Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?

[Hoss]

Could probably give you statistics that go either way. But again, this is a trend with people that adhere to AGW. Attack the messenger, not the message. Way to stay above the fray though.

No sense of humor... 

[erfalf]

No sense of humor... 

Heck I usually wouldn't care, and would think it would be funny. But having heard similar comments so many times, the comedic effect has somewhat worn off. Don't take it personal though. I apologize if I came off a bit abrasive on that last post.

[Hoss]

Heck I usually wouldn't care, and would think it would be funny. But having heard similar comments so many times, the comedic effect has somewhat worn off. Don't take it personal though. I apologize if I came off a bit abrasive on that last post.

If you can't laugh at what other people say and take it too serious, it's time to drink a Marshall...

[nathanm]

I still think it is a far more useful benchmark than per capita. I mean just think of the variations in living conditions and productivity all over the world.

All things/decisions have a cost. Industrialization costs us polution. But what did it give the world? Just my opinion, but I think the benefits far out weigh the costs on this one.

It may be helpful towards the end of understanding why we have such large GHG emissions, but it doesn't speak to the fairness of it or whether we ought to get that large a share.

Furthermore, industrialization did cost us environmental damage. It need not continue to do so. We have the technology at hand to make a wholesale switch to renewables and nuclear plants, but we choose not to despite the obvious economic, public health, and energy security benefits involved.

We got extremely lucky in that the current solar cycle is relatively weak. Rather than capitalize on the opportunity that fell into our laps, a certain school of thought has decided that the slowing warming trend shows that we needn't do anything. As I've said before, it doesn't make a whit of difference to me whether the warming is caused by us or by natural processes. The effects are just as disruptive either way, so we should at least make an attempt to avoid the consequences.

[Red Arrow]

I have a higher estimation of aliens that what we have done to the planet would suggest.

That's nice but we may be nothing more than a species that goes from planet to planet trashing each one as we go.  We get to a new planet, none of the kids keep the technology alive, wanting to save the planet and live a sustainable lifestyle. Over thousands of years we re-evolve to what we are now becoming.  We gain the technology to move on and start all over again.

[erfalf]

If you can't laugh at what other people say and take it too serious, it's time to drink a Marshall...

+6

[erfalf]

It may be helpful towards the end of understanding why we have such large GHG emissions, but it doesn't speak to the fairness of it or whether we ought to get that large a share.

Furthermore, industrialization did cost us environmental damage. It need not continue to do so. We have the technology at hand to make a wholesale switch to renewables and nuclear plants, but we choose not to despite the obvious economic, public health, and energy security benefits involved.

We got extremely lucky in that the current solar cycle is relatively weak. Rather than capitalize on the opportunity that fell into our laps, a certain school of thought has decided that the slowing warming trend shows that we needn't do anything. As I've said before, it doesn't make a whit of difference to me whether the warming is caused by us or by natural processes. The effects are just as disruptive either way, so we should at least make an attempt to avoid the consequences.

I don't necessarily think we shouldn't do anything, I just don't think there is really anything we can do. Big difference.

I saw an interview with Dr. Roy Spencer, who is apparently the temperature gatherer for NASA & the Dept. of Energy using satellites. So I assume that means he is taking atmospheric temperature readings, which I think is more accurate than ground level readings. He made the statement that by shutting down half the economy in order to reduce CO2 output, it would only forestall the warming by a hundredth to several hundredths C per decade of warming. According to him that is within the "noise level". So basically, shutting down half the U.S. economy (U.S. only) would produce an un-measurable reductions in temperature increases.

He also said that warming really has stopped for about the last decade. This from the guy that is actually taking the measurements. This is often a fact that is claimed to be false, but if you can't believe this guy, who can you believe?

[nathanm]

I don't necessarily think we shouldn't do anything, I just don't think there is really anything we can do. Big difference.
...
He also said that warming really has stopped for about the last decade.

It is true that warming has slowed significantly in the last several years. This is due to lower solar insolation due to the unusually long solar minimum we're just now coming out of. The sun's output varies by a fairly decent amount, but we obviously can't expect to have all future solar cycles be as inactive as the one we're in now has been.

And yes, it is true that the US can't, by itself, solve the problem even by flipping the big red button and shutting everything down. That's why global cooperation is necessary and was recruited. In any event, shutting off avenues of endeavor is not the way to go about combating climate change. Shifting to more carbon-neutral forms of energy, carbon sequestration, and efficiency improvements can do the trick quite nicely. Even slowing the rate of change makes it much easier to manage.

[Red Arrow]

Since when has technological innovation been a bad thing for the economy? And, uh, yes, the GHG reduction targets are different for each country, as they should be. We weren't all spewing the same amount of GHGs in 1997, nor do we now. It would make no sense to have African countries commit to reductions in GHG emissions when they're emitting far less than their fair share to begin with. I believe in their case, it's a "don't increase your GHG emissions beyond x."

Of course a country with most of their citizens living in grass or mud huts, without electricity and running water will emit less GHG per capita than a developed country.  That should not give them permission to build a dirty coal burning electric plant for their citizens that live in the city.  It's a Global problem, right?  All that's been done is move the dirty plant from one location to another.  I notice China is colored green on your chart.  Does that excuse the air in Beijing?  Maybe the answer to our per capita pollution problem is to over populate the country.  Maybe Rick Santorum is on to the pollution solution. 

Moreover, it's not even as if the developed countries have to shut down more polluting industries or anything like that. They have the option of buying credits from countries that are meeting the standard with room to spare ...

Buying permission to pollute.  That sure goes a long way toward  reducing pollution.  Maybe that money should be required to be used in that country to even further reduce their GHG emissions.  Help them clean up what they already have.   What's presently to stop them from building a local super polluter just because they are for the most part a subsistence society?  The ability to purchase credits is part of my economic complaint.  Make it more expensive for developed countries to produce but allow developing countries to be like late 19th and early 20th century US and Europe.  Great plan.

[Red Arrow]

I saw an interview with Dr. Roy Spencer, who is apparently the temperature gatherer for NASA & the Dept. of Energy using satellites. So I assume that means he is taking atmospheric temperature readings, which I think is more accurate than ground level readings. He made the statement that by shutting down half the economy in order to reduce CO2 output, it would only forestall the warming by a hundredth to several hundredths C per decade of warming. According to him that is within the "noise level". So basically, shutting down half the U.S. economy (U.S. only) would produce an un-measurable reductions in temperature increases.

He also said that warming really has stopped for about the last decade. This from the guy that is actually taking the measurements. This is often a fact that is claimed to be false, but if you can't believe this guy, who can you believe?

I hope Dr. Spencer has kept his resume up to date.  He's going to need it but it probably won't help him much.

[nathanm]

Buying permission to pollute.  That sure goes a long way toward  reducing pollution.

You misunderstand. The credits come from entities that are below their emissions target. This produces an extra incentive to increase efficiency.

If I run a 1960s vintage coal power plant that emits too much carbon, I have a couple of options to get in compliance. I can either install more efficient boilers and turbines to extract more energy so I can burn less coal for the same output, or I can call up Fred down the road who already did that plus some and reduced his emissions far enough below the cap that he has some left over to sell to me, or I can do some from column a and some from column b and maybe start selling more power.

You're completely right that it does not matter where in the world the GHGs are emitted, and that's precisely why an emissions trading scheme works. Those who choose to emit less get paid by those who choose to emit more. Presto, instant incentive to pollute less.

[Red Arrow]

And yes, it is true that the US can't, by itself, solve the problem even by flipping the big red button and shutting everything down. That's why global cooperation is necessary and was recruited.

Since you appear to have the time to do a LOT of research, your task for this week is to find out how much energy use reduction around the world would be required to stop global warming/ climate change/ climate disruption....  It may be easier to find how much energy use would be permitted around the world to prevent Global warming/climate change/climate disruption and then how to parcel it out equitably.   You will be graded and your reputation will depend on it.  The rest of us ignorant Fox watchers are depending on you for the absolute and unbiased truth.

[nathanm]

Since you appear to have the time to do a LOT of research, your task for this week is to find out how much energy use reduction around the world would be required to stop global warming/ climate change/ climate disruption....

I needn't take a minute. You asked a trick question, but the answer is zero. We need not reduce our energy use one iota.

[Red Arrow]

You misunderstand. The credits come from entities that are below their emissions target. This produces an extra incentive to increase efficiency.

If I run a 1960s vintage coal power plant that emits too much carbon, I have a couple of options to get in compliance. I can either install more efficient boilers and turbines to extract more energy so I can burn less coal for the same output, or I can call up Fred down the road who already did that plus some and reduced his emissions far enough below the cap that he has some left over to sell to me, or I can do some from column a and some from column b and maybe start selling more power.

You're completely right that it does not matter where in the world the GHGs are emitted, and that's precisely why an emissions trading scheme works. Those who choose to emit less get paid by those who choose to emit more. Presto, instant incentive to pollute less.

I disagree that "that's precisely why an emissions trading scheme works".  If Fred down the road reduces his pollution below the target, he is going to save that excess for when the target is lowered again if he is smart.  If an entity doesn't use enough energy to to meet their cap, how does selling their excess allowance help stop global climate issues?  It doesn't, it just transfers money. What you see as a solution, I see as an allowance for everyone around the world to pollute the maximum allowed by law whether it be in person or by proxy.

[Red Arrow]

I needn't take a minute. You asked a trick question, but the answer is zero. We need not reduce our energy use one iota.

It's not a trick question.  The answer is obviously NOT ZERO or there would be no issues, unless Jim Inhofe is correct.