Jim Hansen on the standstill

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

Originally Posted by GatorRade

Well now we are into a totally separate question: what is the solution? Like you, I think many are likely to overestimate the costs. Perhaps we decide not to mitigate any of the changes, but this doesn't mean that the changes didn't exist.

However, I do think what an issue that you are ignoring is long-term vs. short-term interests. Even if you are only interested in human economics (and have no regard for the natural world), but most economists agree that climate change will be quite costly from an economic perspective. Today we can pass these costs onto the future, but the bill will come due, so we are just transferring the wealth (which I know you are against). In addition, we are perhaps already transferring wealth from the carbon consumers, like China and the US, to those countries that will experience the the most negative impacts, such as the Maldives.

Maybe I am wrong, but hasn't the dramatic switch from coal fired plants to natural gas plants basically dropped the CO2 output in the US down to what the US agreed to do in Kyoto. If so, it seems we already well down the road to "what is the solution." Even on a long term basis.

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

Originally Posted by mdgator05

Interesting. So you are 100% sure that millions are going to suffer and die if we limit CO2 emissions. Can you walk me through the evidence that makes you 100% sure of that?

No, not absolutely sure. But just as sure as you, (and everyone else) are if AGW actually exists.

BTW, the effort to conflate views on AGW with abortion is not particularly impressive. The two are entirely different issues.

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

Originally Posted by Burke

Right now Hansen is admitting that our current standstill is a product of natural variation.

A standstill that he did not predict.

With the same theories that he is using to predict much warming later, as far as I can see.

Even Judith Curry seems to think he's an idiot.

Yep. And Judith Curry was at one time a pretty avid supporter of AGW. Until she started looking at the science behind it. Now she seems to be an open minded skeptic.

[mdgator05]

Originally Posted by MichaelJoeWilliamson

No, not absolutely sure. But just as sure as you, (and everyone else) are if AGW actually exists.

BTW, the effort to conflate views on AGW with abortion is not particularly impressive. The two are entirely different issues.

That is interesting because you said bad things *might* happen if you were wrong but that millions would die if you weren't. Usually, if you use "might" with one, it is a sign of being unsure while contrasting it with the word "will."

I am simply pointing out that your beliefs are highly incompatible and that they seem to be based more on maintaining conservative orthodoxy rather than any actual consideration of either issue. Because if the potential for negative consequences is such a big deal for you, then you would notice it for both issues. But for you, you are very dismissive of future implications and the possibility of the fact that you are wrong on one issue while being paralyzed by the idea of being wrong and the potential future consequences on the other issue. And the only thing in common is that both thought processes allow you to stick to conservative orthodoxy.

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

Originally Posted by mdgator05

I am simply pointing out that your beliefs are highly incompatible and that they seem to be based more on maintaining conservative orthodoxy rather than any actual consideration of either issue. Because if the potential for negative consequences is such a big deal for you, then you would notice it for both issues. But for you, you are very dismissive of future implications and the possibility of the fact that you are wrong on one issue while being paralyzed by the idea of being wrong and the potential future consequences on the other issue. And the only thing in common is that both thought processes allow you to stick to conservative orthodoxy.

Sorry, but this is a poor attempt in logic.

Global Climate change is a very, very complex scientific issue. It has almost nothing to do with the debate about human rights. Human rights issues are usually clearer and lend themself to binary discussions.

As far as AGW goes, I am not dismissive about what *might* happen one way or the other. I am and remain an open minded skeptic about what impact man made CO2 releases might have on Global Climate.

It is entirely possible that we are having an impact on global climates. But until we understand the natural causes of climate change, it is a bit pointless to demand a remedy for a problem that might not exist.

[Matthanuf06]

Originally Posted by Dreamliner

Or, let's just go ahead and consider, for the sake of argument, that global temperatures are rising of late ? What it a slightly warmer earth is a net-gain ? Do we still get to run around like frightened women ?

This is the big question

[mdgator05]

Originally Posted by MichaelJoeWilliamson

Sorry, but this is a poor attempt in logic.

Global Climate change is a very, very complex scientific issue. It has almost nothing to do with the debate about human rights. Human rights issues are usually clearer and lend themself to binary discussions.

As far as AGW goes, I am not dismissive about what *might* happen one way or the other. I am and remain an open minded skeptic about what impact man made CO2 releases might have on Global Climate.

It is entirely possible that we are having an impact on global climates. But until we understand the natural causes of climate change, it is a bit pointless to demand a remedy for a problem that might not exist.

But it isn't pointless to demand a remedy for a problem that might not exist for one issue because of what might be the consequences of that decision.

So a potentially catastrophic mistake can be made on one issue, which means we need to prevent the catastrophic mistake. However, if a catastrophic mistake could be made on another issue, then we should simply wait and see until we understand the issue better.

It is logically inconsistent and the only way to correct for the logical inconsistency is to explain it by pointing out that both reactions perfectly align with conservative orthodoxy.

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

Originally Posted by mdgator05

But it isn't pointless to demand a remedy for a problem that might not exist for one issue because of what might be the consequences of that decision.

So a potentially catastrophic mistake can be made on one issue, which means we need to prevent the catastrophic mistake. However, if a catastrophic mistake could be made on another issue, then we should simply wait and see until we understand the issue better.

It is logically inconsistent and the only way to correct for the logical inconsistency is to explain it by pointing out that both reactions perfectly align with conservative orthodoxy.

There is more stretch in this post than is found in a pair of Rosanne Barr's leotards.

If you want to debate the pros and cons of AGW, by all means, let's do so. But I have said all I am going to say about your attempt to steer the conversation to another direction.

[mdgator05]

Originally Posted by MichaelJoeWilliamson

There is more stretch in this post than is found in a pair of Rosanne Barr's leotards.

If you want to debate the pros and cons of AGW, by all means, let's do so. But I have said all I am going to say about your attempt to steer the conversation to another direction.

That is a common reaction to wanting to avoid the logical inconsistency. Refuse to acknowledge it, try to be funny, and then run away from it. However, it is certainly a disappointing reaction to being confronted with a logical inconsistency that you are displaying.

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

Oh dear. mdgator got his feelings hurt.

[mdgator05]

Originally Posted by MichaelJoeWilliamson

Oh dear. mdgator got his feelings hurt.

Nope. My feelings aren't tied into your issues. Just disappointing to see such a lack of introspection from somebody that should be capable of it.

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

Originally Posted by mdgator05

Nope. My feelings aren't tied into your issues. Just disappointing to see such a lack of introspection from somebody that should be capable of it.

I am sorry you are disappointed in me. I am, however, not too disappointed in you. I find that people tend to behave the way you are behaving fairly common, regardless of ideological persuasion, for a number a reasons.

Usually it means one is entrenched into a particular, (usually failed), point of view and will argue endlessly to try and bolster support for it. Or perhaps the person as just been shown a logical inconsistency in a particular point of view and is trying to make up for that in a different way on a different subject. (The crude way of saying this is that they are butt-hurt. See FSU fans circa 2012.)

In whichever school you reside, our discussion about conflating the abortion question with a discussion of AGW is over. At least by me.

[mdgator05]

Originally Posted by MichaelJoeWilliamson

I am sorry you are disappointed in me. I am, however, not too disappointed in you. I find that people tend to behave the way you are behaving fairly common, regardless of ideological persuasion, for a number a reasons.

Usually it means one is entrenched into a particular, (usually failed), point of view and will argue endlessly to try and bolster support for it. Or perhaps the person as just been shown a logical inconsistency in a particular point of view and is trying to make up for that in a different way on a different subject. (The crude way of saying this is that they are butt-hurt. See FSU fans circa 2012.)

In whichever school you reside, our discussion about conflating the abortion question with a discussion of AGW is over. At least by me.

Are you in such deep denial that you don't even realize your logical inconsistency?

BTW, you have not shown a single logical inconsistency from me, so stop trying to turn this around. That is what happens when somebody refuses introspection out of fear. Why are you so afraid of examining your own thought process on these issues?

[GatorRade]

Originally Posted by MichaelJoeWilliamson

Maybe I am wrong, but hasn't the dramatic switch from coal fired plants to natural gas plants basically dropped the CO2 output in the US down to what the US agreed to do in Kyoto. If so, it seems we already well down the road to "what is the solution." Even on a long term basis.

Oh I am not blaming us, but Kyoto levels or not, the US' carbon footprint is enormous. Due to several historical idiosyncrasies, we will always be giant energy consumers.

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

Originally Posted by GatorRade

.... we will always be giant energy consumers.

No question. Humans in general will consume ever larger amount of energy, for the simple reason is that fuels economic growth.

[wygator]

What I would like to tie this to, and what the title of this article references, is that the growth in generation share of natural gas has major implications on US carbon emissions. Natural gas emits approximately 50% of the CO2 of coal for a given unit of energy. That means the historic transition we are seeing in electricity generation is reducing US carbon emissions by a similar amount.
This transition started several years ago, and the US as well as the global climate have already been seeing the benefit. From 2006 through 2011, US emissions fell by 7.7%, the largest of any country. While the recession probably deserves some of the “credit,” natural gas is clearly taking the reins for 2012.
Watts Up with That? created the following chart from EIA carbon emissions data. Based on 2012 to-date, it looks like the US might actually reduce CO2 emissions below 1990 levels this year – the targets widely touted by the Kyoto Protocol.

http://berc.berkeley.edu/is-the-us-a...tocol-targets/

Of course, manmade CO2 continues to increase worldwide. Our efforts are meaningless unless the other industrial powers along with emerging nations level or reduce their emissions and that ain't happening!

According to one study I reported on last year, when you look at total carbon footprint of each nation (including imports and excluding exports), the progress made under Kyoto looks extremely poor, with Europe's savings reduced to just 1% from 1990 to 2008 and the developed world as a whole seeing its emissions rise by 7% in the same period.

Overall, the result is that global emissions have showed no sign of slowing down, as the chart below shows. In that sense, the Kyoto protocol has been a failure. But it was unquestionably an important first step in global climate diplomacy. The question is whether a more ambitious second step will follow in time to avoid unacceptable risks of devastating climate change.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...rbon-emissions

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

Other publications are (finally) also noticing the "standstill."

Professor Berntsen explains the changed predictions:


“The Earth’s mean temperature rose sharply during the 1990s. This may have caused us to overestimate climate sensitivity.

“We are most likely witnessing natural fluctuations in the climate system – changes that can occur over several decades – and which are coming on top of a long-term warming. The natural changes resulted in a rapid global temperature rise in the 1990s, whereas the natural variations between 2000 and 2010 may have resulted in the levelling off we are observing now.”

[mdgator05]

Originally Posted by MichaelJoeWilliamson

Other publications are (finally) also noticing the "standstill."

From your own link:

Terje Berntsen emphasises that his project’s findings must not be construed as an excuse for complacency in addressing human-induced global warming. The results do indicate, however, that it may be more within our reach to achieve global climate targets than previously thought.

Regardless, the fight cannot be won without implementing substantial climate measures within the next few years.

Isn't that your position that they are emphasizing isn't their position?

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

Originally Posted by mdgator05

From your own link:



Isn't that your position that they are emphasizing isn't their position?

???

That sentence does not make any sense. I was merely pointing out yet another AGW scientist that is being forced to admit the climate increases have abated.

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

Other quotes;

Global warming is likely to be less extreme than claimed, researchers said yesterday. The most likely temperature rise will be 1.9C (3.4F) compared with the 3.5C predicted by the Intergovern*mental Panel on Climate Change. The Norwegian study says earlier predictions were based on rapid warming in the Nineties. But Oslo University’s department of geosciences included data since 2000 when temperature rises “levelled off nearly completely”.

—John Ingham, Daily Express, 26 January 2013.

The Earth’s mean temperature rose sharply during the *Nineties. This may have caused us to overestimate climate sensitivity. We are most likely witnessing natural fluctuations in the climate system – changes that can occur over several decades – and which are coming on top of a long-term warming.

——Professor Terje Berntsen,University of Oslo, 24 January 2013.

These results are truly sensational. If confirmed by other studies, this could have far-reaching impacts on efforts to achieve the political targets for climate.

—Caroline Leck, Stockholm University, 25 January 2013.