Climate Change skeptics? [ot]

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
Messages 25101 - 25120 of total 26664 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Dr. F.

Trad climber
SoCal
Jun 4, 2014 - 02:03pm PT
Funny thing, as usual the cost to cut back on carbon has been Way over Blown by the Special interest groups.


Cutting Back on Carbon

MAY 29, 2014
Paul Krugman

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/30/opinion/krugman-cutting-back-on-carbon.html?_r=0


The Environmental Protection Agency is expected to announce new rules designed to limit global warming. Although we don’t know the details yet, anti-environmental groups are already predicting vast costs and economic doom. Don’t believe them. Everything we know suggests that we can achieve large reductions in greenhouse gas emissions at little cost to the economy.

Just ask the United States Chamber of Commerce.

O.K., that’s not the message the Chamber of Commerce was trying to deliver in the report it put out Wednesday. It clearly meant to convey the impression that the E.P.A.’s new rules would wreak havoc. But if you focus on the report’s content rather than its rhetoric, you discover that despite the chamber’s best efforts to spin things — as I’ll explain later, the report almost surely overstates the real cost of climate protection — the numbers are remarkably small.

Specifically, the report considers a carbon-reduction program that’s probably considerably more ambitious than we’re actually going to see, and it concludes that between now and 2030 the program would cost $50.2 billion in constant dollars per year. That’s supposed to sound like a big deal. Instead, if you know anything about the U.S. economy, it sounds like Dr. Evil intoning “one million dollars.” These days, it’s just not a lot of money.

Remember, we have a $17 trillion economy right now, and it’s going to grow over time. So what the Chamber of Commerce is actually saying is that we can take dramatic steps on climate — steps that would transform international negotiations, setting the stage for global action — while reducing our incomes by only one-fifth of 1 percent. That’s cheap!
Alternatively, consider the chamber’s estimate of costs per household: $200 per year. Since the average American household has an income of more than $70,000 a year, and that’s going to rise over time, we’re again looking at costs that amount to no more than a small fraction of 1 percent.
One more useful comparison: The Pentagon has warned that global warming and its consequences pose a significant threat to national security. (Republicans in the House responded with a legislative amendment that would forbid the military from even thinking about the issue.) Currently, we’re spending $600 billion a year on defense. Is it really extravagant to spend another 8 percent of that budget to reduce a serious threat?

And all of this is based on anti-environmentalists’ own numbers. The real costs would almost surely be smaller, for three reasons.

First, the Chamber of Commerce study assumes that economic growth, and the associated growth in emissions, will be at its historic norm of 2.5 percent a year. But we should expect slower growth in the future as baby boomers retire, making emissions targets easier to hit.

Second, in the chamber’s analysis, the bulk of the reduction in emissions comes from replacing coal with natural gas. This neglects the dramatic technological progress taking place in renewables, especially solar power, which should make cutting back on carbon even easier.

Third, the U.S. economy is still depressed — and in a depressed economy many of the supposed costs of compliance with energy regulations aren’t costs at all. In particular, building new, low-emission power plants would employ both workers and capital that would otherwise be sitting idle, and would, if anything, give the U.S. economy a boost.

You might ask why the Chamber of Commerce is so fiercely opposed to action against global warming, if the cost of action is so small. The answer, of course, is that the chamber is serving special interests, notably the coal industry — what’s good for America isn’t good for the Koch brothers, and vice versa — and also catering to the ever more powerful anti-science sentiments of the Republican Party.

Finally, let me take on the anti-environmentalists’ last line of defense — the claim that whatever we do won’t matter, because other countries, China in particular, will just keep on burning ever more coal. This gets things exactly wrong. Yes, we need an international agreement to reduce emissions, including sanctions on countries that don’t sign on. But U.S. unwillingness to act has been the biggest obstacle to such an agreement. If we start taking serious steps against global warming, the stage will be set for Europe and Japan to follow suit, and for concerted pressure on the rest of the world as well.

Now, we haven’t yet seen the details of the new climate action proposal, and a full analysis — both economic and environmental — will have to wait. We can be reasonably sure, however, that the economic costs of the proposal will be small, because that’s what the research — even research paid for by anti-environmentalists, who clearly wanted to find the opposite — tells us. Saving the planet would be remarkably cheap.
barry ohm

Trad climber
escondido, ca
Jun 4, 2014 - 02:12pm PT
Didn't go to college but think I remember that Air changes temperature at a Higher rate than water, So if the Ocean warms even by a small temperature than that can have a big effect on the weather as the Ocean is a big part of the formation of weather?
Its a crazy argument, for example there was a plan to lower the sulfur emissions at the cheveron refinery in rodeo ca. The deal made with cheveron to invest a couple billion dollars in the refinery to lower emissions was that Chveron would be able to expand and increase production, That was opposed by lawsuits by the enivromental community and shut down. Unless we can stop people from driving there has to be some sort of Petroleum production in the USA.
Sketch

Trad climber
H-ville
Jun 4, 2014 - 02:13pm PT
Good post, Barry.

Mono - You claimed my graph was incorrect. How so? All you said was "Already explained Sketch. Focus on the word GLOBAL."

Isn't RSS a global measurement? Is global surface temperature no longer relevant? If so, when did this happen?

When did deep ocean temps become the dominant metric, as you seem to be implying?

Do you have data for the combined temperature/warming for ocean content and surface temperature?

If there isn't combined data, you gotta wonder if all the deep ocean talk is just a distraction from the fact that RSS shows no warming for the last 17 years and 9 months. LOL.

Come on, Mono. Let's see if you can compose something more than one-liners.
monolith

climber
SF bay area
Jun 4, 2014 - 02:18pm PT
Focus on Lord Monkton's claim in the graph, Sketch.

No global warming for 17 years, 9 months

He didn't claim 'no lower troposphere warming in 17 years, 9 months'

Don't you think the claim made in a graph is important to consider?

Since the oceans absorb 90%+ of global warming, they are a much better indicator of global warming.






Sketch

Trad climber
H-ville
Jun 4, 2014 - 02:23pm PT



k-man

Gym climber
SCruz

Topic Author's Reply - Jun 4, 2014 - 02:06pm PT
You left out the next sentence: "If I'm wrong, please re-post my opinions."


And you, without shame, left out my next sentence where I posted a link to where I quoted your opinion.


I'm not your secretary Sketch. If you can't find your own opinions, you don't deserve to have them.

I posted the entire content of your post. Look again, dumbass.

More to the point, my preceding post gave numerous examples of where you made up crap. As I expected, you ignored them, instead boasting about quoting my opinion, which I posted after the fact. An opinion I gave to you, two weeks after you threatened to post my opinions... but couldn't.
Sketch

Trad climber
H-ville
Jun 4, 2014 - 02:27pm PT
Since the oceans represent 90%+ of global warming, they are a much better indicator of global warming.

Who says so?

Was it in the latest IPCC report? Have the IPCC reports been saying this all along?

Any major climate organizations?

Or are we just talking about a few researchers?
monolith

climber
SF bay area
Jun 4, 2014 - 02:30pm PT
wow!

The IPCC has always mentioned rising ocean temps in it reports.

Are you disputing this?

Are you claiming that the mass of the oceans is absorbing much less then 90% of warming?

Are you disputing that the mass of the oceans is negligible compared to the mass of the atmosphere?
monolith

climber
SF bay area
Jun 4, 2014 - 02:38pm PT
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming

Global warming is the unequivocal and continuing rise in the average temperature of Earth's climate system.[2] Since 1971, 90% of the warming has occurred in the oceans.[3].
Sketch

Trad climber
H-ville
Jun 4, 2014 - 02:39pm PT
And then there's this:



It sure does look different than your chart.
monolith

climber
SF bay area
Jun 4, 2014 - 02:40pm PT
"Ocean warming dominates the increase in energy stored in the climate system, accounting for more than 90% of the energy accumulated between 1971 and 2010." p.6,IPCC, Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis - Summary for Policymakers, Observed Changes in the Climate System, p. 6, in IPCC AR5 WG1 2013."

Yes, Sketch, the IPCC claims the ocean absorbs more than 90% of global warming.

Even your graph of 0-700m shows quite a bit of warming in the last 17 years, 9 months.
barry ohm

Trad climber
escondido, ca
Jun 4, 2014 - 02:45pm PT
So most of our oxygen comes from photosytnethis from Plankton in the ocean, If the balance of nature gets out of whack and plankton is killed by temperature or bacteria then we have less oxygen? Help me here , I know there is some really smart educated people on Supertopo!
Sketch

Trad climber
H-ville
Jun 4, 2014 - 02:46pm PT
monolith

climber
SF bay area

Jun 4, 2014 - 02:30pm PT
wow!

The IPCC has always mentioned rising ocean temps in it reports.

Are you disputing this?

Are you claiming that the mass of the oceans is absorbing much less then 90% of warming?

Are you disputing that the mass of the oceans is negligible compared to the mass of the atmosphere?

Mentioning it isn't the same as claiming it's a much better indicator of global warming.

Nope.

Nope

Not sure about the last one. I think you meant the opposite of what you wrote.
Sketch

Trad climber
H-ville
Jun 4, 2014 - 02:47pm PT



monolith

climber
SF bay area

Jun 4, 2014 - 02:38pm PT
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming

Global warming is the unequivocal and continuing rise in the average temperature of Earth's climate system.[2] Since 1971, 90% of the warming has occurred in the oceans.[3].

Wikipedia is your authority?

Really?
monolith

climber
SF bay area
Jun 4, 2014 - 02:48pm PT
Wikipedia supports that claim with a reference from IPCC AR5.

Here is the reference again:

"Ocean warming dominates the increase in energy stored in the climate system, accounting for more than 90% of the energy accumulated between 1971 and 2010." p.6,IPCC, Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis - Summary for Policymakers, Observed Changes in the Climate System, p. 6, in IPCC AR5 WG1 2013."
The Chief

climber
Laughing at all the Sheep from atop the Hill
Jun 4, 2014 - 02:50pm PT
90% of the warming has occurred in the oceans.


ENSO... a NATURAL phenomena that in fact is the biggest driver of that ocean warming.



ENSO conditions have occurred at two- to seven-year intervals for at least the past 300 years, but most of them have been weak. Evidence is also strong for El Niño events during the early Holocene epoch 10,000 years ago.[84].

El Niño affected pre-Columbian Incas [85] and may have led to the demise of the Moche and other pre-Columbian Peruvian cultures.[86] A recent study suggests a strong El-Niño effect between 1789 and 1793 caused poor crop yields in Europe, which in turn helped touch off the French Revolution.[87] The extreme weather produced by El Niño in 1876–77 gave rise to the most deadly famines of the 19th century.[88] The 1876 famine alone in northern China killed up to 13 million people.[89]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Ni%C3%B1o
Sketch

Trad climber
H-ville
Jun 4, 2014 - 02:51pm PT
monolith

climber
SF bay area

Jun 4, 2014 - 02:40pm PT
"Ocean warming dominates the increase in energy stored in the climate system, accounting for more than 90% of the energy accumulated between 1971 and 2010." p.6,IPCC, Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis - Summary for Policymakers, Observed Changes in the Climate System, p. 6, in IPCC AR5 WG1 2013."

Yes, Sketch, the IPCC claims the ocean absorbs more than 90% of global warming.

By 2013, "blame it on the oceans" was all the rage. How about previous reports?

Even your graph of 0-700m shows quite a bit of warming in the last 17 years, 9 months.

How about the last 10 years? Looks pretty flat, to me.
Chiloe

Trad climber
Lee, NH
Jun 4, 2014 - 03:19pm PT
I posted these a month back, but since the topic seems to have come 'round again ... here are alternative renderings of the NOAA ocean heat content time series, updated through March of this year.





There's been a fair amount of discussion on this thread, connecting with the ongoing scientific research, it's a hot topic. I guess we could re-cite the science again too, for fake skeptics to once more not grasp or read.
Sketch

Trad climber
H-ville
Jun 4, 2014 - 05:00pm PT
Mono - Again, how about previous (IPCC) reports?

Chiloe - Your 0-2000 meter chart goes back to the 50s. What's the coverage for the deep ocean measurements prior to ARGO? Please answer in layman's terms.
Sketch

Trad climber
H-ville
Jun 4, 2014 - 05:06pm PT
The average temperature of the global oceans to depths of 2000 meters warmed 0.09 deg C (or 0.16 deg F) from 1955 to 2010.
The Chief

climber
Laughing at all the Sheep from atop the Hill
Jun 4, 2014 - 05:19pm PT
Should be able to start hard boiling eggs in a couple of months at that rate Sketch.
Messages 25101 - 25120 of total 26664 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
 
Our Guidebooks
Check 'em out!
SuperTopo Guidebooks


Try a free sample topo!

 
SuperTopo on the Web

Review Categories
Recent Trip Report and Articles
Recent Route Beta
Recent Gear Reviews