in the scientific community before they are considered by IPPC .
I misunderstood your claim to mean that you thought that all scientific funding and peer review process was more or less corrupt.
Jan I prefer that you refrain from interpreting and misinterpreting my written words.
Mario, from what you say I take that you are deeply offended and that the debate is over.
I just want to say that it was not my intention to offend you.
I have followed a generally accepted rule of good discussion ethic all the way; to respond to how I understand what you say and never question your motives or qualifications.
That’s the best I can do.
All the best to you,
Jan
Jan: You change people’s words, and then pose rhetorical questions based on those changed words. People reading your posts might get the impression that I have said things that I have NOT said.
Like I said earlier, you seem like a polite guy. But I am offended by how you change people’s words in a debate. A conversation with you is in fact a train wreck with no redeeming value. You’ve offered zero value in this discussion.