by Judith Curry
QTIIPS stands for Quantitatively Trivial Impact + Intense Political Symbolism. – Keith Hennessey
Over the past week, I’ve read over a hundred articles related to Trump’s withdrawal from the Paris Accord. I was vaguely wondering how to summarize my thoughts on all this in a blog post, when I spotted this from Bill Hooke’s blog Living On the Real World:
Hooke’s post also refers to this post by Keith Hennessey:
Excerpts from Hennessey’s post:
QTIIPS policy changes provoke fierce political battles over trivially small policy impacts. Passionate advocates on both sides ignore numbers and policy details while fighting endlessly about symbols.
A policy change is QTIIPS if:
- its direct measurable effects are quite small relative to the underlying policy problem to be solved;
- it is viewed both by supporters and opponents as a first step toward an end state that all agree would be quite a large change;
- supporters and opponents alike attach great significance to the direction of the change, as a precursor to possible future movement toward that quantitatively significant end goal; and
- a fierce political battle erupts over the symbolism of this directional shift. This political battle is often zero-sum, unresolvable, and endless.
The national leaders who supported Paris, including President Obama, had a political interest in overselling their policy accomplishment. Similarly, President Trump has a political interest in selling today’s move to his base as an enormous policy win, when to me it appears he is nullifying American participation in an agreement that on policy grounds was insignificant to begin with.
Climate change watch/warning
Bill Hooke makes an important argument in his Paris post using an analogy to hurricane warnings.
A quick aside: the reason that I have been so busy recently with few blog posts is owing to the start of the hurricane season, which is a very busy time for my company Climate Forecast Applications Network. Later this week, we will be issuing our first seasonal forecast for Atlantic hurricane activity — stay tuned.
Excerpts from Bill Hooke’s post:
[T]he Paris Climate Agreement mimics the approach of meteorologists, emergency managers, political and business leaders, and various publics to an approaching/developing hurricane.
At a hurricane’s earliest stages, no one knows whether its intensification and landfall will pose a real threat or not – and to whom. At the same time, there’s no wasted energy prematurely debating any of that, or getting emotional or top-down prescriptive about it. Instead, all participants at all levels and all locations individually begin making whatever initial preparations they feel appropriate in light of their own perceived vulnerability and options. At the same time, everyone engages in watch-and-warn.
And here’s the best part: the response is incremental. If the hurricane intensifies, the response develops commensurately. As the threat to a particular city or coastline rises, so do preparations. But where and if the threat diminishes, those preparing stand down. Rarely (especially as forecasts have improved) is the response inadequate or disproportionate.
Note that the key, the essential part, is also the inexpensive part: the watch and warn. It costs little to field the observations – the satellites and the radars, the surface in situinstruments, etc. to monitor conditions and their changes; to assimilate the data into variety of numerical models, to run these and form ensemble averages; to disseminate the findings. That’s true for both hurricanes and climate change. It’s essential that we not fly blind into this uncertain future.
One important addition has to be made in the climate-change version of this approach. When it comes to hurricanes, the world gets many occasions to practice: dozens each and every year, broadly scattered worldwide. By contrast, with respect to climate change, there hasn’t been the same opportunity for trial-and-error learning. That’s where research – not just on physical workings of the atmosphere and oceans but also on ecological processes and the social science of human response come in. That research is essential to effective risk reduction; it too is inexpensive.
Anticipating climate change? Responding commensurately? Without the drama? What’s not to like?
JC comments: While I really like the points Bill Hooke is making, I don’t see the Paris Agreement in watch and warn mode — it is about alarm, its already causing harm, and is implementing very expensive measures at the first ambiguous signs of harm.
There is certainly the possibility of substantial harm from AGW on the timescale of the 21st century, although this is arguably not a global ruin problem. We should be in ‘watch’ mode, sort of like the beginning of hurricane season, no individual storms in sight but we have reason to believe that something will happen. It’s essential that we not fly blind into this uncertain future.
Refocusing the solutions
Why is international policy focused on immediate, expensive changes to the global energy infrastructure using inadequate technologies, and a $100B climate fund that focuses on the blame game rather than addressing the real problems in the developing world?
The proponents of reducing CO2 as an urgent issue to be dealt with to ‘save the climate and the planet’ simply don’t walk the talk. They rack up the frequent flyer miles flying around to proseletize, while working to block nuclear power, natural gas pipelines and fracking, all of which reduce CO2 emissions. How urgent do they really think this problem is? Or is this simply political posturing?
Further, the angst over the $100B climate fund seems beyond ironic. See my previous posts:
Further, by tying a big chuck of global development aid to climate change, developing countries will not receive the help they need in dealing with their very real and urgent problems, e.g.
A better focus would be on working to ensure adequate food, water and energy, particularly in the developing world, and to reduce vulnerability to extreme weather events.
While I make no pretense at any particular wisdom in understanding complex geopolitics, the current trajectory of the Paris Climate Agreement is not going to change the Earth’s climate in any meaningful way.
We need to better understand the dynamics of climate of change and extreme weather events. And we need a broader solution space for dealing with weather and climate related vulnerabilities.
If given the choice between ‘clean’ and ‘dirty’ energy, nearly everyone would prefer ‘clean’ provided that all other things are equal — energy security and reliability, and cost. Research and development into new technologies, and regional/local experiments with different mixes of energy technologies will result in improved energy solutions.
The challenge is to redirect the political angst over this issue into productive directions that increase the well being of humans and ecosystems.
The Paris Agreement is really about stopping the dangerous greening of Africa – the only proven consequence of the rise of CO2.
If you discount sea-level rise, and a myriad of other consequences, that is.
Sea level rise cost is very questionable. It assumes a heat distribution that doesn’t seem to be happening. Acceleration of sea level rise is lower than expected with emissions happening at the high end of expectations. Heat seems to find it’s way to parts of the ocean that don’t increase in volume quite as much as expected.
These costs are already impacting insurance markets. This is a recent article. Should we continue to pay for this from our taxes, or should they just stop building or only do unsubsidized self-insuring? These are already questions.
Jim D, always good for a laugh.
These costs are already impacting insurance markets.
No, see Warren Buffet.
Premiums are annually adjustable. If costs rise, premiums rise. If costs fall, premiums fall ( or you get one of those nice rebate checks, which are like christmas ).
Like the myriad Jim. Can you be any more vague?
A swing and a miss Jim D. The key word you missed was PROVEN.
The insurance is subsidized which is why it is called the National Flood Insurance Program. Even if we don’t live on the coast, we pay in via our taxes. This is real money. Their insurance costs may rise and fall, but that doesn’t mean they are paying the real cost, and on top of that they need additional government bail-outs for things like Sandy. Sea-level rise will only exacerbate this type of thing in the coming years, and sooner than you think.
From the article in large type “The federal insurance program has subsidized thousands of risky properties along the coast by charging them below-market premiums”.
Jim D- simple truth
1. Sea level has been rising at very close to the current rate for hundreds of years.
2. At most coastal locations, changes in land height are more significant than actual changes in sea level.
2. There is a risk of an increase in rate of sea level rise associated with higher atmospheric CO2.
3. The worldwide rate of sea level rise has not appreciably increased since science has had a reliable means of measurement (1992-present).
4. In a world where financial resources are limited (the real world) spending on improving infrastructure has a much better return on investment than does CO2 mitigation.
The average rate of sea-level rise in the 20th century was 15 cm/century, but in the quarter-century since 1990 it has been 30 cm/century and is showing signs of further acceleration in more recent measurements. Sea levels rose as much in the last 25 years as in any 50-year period in the 20th century.
Compare a typical hurricane-driven storm surge height to the rise in sea level over the last hundred years. The ratio is nothing. Why worry about nothing?
Why has sea level failed to rise faster after 1950 or so when many claim that Man has greatly increased atmospheric CO2?
It has risen faster since 1990.
So you’ve found a federal program that incentivises financially risky behaviour by shifting the moral hazard onto the taxpayer? Well done, but nothing particularly novel!
There is a simple fix – remove the incentives and let those taking the risks work out for themselves whether it is still worthwhile for them. Fortunately, there are very large sums of money to be made in real estate development. Whether the profits are large enough to cover periodic repairs and rebuilds following flood/storm damage is a matter for the investors to decide. In many cases they will be, in others not.
Real estate is a money-making business. It is perfectly natural and normal that investors will try to derisk their investments to the maximise extent possible. The best possible derisking scheme is to privatize any potential profits and socialise any potential losses. This is great for the investors but lousy for the public and can only ever lead to greater and greater liabilities. The rules governing the climate are complex and difficult to discern, and so predictions are difficult. Not so much when it comes to economics.
The rules for coasts should be like for floodplains. The space should not be built on if there is a risk of flooding than once per hundred years. This dictates a gradual retreat from the coasts and a mindfulness of sea-level projections. However Miami and New York may have to find other ways. Not sure what. Big problem for them.
Your lack of ideas as to the methods of adapting to a slowly rising sea levels indicates you do not know enough to have a worthwile opinion.
From the linked article, “Over the last century, researchers estimate that the ocean and bays that flank the island have risen by about a foot.”
The global 20th century average is six inches. What happened there? The next century could be a few feet, however.
It could be 6 inches, too.
But then they’re in real trouble if they got a foot already. Sea-level rise is uneven. Some areas are less lucky.
And people adapt to slow, steady sea level rises, Jim D. It is not your problem and not your area of expertise, judging from your comments.
I don’t manage or live in cities on coasts, but it is their problem, and if they have any sense they are planning ahead already. New York, Miami and London already have some planning in progress, which you may have opposed if you had anything to say on the matter. If I mention insurance or questions about rebuilding at all, skeptics here don’t like discussing these realities. I get it. it’s like a safe zone.
Jim D, you really shouldn’t make assumptions about what I might oppose. I do have a background in planning, you know?
So does that mean you know about mitigation?
One mitigates only what one reasonably can predict. You tell me, Jim D, if IPCC climate models are sufficient to fundamentally change our society, economy and energy systems.
You don’t even need models to see the sensitivity in the data. The models explain it as well as why the GHG effect totals 33 C or 150 W/m2 in today’s climate.
Sea level rise is real.
It has been real for a long time.
It has also been acceleration now and then.
Look and try to cope with natural periodical changes:
The loss rates of Greenland and Antarctica will dictate what happens and how fast.
Sea level rise??
The skeptics don’t even believe that one.
Our reconstructed GMSL trend of 1.1 ± 0.3 mm⋅y−1 (1σ) before 1990 falls below previous estimates, whereas our estimate of 3.1 ± 1.4 mm⋅y−1 from 1993 to 2012 is consistent with independent estimates from satellite altimetry, leading to overall acceleration larger than previously suggested.
JCH and Jim D.
Typical of many CO2 alarmists, you use phony or bad science to try to mislead others to support your beliefs.
Prior to the use satellite data, there is only very rough estimates of global sea level rise. Try actually reading how pre-1992 studies try to determine their measurements and examine the margins of error in the studies.
You two are the true deniers of science and data.
The rate of sea level rise might increase (or lessen) in the future, but if someone is concerned, the ONLY sensible action is improvement of infrastructure in the area of concern. Only the foolish advocate spending very limited financial resources on actions that may have zero positive impact.
The skeptics rely very heavily on tide gauges and refuse to believe the satellites because they show faster rates, Ironically now tide gauges show even faster rates than satellites, so that backs the skeptics into a corner of their own making.
Regarding infrastructure, treat coasts like floodplains where possible. No building in areas likely to flood in 100 years, and also allow for sea-level rise rates in that assessment.
I love people like Jim D who want to behave like Soviet era central planners. You see how that worked out, huh?
It’s just how municipalities work. If you build in a floodplain, it costs everyone else money to rescue you and bail you out. No accounting for stupidity, so make rules to prevent it.
We don’t need UN nor U.S. politicians and bureaucrats telling municipalities how to operate.
Have you even read the Climate Assessments pooped out by our munificent Federal government? They are filled with misstatements of fact and “guidance” to local governments that amount to “run for the hills!”
Municipalities have enough sense on their own to see their trends and act on them. It doesn’t take the UN for them to see the need for action, but the UN does say sea level trends are not going down again, so they better not make any bad assumptions about the trends being temporary, and I think they hear that.
Fer christsakes, Jim D! Do you think I’m ignorant?
The seas will generally rise as long as the Holocene lasts. In some periods, like the Little Ice Age, they may even drop a little.
The Holocene was in a cooling mode, see Milankovitch (or even Javier here). We turned it around with 2-3 W/m2 of forcing that you want to dismiss.
Well, wadda ya know? Jim D seems to agree that we have a ways to go to get up to the Holocene Optimum.
Maybe this means you disagree with the Milankovitch trend since the Holocene Optimum too. So where do we start from in your case? Should that trend due to the 24 k year precessional cycle be discounted in your view? Science says it shouldn’t be, The paleo reconstructions support this cooling trend. This is understood to still apply today so our temperature should be nowhere near the Holocene Optimum, yet we now exceed it. Why? 2-3 W/m2 of CO2. That’s why.
“The federal insurance program has subsidized thousands of risky properties along the coast by charging them below-market premiums”.
An issue which has exactly zero to do with climate change. Unless through the magic of CO2, program managers were made woozy by the gas, leading to bad decision making. Never mind, thinking of a different gas.
This is a problem that is not going away, but getting gradually worse and more widespread over the coming decades, and it is because of sea-level rise.
“The average rate of sea-level rise in the 20th century was 15 cm/century, but in the quarter-century since 1990 it has been 30 cm/century and is showing signs of further acceleration ”
We have been over this a number of time Jim. You are comparing two different methodologies to get that increase. One is tidal gage data and the other satellite data. That you keep bringing this up says you are either dense or dishonest.
OK, I gave a graph somewhere else in this thread. You can compare them for yourself.
…Typical of many CO2 alarmists, you use phony or bad science to try to mislead others to support your beliefs. …
Rubbish. It’s peer reviewed. It is the 2nd study, using a different method than the first, to conclude that the rate mid 20th sea level rise was way less than Professor Curry’s often cited Jevrejeva study… which I’ve never seen you question as bad science, etc. … because maybe it concluded something you ant to believe.
Less 20th century sea level rise makes physical sense.
The fasullo article carried in nature and also prominently at the university of Colorado sea level site confirms there has been no acceleration but that one is ‘expected’
Thermal Expansion Contribution
“For the period 1971–2010, the rate for the 0 to 700 m depth range is
0.6 [0.4 to 0.8] mm yr–1 (Section 3.7.2 and Table 3.1). Including the
deep-ocean contribution for the same period increases the value to
0.8 [0.5 to 1.1] mm yr–1 (Table 13.1). Over the altimetry period (1993–
2010), the rate for the 0 to 700 m depth range is 0.8 [0.5 to 1.1] mm
yr–1 and 1.1 [0.8 to 1.4] mm yr–1 when accounting for the deep ocean
(Section 3.7.2, Table 3.1, Table 13.1).”
So the IPCC says there is an increased rate since 1993. Subject to various interpretations.
The pause if it happened, could have gone into steric SLR. Now lose Arctic sea ice, lose steric SLR in the Arctic and the pause gets weaker as steric SLR is not as much as otherwise. Can steric SLR find its way to the Arctic? I’d say yes where it turns into a reduced rate of steric rise.
Jim D: “However Miami and New York may have to find other ways. Not sure what. Big problem for them.”
Have you any idea of real estate values in Miami and New York? I don’t think they are going to have a problem putting in place flood protection measures because cost should not be an obstacle.
For example, the Thames Barrier was completed in 1982 at a cost of around £600 million (£2.1 billion in today’s money). However, each time the barrier is activated (on average 5 times/year) it saves a potential £30 billion or so in flood damage. The current barrier design is expected to be effective against a 1 in 1000 year flood until 2070. I think that makes £2.1 billion super-cheap!
As far as I can tell New York civic authorities are undertaking relatively inexpensive incremental storm surge protection measures, while adopting a “wait and see” approach concerning expensive projects predicated on the most alarmist sea level rise forecasts. Officially they agree with the climate science, and don’t doubt that tens of billion$ in protection measures would be justified if the forecasts are correct. However, they understandably don’t want to spend tens of billion$ and then discover the forecasts are wrong. I can only assume the residents of New York take a similarly skeptical attitude.
Miami are selling real estate to millionaires from other countries that rent that out for short-term gain. Seems fair. See, you recognize planning is taking place. Would you try to stop it to save money if you were a resident of those places?
My home is on the shore of a large reservoir impounded in 1940. In the 18 years I’ve owned it the original 100-year flood plain has been flooded 4 times. The moral of the story is 100-year flood plain elevations aren’t worth the paper they’re written on. I built my house 100 feet higher up on the hillside. The entire city of Austin will be washed into the Gulf of Mexico before my home is effected in case you were worrying about me. ;-)
Case in point. Cities should prevent people from building in floodplains. Can’t do much about 500-year events that are becoming increasingly common somehow, but that is another story.
Miami should probably invest in rapidly deployable desalination. It’s already over built/over populated/over consuming water and sinking. It is already at great risk of water contamination by storm surge.
High tide flooding is a sign something is seriously wrong with your location.
The Fasullo paper is is about acceleration the satellite era – ~1993 to the end of their data. What they are saying is the data starts with a distortion, and if not for that, there would be an acceleration already, which was their basis for concluding an acceleration in the satellite data is imminent.
Since the the Fasullo article the rate of SLR has remained above trend… for a record period of time in the satellite-era data: 5-year rate is ~4.7 mm/yr; 10-year rate is ~4.7 mm/yr.
1900 to 1990 – ~1.2 mm/yr (nothing to do with Fasullo paper)
1990 to present – ~3.2 mm/yr
last ten years – ~4.1 mm/yr (perhaps a lot to do with the Fasullo paper)
High water tides? The palace of Westminster was first flooded in 1236
Not surprising as that was around the time oHelen of the periodic high water stands we can trace over here. Various castles with access from the sea were built in Britain around the same time and are now high and dry.
As well as the 13th century high water stand we can observe others around the 5th century BC , the 5th century AD (roman forts of the Saxon shore) the 16th century and increasing water levels from around the middle of the 18th century.
For Miami this is a more recent problem. Venice and New York also.
Jim D: “See, you recognize planning is taking place.”
The whole point, Jim, is that the people with the problem should do the cost-benefit analysis and the planning because it’s their money that’s at stake (which has the extraordinarily beneficial effect of concentrating the mind on the nitty-gritty rather than the airy-fairy).
Local citizens, their representatives, municipal bodies, local businesses, etc, need to work out the particulars for their own unique situation. What they don’t need is a bunch of smart-arses from afar telling them what their problems are and what they should do about them.
“Would you try to stop it to save money if you were a resident of those places?”
In order to answer the question of what I would do in somebody else’s shoes in an honest way, I would have to be them. Why should I go to this trouble when I can more easily just ask them what they intend to do? As a conservative in the classical liberal tradition I trust people to make the best choices about their own lives, and even if they don’t it’s far better for them to decide than for me to decide for them. Their bad choices for themselves are far better than my good choices for them because in the first case no matter what they lose they still retain their autonomy, which is the basis for human dignity. As a socialist, you claim a concern and interest that is entirely fraudulent because you confuse self-aggrandizement with nobility. That is why you have opinions about Miami and New York, and planning policies, and what’s best here and there in situations that have nothing to do with you. I know they are very carefully considered opinions because you want them to illustrate what a fine fellow you are. That is not concern for others, but for yourself.
I happen to think that when people are left to make their own choices, be it drugs, creating pollution, endangering others, exploiting workers, or where to live, they can make bad choices. Government can come in by making such choices more difficult through regulation. We have to have laws.
Gotta love that Jim D’s admiration for the Soviet Union solution.
More like the way America does things to protect its people, but you don’t like this apparently. Remove floodplain regulations has now become your call for freedom. Great.
You seem to forget, Jim D; I did planning in my career.
You continue to ascribe bad or ignorance-driven motives on my part. Sad.
America has regulations about floodplains.
And I said the various levels of American government didn’t have regulations? Where, Jim D?
I was referring to floodplains and I think you said something about the Soviet Union. Lost track of your argument after that.
A bunch of high and dry castles formerly located on the seashore are meaningless to those who have the faith, Tony.
‘This is a recent article. ‘
That’s not an article, it’s pure propaganda. It shows how low Yale has come… how can anyone seriously think to write a real article and not mention the biggest problem… subsidence. Just look at NOAA data!
Subsidence doesn’t lead to anything like several feet in a century. The biggest problem going forwards is real sea-level rise.
Don Monfort: “A bunch of high and dry castles formerly located on the seashore are meaningless to those who have the faith.”
Only those with faith in God have sufficient detachment from themselves to abandon port cities that are no longer port cities. Jim D is certainly not lacking in faith, although not in anything that is of any use to him or anybody else.
From Houston: “Even after switching to surface water, the ground will continue to sink for several years, Kasmarek said. It takes time for the aquifers to adjust. Caption: Data shows that several areas of northwestern Houston is subsidence about 2 inches per year.”
From Jim D: “Subsidence doesn’t lead to anything like several feet in a century. The biggest problem going forwards is real sea-level rise.”
200 inches equals 16.7 feet per century.
Perhaps Jim D you should reconsider: The groundwater flow model will be developed using MODFLOW-2000 (Harbaugh and others, 2000), and will use a commercial Graphical User Interface (GUI) to enhance pre- and post-processing tasks, as well as to allow for ease of use, model refinement, and updating. U.S. Geological Survey scientists from North and South Carolina will develop the model jointly, and will provide technical and scientific expertise for geohydrologic modeling. Members of the TAC will provide specific hydrogeologic data and modeling concepts for use in constructing the model, and will participate in all aspects of the project including acquisition and interpretation of geologic information, development and calibration of the MODFLOW model, and preparation of management scenarios. The project will be organized to emphasize technology transfer to state and local scientists, engineers, and water managers.” https://sc.water.usgs.gov/projects/gwavailability/
As a consultant, I used MODFLOW to determine locations of underground storage tanks when the locations were lost.
Jim D —http://www.cnbc.com/2014/03/03/no-climate-change-impact-on-insurance-biz-buffett.html
I’ll take a business perspective over university any day.
From Jim D,
“This is a problem that is not going away, but getting gradually worse and more widespread over the coming decades, and it is because of sea-level rise.” – on his topic of “The federal insurance program has subsidized thousands of risky properties along the coast by charging them below-market premiums”.
Just stop it. You bring up a problem – federal insurance at below market premiums – which any reasonable person would conclude is a problem caused by somebody making poor decisions on setting premium levels or on what properties to offer the insurance to – and simply state that it is due to sea level rise. Here is a bet Jim – which has been around longer, sea level rise or the federal insurance program? I can’t even begin to describe how incredibly poor your thought process is, to have come to the conclusion you did.
This should be the one (and only) blog post you read on the subject.
As such will probably be vilified (and ignored) by both sides of the debate.
Firstly, Trump’s disinformation on the 0.2 C was also spread by Pruitt on the Sunday morning TV rounds. This is the actual background from the MIT group he quoted.
Secondly, regarding “international policy focused on immediate, expensive changes to the global energy infrastructure using inadequate technologies”. It is far from immediate to plan over a decade ahead and reduce emissions at rates that are almost being achieved already in some countries. This is actually a slow timeline for changing the energy infrastructure. With new storage methods for solar and wind energy, or the possibility of solar-to-hydrogen technology, there is a lot that can happen in just decades to help renewable energy to continue its exponential growth trend.
Does anyone have a link to the actual MIT study? It seems everybody is quoting different numbers without reading the study itself.
The claim about 1ºC is completely nuts, by the way. That would be equivalent to a difference of about 60% in century-end CO2 concentrations – like comparing 500ppm under Paris to 800ppm under the ‘do nothing’ approach. Such a difference is basically impossible – we’re unlikely to hit 800ppm anyway, and there is no way Paris gets us to 500ppm.
I looked at how big a difference a strong decarbonization effort would make by the end of the century, and estimated 0.38ºC. (The headline says 0.5ºC because, perhaps, we can also count on reductions from non-CO2 GHGs).
1 C is equivalent to saving 1500 GtCO2 of emissions compared to BAU growth rates, which is very doable depending which two scenarios you want to compare. In fact with strong reductions we can save twice that.
No, 1500GtCO2 are 192ppm, and the difference in actual concentrations would be about half as much (because the airborne fraction is about 0.5). Imagine the difference between 500 and 600ppm: 20% in concentration, about 28% of a doubling of CO2 due to the logarithmic effect –> less than 0.4ºC. Even if you assumed the full 192ppm are a reduction in concentrations you wouldn’t get 1ºC.
As for reducing emissions, guess what happened after Kyoto:
One country did do pretty well though:
1500 GtCO2 per degree comes from this IPCC graph.
At faster emission growth rates and in warmer temperatures, the fraction absorbed by the earth drops, so it becomes more linear.
The chart shows 500GtC, which is to say 1,835GtCO2, was associated with warming of 1ºC; do the ratio and you’ll get 0.8ºC per 1,500GtCO2. But CO2 was only 60% of the positive forcing during this period, so we’re actually talking about 0.5ºC per 1500GtCO2 for the historical record.
The part of the chart to the right of 1ºC / 500GtC is nothing more than the output of a computer model. The decline in the warming effect of CO2 as concentrations increase is a fact (constant forcing per doubling, not per a specific concentration increase). The increase in the airborne fraction as temperatures increase is by no means an established fact; if anything the historical record says the airborne fraction is stable or declining very slightly.
Even so, the IPCC chart itself says this sensitivity declines, so there is no reason to expect it to remain at 0.5ºC per 1500GtCO2.
CO2 is at least 80% of the forcing so far, and given the aerosol increase since pre-industrial, it could be up to 100%, which was the AR4 estimate. Also don’t confuse transient with equilibrium that could be 50% more. The current administration has also reigned in methane regulations, so don’t count on that helping the US out. You can fit a line to the IPCC chart and get 1500 GtCO2 per degree fits all the way to the top. These might be CO2 equivalent so methane would be already included in there. Anyway, for policy, this is a number that is in the right ballpark, and exactly the kind of information that is needed: degrees per emission total. Do we want 700 ppm by 2100 or should we try harder? These are the questions the skeptics won’t even ask.
No, CO2 is only 80% of the forcing for recent years. Historically it was about 60%.
Emissions of methane, ozone and N2O are a wild guess so I’m not counting on them for anything.
There are a ton of studies on TCR that use more fine-grained data; they all conclude about 1.35ºC per doubling of CO2, though it depends on whether one uses Berkeley, Hadcrut or something else. Furthermore, what the IPCC chart is missing is that there is going to be some warming even if concentrations don’t rise at all, due to warming in the pipeline. In other words, part of the semi-linearity that the IPCC chart shows is a property of PAST emissions; that doesn’t mean the warming effect of emissions is almost linear, just that the evolution of warming is almost linear (because future warming is the sum of transient warming + pipeline).
For the rest of the century, the question is how much additional warming can be avoided? The answer is almost zero, because nothing done so far has moved the needle on emissions at all, as has been documented extensively in this thread.
> nothing done so far has moved the needle on emissions at all
That’s hard to reconcile with the implicit claim underneath “guess what happened after Kyoto” and the argument behind “the US has decarbonized its economy, since 2000, faster than Europe.”
From the last 60 years for which we have accurate CO2 levels, the effective TCR obtained by warming per CO2 increase is over 2 C per doubling, so those estimates with lower values should not be used for policy because they would dangerously underestimate what has already happened. And, yes, there is warming in the pipeline showing that the warming has not yet caught up to the added GHG forcing. An important point for attribution, and another thing the skeptics just won’t talk about. As to what can be avoided, policies could make the difference anywhere from 1500 GtCO2 added to 7500 GtCO2 by 2100. This would be nearly a 4 C span and it is in our hands. This is important to realize.
“And, yes, there is warming in the pipeline showing that the warming has not yet caught up to the added GHG forcing.”
The oceans will catch up eventually, all the while accumulating joules. The SSTs and the oceans to their full depth must lag the GMST it will take centuries for the full depth to catch up.
“Below the sea surface, historical measurements of temperature are far sparser, and the warming is more gradual, about 0.01°C per decade at 1,000 meters.”
While warmth rises, it also emits in all directions, including downwards.
Here is something that is hard to move: 4 kilometers deep water over 2/3s of the planet.
Willard obviously doesn’t get that the US decarbonized its economy faster than Europe… without being in Kyoto, and without a national renewable mandate, and without cap and trade, and without a carbon tax… by the way, the US also decarbonized faster than Germany, and the world as a whole decarbonized faster before Kyoto was signed than after. So it seems nothing Germany, Europe, or Kyoto did moved the needle. At all.
Jim D, I’m afraid our conversation has to stop here. We’ve reached that point where you’re just making up numbers.
Alberto, fine, I will just leave you with a graph to contemplate. Here we scale CO2 to 100 ppm per degree to match the temperature. For the 300-400 ppm range this is effectively 2.4 C per doubling, and that is just a transient value.
As I said, using anything less would dangerously underestimate the full effect.
> So it seems nothing Germany, Europe, or Kyoto did moved the needle. At all.
That’s a more modest claim than “nothing done so far has moved the needle on emissions at all,” which is contradicted with all the statistics invoked so far in the thread on decarbonization.
The needle moved everywhere. Many factors may have caused the needle to move. Events like getting caught in a house bubble created by Greenspan’s invisible hand. Various policies made by all the developing countries, to our Denizens’ despair. Statistical artefacts may boost an economy that was inefficient from the start.
A more crucial question is whether teh Donald will be able to sign enough troglodyte orders to stop this needle to move furthermore
Really caring for the Pittsburgh’s workers may imply we take onto account the facts that coal jobs won’t cone back, and that most energy jobs are in the renewables:
Kyoto is bit too recent even by Denizens’ standard. For now it may suffice not to conflate a pledge with a policy.
Maybe it’s a vocabulary thing.
You have no evidence for your claim that “CO2 is at least 80% of the forcing so far”.
The attribution of climate change between natural and anthropogenic is one of the major, unsolved problems of this science.
Your claim cannot be made until the attribution problem is solved.
It will not be solved by unwarranted assumptions.
Here is the source of the tweet cited by Willard regarding some 66000 renewable energy industry jobs in Pennsylvania
It seems the overwhelming majority are in the energy efficiency industry including making more efficient domestic appliances to reduce energy costs. presumably many will also be in improving insulation in homes and businesses.
I am not sure the tweet is accurate therefore in describing these as renewable energy jobs as they would relate to energy produced by any source.
I am not against renewables, in fact I think America missed a trick in not initiating an international Apollo style project to improve renewables and battery technology rather than opt completely out of Paris.
However, the case for them is not helped by over done claims. Renewables need to be much more efficient and used appropriately. The burgeoning solar industry we have in the UK is bizarre considering our latitude and climate.
The Achilles heel of most renewables is the lack of ability to store them. Yesterday we had some good sunshine here. Today it is very overcast, grey and rainy and this is forecast to continue for most of the week. In the meantime the ocean not 500 yards from my home is awash with untapped energy potential
Geoff S, the only natural forcings are solar and volcanoes, and they are small.
Jim, look at the error bars on cloud radiative forcing. They should also be much larger.
Concentrating on assumed radiative forcings ignores much of the water cycle, oceanic cycling, ENSO, etc. Look at the IPCC climate models and their failures assuming high antro forcings!
Forcing is distinct from feedbacks and internal cycles like ENSO. This is often a source of confusion among skeptics. Forcings are external agents that don’t depend on anything else, but do inject energy to the system in some way.
And that energy is ejected from the system in many ways. Concentrating on forcings leads to the CMIP5 and IPCC AR5 disasters.
It is ejected by the temperature response.
The “temperature response” Jim D? Haw, haw. Even Trenberth’s cheesy schematic showed much more than that.
Explain cloud uncertainties. Explain 0.6 +/- 17. Explain AR5 model failures.
You know that stuff, plus more. Your political beliefs won’t let you admit any questioning of dogma, down to the smallest part. Given the mounting evidence of the overselling of CAGW, pretty soon you will snap, hopefully not running off on a rampage.
Should I explain how a forcing change is canceled by the Planck response or have you figured that part out?
Show me, Jim D.
OK, what do you know so far about the Planck Response? If you increase the forcing by 4 W/m2 the temperature needs to rise to have the longwave energy eject the extra energy and bring it back to balance. You can increase the forcing by 4 W/m2 by either adding 1% to the solar constant or doubling CO2. OK, so far?
Since that has not happened over about the last two decades, could something else be going on. Like, what?
Internal variations occur. The pause is over. Take 30-year temperatures and there is no hint of a pause. 15 years before the pause the temperature rose 0.3 C per decade, not a peep from the skeptics on that internal variation. The average is near 0.2 C per decade since 1980, consistent with the GHG forcing change.
And being scientifically literate, I am not confused by many of the arguments. Yours are childish.
You brought up ENSO knowing its irrelevance to forcing?
I brought up ENSO, Jim D, because the forcing chart and AR5 models with-then-without anthro forcing graphs of temperature over time are not reflective of what is actually happening in the oceans and the atmosphere.
If you haven’t, please read Bob Tisdale’s “Climate Models Fail” and “Who Turned on the Heat?” Visit him at his blog “http://bobtisdal.wordpress.com/”
After that, you might have something learned to say about models of doom.
Tisdale has been very quiet because his ENSO heat source was not well received even by the skeptical community. Perhaps you can revive it for him.
Have you read Bob Tisdale’s “Climate Models Fail,” Jim D?
No, does he know anything about climate models? Which part do you like best?
Why should you rely on me to interpret Bob Tisdale’s excellent work? Apparently you have been listening to others having somewhat a negative view. Do your own research.
BTW, being able to read, understand and graph data does not take a PhD. Reasoning based on extant data does not take a PhD. Recognizing when models fail in both hindcasting and forecasting does not take a PhD.
Do you agree with his idea that ENSO’s themselves cause the long-term warming? This is where you mentioned him as though you believe that. I want to see why you believe that so much over GHGs.
If that’s all you got out of his work, then you are not a very good reader, Jim D. Or is it just your parroting some CAGW-er, not having read his stuff?
So long as renewable energy is more expensive than non-renewable then the jobs in renewable are like proverbial glass making jobs. You see if we all go around breaking windows it creates jobs for glass makers. The $64,000 question that libtards can’t or won’t answer is whether breaking windows increases or decreases productivity along with creating more jobs.
Think of all the jobs created by Hurricane Sandy.
More than 65,000 people in Pennsylvania work in the renewable energy industry – that’s more than mining, oil and gas combined
WOW. That is almost equal to zero kilowatt hours per person. Mining, oil and gas each do much better than that.
Yes Jim D, the MIT press release essentially says that the “talking point” is correct. It’s the incremental change from Copenhagen to Paris and that is reasonably interpreted as the impact of the Paris accord on the climate. So what’s the real issue here? In fact, all this is somewhat speculative since we don’t really know what emissions are in much of the 3rd world or what the future will hold for them.
You are correct about energy infrastructure however. It takes time. If we want to revisit nuclear, Green NGO virtue signalers need to decide exactly how critical the climate emergency really is to them. Fortunately, the lead time for natural gas is much shorter and that change is already happening based on market factors.
That would be an odd interpretation for Trump to make. He throws away both Paris and Copenhagen by withdrawing, so it is not the right number. Good try.
Natural gas is a bridging energy, and the longer term solution has to allow for that cost going up as it runs out. Luckily other technologies are not far behind. In countries like India and China they see the need to leave coal in the ground, and to go towards renewables in preference, and this is why and because they took part in the Paris accord.
” the MIT press release essentially says that the “talking point” is correct”
No it doesn’t. It says:
“First, the 0.2 degree-figure used in the talking point reflects the incremental impact of the Paris Agreement compared with the earlier Copenhagen agreement. If you instead compare the impact of the Paris Agreement to no climate policy, then the temperature reduction is much larger, on the order of 1 degree Celsius”
So the talking point might be correct if Trump had said, Paris is out, we’re going back to Copenhagen. But he has opted for no climate policy, so the penalty is 1°C, says MIT.
Well, Once again this is an argument about mostly nothing and reflects scare tactics. The rest of the world is still in Paris and thus in Copenhagen. So Nick, that’s just a total red herring. The effect of the US withdrawing is essentially nil. Our emissions are going down anyway.
Why do you even bother to make this case? On a scale of 0-10 with 0 be totally hedged cautions “truth” and 10 being Obama’s lie about “if you like your health plan, you can keep your health plan” this is about a 1.0.
In reality, Paris was symbolic at best. Withdrawing from it was largely a way for Trump to forstall court action that might keep him from rolling back Obama regulations many of which were abusive and would never have passed Congress anyway. Democracy is not overly friendly in the US to this kind of thing. That’s why Democrats lost Congress in a landslide in 2010 and again in 2014.
Elections have consequences. It’s the Russians fault.
This is about Trump’s disinformation in his speech where he referred 0.2 C. Only low-information voters (his base) and Pruitt would seem to believe him when he says this. Or more likely Pruitt told him to say this to his base to fool them. This idea comes from Pruitt and Bannon and directly conflicts with his other chief advisors. Bannon comes at climate from the conspiracy theory angle which is right in his wheelhouse.
Which Russian, Trump’s or Hillary’s?
Trump does well enough on his own (inauguration crowds, fraudulent voters by the million, Obama wiretapped phones, climate hoax, Mexico will pay, unreported attacks like Bowling Green, healthcare plan covers everyone better than Obamacare, great tax plan just around the corner, Russians not in Crimea, largest terrorist threat is Iran, to name just ten). Pretty soon people won’t take him at his word anymore.
I hear that POTUS Commander in Chief and Most Powerful Man in the World, Donald J. Trump, is worried that you think people won’t take him at his word anymore, jimmy dee. Can you explain why .2C is wrong? What is the correct number, yimmy? What difference does it make that our POTUS has taken us out of the toothless, non-binding, BS Paris accord? We just don’t accord to that BS, jimmy. The rest of them can carry on without us, or they can re-negotiate.
> So Nick, that’s just a total red herring.
The claim that “the MIT press release essentially says that the “talking point” is correct” is not only a red herring, it’s also false.
DM, as I linked above, the MIT people Trump quoted explained why he was wrong. You can believe them or believe Trump, but you can’t believe both.
It is silly to argue about such an insignificant point. What it indicates is that those who find it so important are well aware that thinking people, even James Hansen, consider Paris ineffective and having only virtue signaling effects.
The effect of Paris over the “status quo” is 0.2 degrees as the MIT press release says. People with nothing better to do with their time can continue to attack Trump or Pruitt. Trump thrives on that and his voters don’t care about it. In fact, the vast majority of Americans don’t care very much. Believing the most partisan press since the 19th Century is also a recipe for believing Hillary would win in a landslide.
You forgot that I can choose to believe neither, jimmy dee. The Paris agreement has no enforcement mechanism. It’s guesswork and crystal ball gazing, entirely dependent on the whims of future politicians. The only country we could have reasonably counted on to live up to it’s non-binding pledge is the good ole USA (and we are wisely out). Even our upright greenie allies in NATO won’t live up to the commitments they made, when they signed the treaty. They won’t even spend money for their own defense, leaving it up to the good ole USA to do the heavy lifting. We should expect Paris to be any different? The Paris agreement is a fraud. Who said that, jimmy? I will give you 7 guesses.
DM, Hansen wanted Paris to have a carbon tax. He was upset it didn’t, and maybe you are too, since you are quoting him, or maybe you didn’t know and I helped you understand.
dpy, so your position is that Trump meant that he was fine with Copenhagen but not the extra 0.2 C from Paris. Interesting point. Please expand on it.
> It is silly to argue about such an insignificant point
Making the MIT press release “essentially” saying the opposite of what it says is insignificant insofar as teh Donald’s and Pruitt’s meme is insignificant.
You are struggling, jimmy. Don’t try to fight Trump rules. See how willy has given up and is just goofing around.
I missed your showboating, Don Don. Nice to see you back. Here, have a cookie:
That’s notwithstanding the inconvenient fact that states representing 40 percent of the American economy agreed to ignore teh Donald’s anti-climatic crap.
Forty percent. That’s more than teh Donald’s approval rate, right?
You are struggling, willy. The Most Powerful Man in the World has spoken. Seek counseling. It’s going to be a long eight years for you jokers.
People like Jim D and Willard are arguing from a narrow base.
In science, every now and then, a completely new view of an old problem leads to a breakthrough and the science world advances on to tackle another problem. Those who cannot cut the cord from the older perceived wisdom typically protest as they move to obscurity.
President Trump made a breakthrough political statement. We all have a choice, to congratulate or to protest. Progress in science suggests it can be OK to praise the new paradigm.
The President’s breakthrough is NOT about science. It is about Sovereignty, economics, national development, etc. as clearly stated.
Surely protests are best based on these dominant themes, not whether MIT meant 1 deg or 0.2 deg. Voters do not grasp that argument so much as jobs from national development.
@Jim D on June 4, 2017 at 3:26 pm
“In countries like India and China they see the need to leave coal in the ground, and to go towards renewables in preference, and this is why and because they took part in the Paris accord.”
No they don’t.
“China, the world’s biggest investor in fossil-fuel generation, began construction on over 70 gigawatts of new coal projects last year (2015) while it still had 200 gigawatts under construction.”
Congratulation Donald Trump.
Thank Trump! :)
How about educating us on how pulling out of the accord will be to the US’s detriment?
US prestige will drop – so what.
US will lose its leadership role – not hardly
US will fall behind in developing renewable technologies – how exactly?
US will lose jobs – not losing jobs is the reason for pulling out
That Elon Musk criticized the decision is a no brainer. He has billions invested in making batteries that might be put at risk if the government doesn’t subsidize his customers to buy them. That Chevon and other energy companies are against is also a no brainer. They are reaping billions from the transition to NG. Don’t want to see anything slow that train down.
With the Climate Accords remaining in place, alternative energy companies will continue to sell not ready for prime time power plants that will be obsolete before they can be commissioned.
> How about educating us on how pulling out of the accord will be to the US’s detriment?
i’m glad you ask. I’m also glad you don’t care much about US prestige. Feel free to believe you still believe you owe most of the world’s wealth as it once did after WWII. Everything the middle class won during that time is now gone. You’re not the custodian of gold anymore. Scientists who fled their home to live the American dream are getting courted by other countries. Macron is the first, but it won’t stop there. Why do research in the middle of nowhere when you can do the same in Paris?
That China already succeeded where Germany and Soviet Union failed, i.e. threatening to reach economic parity with the US, can’t only be explained with its rise. It’s just a matter of time. You’re falling behind. Too old, too fat, too slow.
Just like teh Donald.
14 states representing over 40% of the US economy have either joined the US climate alliance or declared their support for Paris agreement. Here’s Golman Sachs’ very first tweet:
Energy companies reap even more subsidies for fossil fuel than for renewables. It’s not because of subsidies that they invest in renewables. That’s where the money will be. That’s where the money is. If you want to tackle security, independence and health issues at the same time, it’s just a no brainer.
Teh Donald’s display of vulgar power won’t do anything. Just like his bogus Trumpcare. It’s just for the show. Sooner or later, what was reaped by the 20th century by the industrialized world will hopefully be available to the American people.
If that never happens, well so be it. Teh Donald’s program will translate into infrastructure investments and bigger debts. The biggest debt nobody ever saw. Coincidentally, the Canadian economy is based on materials and banking. Any Canadian with a modicum of investing flair welcomes teh Donald. Let him stay 50 more years.
So please, do continue.
Didn’t expect an reasoned response from you Willard, so I’m not disappointed. How pray tell are all those US companies currently investing in new technologies associated with dealing with climate change suddenly unable to continue with their plans? Your tale of woe is one belonging in the category of fiction. The US is not experiencing a brain drain – exactly the opposite. China’s “economic parity” comes at a price and has only been sustainable this long due to the central government having absolute control. If China is our economic equal, why does everyone send their money to the US to invest in Treasury bonds? Even the Chinese government understands why. Where do you think they send their money.
Throwing out meaningless points gets you nothing.
“You’re not the custodian of gold anymore.”
So what, the world isn’t on a gold standard.
“Why do research in the middle of nowhere when you can do the same in Paris?”
Yeah, University of Paris is ranked right up there in world class research with Cal Tech, Stanford, MIT, Carnegie Mellon, Georgia Tech …
“You’re falling behind. Too old, too fat, too slow.”
Not a good idea to transfer your own shortcomings onto others.
“14 states representing over 40% of the US economy have either joined the US climate alliance or declared their support for Paris agreement.”
Which might lead a reasonably intelligent person to conclude the US doesn’t need Federal involvement. (BTW – nice use of alt-fact numbers with that 40% figure. As if 40% of the US economy is geared to supporting the Paris accords.)
“Here’s Golman Sachs’ very first tweet:”
If you are going to argue from authority I suggest you pick a source that didn’t think bundling high risk mortgages with a few middle and low risk ones was a good idea. G-S, failing to predict economic bubbles for .. well, like forever.
“Coincidentally, the Canadian economy is based on materials and banking”
More meaningless and off topic garbage Willard. Has nothing to do with Paris or how the US will be affected. BTW – you do know the Canadians backed out of Kyoto. Not sure if mentioning them works in your favor.
Don’t tell wee willy that China GDP/per capita is the third world class. Number 81. And that comes with the hapless inhabitants having to suffer a poisoned environment and the soul numbing oppression imposed on them by their thoroughly corrupt and filthy-rich overlords. Can’t drink the water and can’t breathe the air. Google “China pollution”. The rest of wee willy’s rant is also cockeyed BS. Poor thing is blinded by his goofy ideology.
wijnand, in more recent news China has been canceling coal plants. They have a major air quality issue that they are addressing.
India too. They want solar.
Thanks, yimmy dee:
“…and despite the cuts, China is still building far more capacity than it needs.”
What a plan. Attacking that air quality crisis by continuing to build far more capacity than they need. That augers well for them fulfilling their Paris accord pledges. They just can’t help themselves.
No JimD, that’s not my point. Trump was just fulfilling his campaign promise to put America first. Kyoto and Copenhagen are irrelevant. The US’s emissions are decreasing due to market forces and that trend will continue. The whole premise that Paris will make much difference is completely wrong as Hansen and most thinking people well know.
The real point is made by Judith and Cliff Mass, nothing of significance will happen without technological advances that will make carbon free energy competitive and easy. Bill Gates has this right too.
JimD, Did Trump pull out of Kyoto? Oh, wait, the US never ratified Kyoto and kicked buttocks. Canada withdrew from Kyoto to avoid paying 15 billion in penalties. It is almost like the world would do better if they adopted the Trump Accord.
It’s just political. There is no effect to pulling out except giving people excuses to put sanctions on US exports, giving Trump an excuse to try to increase emissions via coal despite it dying a natural death economically, and getting back at people like US green industry, scientists and Tillerson who wanted to stay in. He made his bed with Bannon, Pruitt, and the conspiracy theorists. You dance with the one that brung you, as they say. He’s just doing that, even if they are the swamp creatures.
Very petulant, jimmy. Talk about conspiracy theories. Trump is trying to increase emissions with coal. OK. You are a sore loser, like Hillary. It’s Comey’s fault that you got Trump, yimmy. And Russia. Oh, and the DNC, etc. etc. etc.
Jim D, another swing and another miss.
The 0.2C thing was spread by the alarmists. It was meant to cause gasps of horror that the devil incarnate would do such a terrible thing to the planet. Then people shrugged their shoulders and said so what?
And as for your second point, your change of topic is subtle but is either disingenuous or stupidly misinformed.
Your team is going to have to lift its game if you want to scare people into submission. It’s over Jim D. Your team has lost.
This is Trump’s 0.2 C thing. He can fool some of the people all of the time, and they are his base.
Your premise is just plain false Jim D.
You should have been out campaigning for your Hillary, instead of spending all your time incessantly haunting this board, yimmy. Better luck in 2020. You can remind the voters about that .2C thing. But they won’t give a flying #@^&.
It’s game over Mosher, Willard, Jimmy D And the other alarmists. But it will take them a long time to regroup and move to the next “the end is nigh” scare. Since Noah’s Ark was purportedly about 4000 years ago, perhaps these guys and their ancestors remain in denial that long – and cling stubbornly to their beliefs like those who still believe in flat earth.
Wow. Haven’t the table turned.
Peter, your “usual suspects” blog-bomb us and never try to answer the central question: Are IPCC climate models sufficient to fundamentally change our society, economy and energy systems. Until they answer in the affirmative, convincingly, then I will ignore their blathering and take pot shots as the mood moves me.
It’s game over M0sher, Willard, Jimmy D And the other alarmists. But it will take them a long time to regroup and move to the next “the end is nigh” scare. Since Noah’s Ark was purportedly about 4000 years ago, perhaps these guys and their ancestors will remain in denial that long – and cling stubbornly to their beliefs like those who still believe in flat earth.
Wow. Haven’t the tables turned.
I estimated 0.2 C, but I have a co2 emissions limit due to fossil fuel depletion. This of course is mostly ignored by both sides. One side wants to skewer the world economy to spread communism and the other wants to burn whatever they can reach without understanding the amount is finite. Earthlings, you have been warned.
Fossil fuel depletion requires mitigation to meet development and population growth demands, unless you switch back to coal, which is what leads to the highest IPCC scenario.
“Fossil fuel depletion requires mitigation to meet development and population growth demands, unless you switch back to coal, . . . ”
How about nuclear, plus research on small-scale fusion?
Sounds lime a good option
This is Trumps fault and his playing to his feeble minded base?
“One expert group ran a worst-case computer simulation of what would happen if the U.S. does not curb emissions, but other nations do meet their targets. It found that America would add as much as half a degree of warming (0.3 degrees Celsius) to the globe by the end of century.” http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/scientists-donald-trump-pull-out-paris-climate-change-agreement-a7759411.html
Another expert group says it’s 0.1 – 0.2 C.
This is accomplishing very little over a very long time.
The US benefits more from other people’s efforts. Not fair play and the world will see the US for the deadbeats that they are. Very Trumplike. Hopefully, the US will participate again as soon as this administration is replaced.
Also this would be seen as the US freeloading off the people who really are making the effort to stabilize the climate by 2100.
Rather than all or nothing, we have solar and wind in service. The odds of that going away soon are low. An example, Redwing nuclear power plant. It wanted to keep going for more decades. Renew its permit or some such thing. So it asked the state if it could do that? The state said yes, if Minnesota also gets wind turbines. We got them.
Yes Ragnaar. And having been shown direct and incontrovertible evidence of his propaganda failure Jim D desperately tries to change the subject.
Completely clueless as usual Jim.
The US as the world’s biggest deadbeat and freeloader?
Not hardly. Who do you think it is safeguarding global trade since 1945?
Here’s a hint – this message is brought to you courtesy of the United States Navy.
That’s the Prairie Island nuclear plant. It’s on the res, a little more than halfway between Hastings and Red Wing.
If you are ever in Hastings try the Beer Stube.
I am near Lake Minnetonka. Took the family to Slippery’s Bar & Grill once and watched tugboats push barges and ate catfish.
Also this would be seen as the US freeloading off the people who really are making the effort to stabilize the climate by 2100.
Well, not to get too far from the QTIIPS theme, but, no:
Absolutely amazing chartsmanship.
By the scientific method, correlation is NOT causation.
Instead of starting at the bottom of the Little Ice Age, do the same chart beginning at the peak of the Holocene Optimum! Cooling since then.
Correlation is evidence, not always causation but sometimes. Not sure what graph you are referring to, however.
Jim D: “With new storage methods for solar and wind energy, or the possibility of solar-to-hydrogen technology, there is a lot that can happen in just decades”
What new storage methods? I mean economical grid-scale methods!
There are countries re-engineering the infrastructure on which their existence depends on the basis of the wishful thinking. This is what happens when you let children get their way. It always ends in tears!
Batteries or other methods, gravitational, chemical, thermal, pneumatic, capacitors, etc. Many potential technologies there and a lucrative prize. This is where innovation wins, and it doesn’t have to be done tomorrow only in a few decades from now. It allows renewables that extra leap to being more than 50%.
And the nations that are installing old, expensive and unworkable wind and solar technologies aren’t innovating.
Exactly. You get it. Innovation is needed. It doesn’t work using 20th century technology. This is the 21st century. We can do better.
And the U.S. will do better technologically in the future, Jim D. But we will be doing things you can’t imagine in an economy far better than today’s.
We will not be dicking around in your non-problem of warming. It’s like bean babies; a passing fad.
IPCC climate models are bunk and the UNFCCC is a bunch of SJW-ers and kleptocrats.
Trump wants to stick with 20th century fossil fuel technology as the world modernizes, and he shows no interest in modern technology. It’s his mistake to own. Cities and states will find ways around his obstruction to mitigate his effect.
Gawd, Jim D! You have just got to stop listening to the MSM know-nothings!
Who cares about how people want to throw their money around? I just don’t want the Federal government wasting my tax dollars on unreliable and obsolete wind and solar schemes.
So you know, I spent an increasingly responsible career in planning, financing, design, construction and operation and maintenance of electric power systems, including generation, transmission and distribution of electric power. I played significant roles in the development of hydroelectric, geothermal and solar power generation plants.
Don’t kid a kidder.
Which part of climate change are you not believing? Is it complete denial of even AR5’s scientific WG1 part, or more like a WG2 impacts or WG3 mitigation thing?
Did you actually read and understand what the meat of WG1? Not the SPM, that’s propaganda.
WG1 did not say CAGW, even though it was model driven.
No one said CAGW in WG1 because that assesses the temperature rise, not its impact. WG2 does impacts and assesses danger levels but does not use CAGW. If there is a part of WG1 you don’t agree with, mention it because you are being very nonspecific so far on the actual science.
You are really looking silly, yimmy.
It’s late. I will sign out Trump’s way. covfefe.
Jim D: “potential technologies”
In other words: “technologies that are not economically/technically viable and that we have no certain way of knowing ever will be”
Yep, that’s a great plan you are betting the future of humanity on there!
Here’s a thought:-
Why not develop one or more of the storage technologies from your fictional list to the point where they are technically and economically viable and then roll out the wind and solar farms that depend on them?
But I guess that would require you to have a rational disposition, rather than a religious one.
You gave up already. Just rolled over and died. Sad. Well humanity is more resilient than that and the climate can be stabilized, hopefully sooner rather than later. Be more optimistic. Think how different it is now than just 30 years ago. Technology advances whether you like it or not, especially with an incentive.
Rather expensive solar and wind incentives.
Jim D: “Think how different it is now than just 30 years ago. Technology advances whether you like it or not, especially with an incentive.”
Yes, Jim, technology advances – I’ve even been involved in advancing some of it myself. However, this banal truth does not answer the question that matters: which breakthrough technologies will emerge and which will not?
Yes, the world is different today than it was thirst years ago. The question is, did you know thirty years ago in which precise ways it would be different today because if you didn’t your platitudinous nonsense is of ZERO practical value.
If you want to embrace religion so you can enjoy all of the fuzzy good feelings that accompany fuzzy non-answers, I recommend you adopt a traditional one as they have a longer track-record for utility, and tend to have a more sophisticated theology that distinguishes the secular and the spiritual domains. Religious faith is a good thing, Jim, but you need to understand that it doesn’t work like a vending machine when you insert your payment, punch in the code, and whatever you’ve chosen just pops out. It’s more complicated than that.
The reaction from the scientific side has been surreal. While plenty of alarm and nuttery is to be expected from the media and politicians, scientists and academics usually had a more measured take. That’s gone out the window the last few days. One example: http://www.desdeelexilio.com/2017/06/04/climate-feedback-goes-full-nonsense-on-paris-agreement/
By the way, Gavin Schmidt seems clueless about Kyoto and the consequences of the US withdrawal back then. Ironically he revealed his ignorance in a thread complaining about how politicians don’t listen to ‘experts’ (which presumably includes himself).
And of course, the opportunities to start reducing emissions were set back years.
Yeah, I like that one.
The decrease of ghg emissions that occurred over the last decade had nothing to do with Paris, but somehow, without Paris they can’t continue? Please.
It comes down to lack of education about economics.
Centralized authoritarian governments are never as efficient as individuals in a market place.
TE, look at the US vs EU chart I posted a bit above. From the moment Bush exited Kyoto the US economy decarbonized FASTER than Europe’s! I guess those Koch-funded deniers blocking progress on emissions are super-influential in Europe.
All their meetings and regulations and renewable quotas have been a waste. But they can’t admit as much.
> The decrease of ghg emissions that occurred over the last decade had nothing to do with Paris, but somehow, without Paris they can’t continue? Please.
Cherrypicking the optimum point right before the 2009 crash much, Teddie?
All the 1990 lines are lower than the 2014 lines.
If ghg emissions are to continue then why not sign the pledge?
> It comes down to lack of education about economics. Centralized authoritarian governments are never as efficient as individuals in a market place.
International treaties don’t a central government make, so it might rather come down to a lack of education in political philosophy.
As if teh Donald did just not make an authoritarian move anyway.
The POTUS Donald J. Trump is undoing an authoritarian move, willy. If put to a vote before the people’s elected lawmakers, this Paris crap would have never passed.
The people are in favor, but the lawmakers are not. Go figure.
Come on, Don Don. Since you’re here, Denizens must assume that you saved America. It shouldn’t cost you anything to admit that the Donald’s rhetoric is authoritarian to its core. It’s unclear if he’ll ever be able to do what he says, but what he says is loud and unclear enough:
America’s shining was already waning, Don Don. Teh Donald’s clownish performance is already beyond the international scene’s spectator’s wildest dreams. Walt Disney’s prophecy has come true.
Comedy is now America’s first export.
That’s a lot of BS, willy. You sound like nutty Maxine Waters and those left loon pinheads on the 9th Circuit. Trump rules. You will have another chance in 2020.
You must have missed the part about Trump promising to get out of the fake Paris accord and then getting elected POTUS, yimmy. He has just solidified his support from the working class voters who gave him victory in OH, PA, WI, WV etc. etc.
Cherrypicking the optimum point right before the 2009 crash much, Teddie?
Try again. Emissions in 2016 were lower than even 2009.
If ghg emissions are to continue then why not sign the pledge?
And also it doesn’t matter if we leave, then, right?
International treaties don’t a central government make, so it might rather come down to a lack of education in political philosophy.
Allocating your tax dollars to nonsensically go to third world dictators without your representation represents a ceding of US sovereignty.
Strangely, I’d rather that money go to Mosher’s social security and health care than sending it down rat holes.
Paris was specifically designed to not be a treaty because cynical hysterics knew the Senate would never pass it.
As if teh Donald did just not make an authoritarian move anyway.
And Obama was authoritarian by signing it in the first place?
Jim D thinks that the citizens of the US are for staying in the accord, but the legislators are not. You just flunked civics Jim. Legislators vote based on their assessment of what the voters want, not from what media polls say they want. All they have to do in this case is look at where climate change is on the list of topics voters are concerned about. Right down there at the bottom. Could be mistaken for the fine print it is so low.
If you truly think America is waning, that we are seen as a joke by the rest of the world, then I suggest you stop drinking. Your sense of perception isn’t even in the same universe with reality.
If we are a waning power, who is going to take over the role of leadership? Nearly every G20 country is dependent on the US. A situation which is not going to change in our lifetimes. They depend on US markets to consume their goods. They depend on the US Navy to safeguard those goods and the raw materials needed to produce them as the travel the global trade routes. They depend on the US as a safe haven for their money. The US still leads the world in innovation by a large margin. US universities still draw the brightest students from around the world. The US is about to become energy independent. (Speaking of energy, whom do you think benefits from US involvement in the Middle East? Our friends and allies maybe?)
None of these things are going to change. Neither is the fact the US has more miles of navigable rivers than the rest of the world combined and more deepwater natural harbors than the rest of the world combined. Or the greatest contiguous stretch of arable farm land in the world (which conveniently happens to be adjacent to those navigable rivers I mentioned.
Here is what is going to change – populations. The EU countries are at negative population growth, as is China, Japan and South Korea. That’s a ticking demographic bomb. China’s problem is made worse by the imbalance between the sexes. Meanwhile the US enjoys a positive population growth. There is a bulge we are just now entering as the baby boomers retire, which our kids will have to pay for social services, but once they pass in the 20 years or so, that burden gets lifted while all of our competitors watch theirs grow.
The US is not within a country mile of losing its position of dominance in the world, despite how much a$$hats like you wish it were so. Which probably does more to explain why Trump won then all of the conspiracy theories about the Russians. I suspect Trump knows all of this and has concluded it’s time to rewrite the rules.
timg56, if you think lawmakers vote based on their constituents’ wishes and not their biggest campaign donors’ wishes, you don’t live in the post Citizens United world. Nowadays money is speech and therefore more money is more speech. If you are not rich, your wishes don’t count for much with the lawmakers. That’s why, when twice as many Americans want to stay with Paris as leave, you get the President doing the opposite because he listens to Pruitt who only listens to big fossil that used to pay him. They’re in the swamp with big fossil and not representing the people instead as Trump promised to. No surprise.
But yimmy, haven’t your side been saying that Big Fossil CEOs are in favor of staying with the Paris BS? And you keep forgetting that The Donald got elected POTUS after having told the folks emphatically that he was going to ditch Paris. Nobody who is in favor of the Paris fraud voted for Trump. Obviously, he doesn’t need them.
DM, climate didn’t figure much into the Trump supporters voting, except perhaps to those that thought it was a Chinese hoax. Their main drivers were a common hate of other races, other religions, other countries, other lifestyles, and you only have to look at what his crowds cheer about to see that. That common hatred is his base. Don’t you agree?
Jim D, you have an ugly mind; people that disagree with your politics are “haters.”
That trait interferes with rational discourse. Since I am a “hater” you don’t have to listen to my arguments. I am not a rational person; I just hate people.
I just look at what the Trump crowd cheer about. Complete Muslim ban. Hooray. Build the wall and make the Mexicans pay. Hooray. Deplorables on show there. It’s all black and white with Muslims and Mexicans. My opinion.
Your opinion, Jim D, is on parade. Anybody that believes in secure borders and frustrating terrorists is a “hater” in your world.
The wall is symbolic. Most people don’t get in via the desert. It’s a pacifier for a certain type, and Mexico is not paying. It is the taxpayer, and the symbol will cost tens of billions of dollars for a purpose that gives nothing back.
And yet you stick to Paris, Jim D, because it is a symbol, not an effective vehicle if you assume CAGW.
It’s just science.
No, Jim D. It’s politics and money (they go hand-in-hand).
Even you must admit Paris is mostly virtue signaling.
I say the things I say because I was very successful at problem solving. CAGW can’t even describe the problem without circular argumentation, mostly based on poor model speculation.
Nice work, yimmy. I hope you lefty loons keep that mother –snipping– crap up right on through November 2020. It worked so well for you all last year. I learned something here, yimmy. I have been overestimating you all these years.
DM, haven’t you figured out by now that Trump is a buffoon and his minders have to keep cleaning up after him. His popularity is declining and lower than any first-term president as people see him for what he is: a talker and not a doer or even a knower. He goes from policy failure to tweet-war to international embarrassment and back to failure. Rinse and repeat. A hopeless self-involved spiral. Very entertaining.
We get it, yimmy. The Donald according to your delusional ilk had a virtually zero chance of becoming POTUS and now he is even less popular. We are happy that you clowns are so pleased and confident. Well I am lying. You are running around like chickens without heads, but you are going to impeach The Most Powerful Man in the World, who is steadily kicking your behinds up between your ears, any day now. Keep it up. Trump rules!
I think the people who voted for him expected him to help them, but now he wants to take their health insurance away from them and give tax breaks to the rich to pay for it. The House is a disaster for any kind of implementation and now have only themselves to blame. For his part, he’s following in the steps of Nixon, but is rather less informed on how things work.
You don’t know any people who voted for POTUS Trump, yimmy. Your crowd were almost mortally shocked that we exist in numbers great enough to put that old hag Hillary in her rightful place. L-O-S-E-R! You live entirely in your little left loon huffpo world of socialist fanatics who have only hatred for the people who have common sense. We don’t expect you to like us. We are steadily kicking your hind ends up between your ears. It’s going to be a long and painful eight more years, yimmy dee. Seek counseling.
We never even signed the damn accord Alberto. Gavin Schmidt should read Anthony Watts WUWT site, he would get a education on the facts about this planet we live on, You know, the REAL world.
Nice job doubling and tripling down on nonsense and plain falseness.
“if you think lawmakers vote based on their constituents’ wishes and not their biggest campaign donors’ wishes, you don’t live in the post Citizens United world. Nowadays money is speech and therefore more money is more speech. If you are not rich, your wishes don’t count for much with the lawmakers.”
Which is why all those low income, low education deplorables failed to get their candidate elected, right? Wait a minute, their guy did win, even though his opponents out spent him by an order of magnitude or more. As I said above, you flunk civics.
“when twice as many Americans want to stay with Paris as leave”
Not only do you fail to understand civics, you also fail at understand human nature. When asked if they think the US should remain in the Paris Accord, a majority of US citizens will say yes. Most likely due to all of the alarming stories they’ve seen in the press about how mankind is threatened and Paris will prevent all the bad things from happening. But when asked where do they rate CC as a problem, they put it at the bottom of their concerns. And when asked how much extra they are willing to pay on their energy bill or at the pump and they respond with “Say what?”. In other words Jim they only support it if it doesn’t cost them anything. Politicians excel at taking the pulse of their constituents and understand the difference.
“Pruitt who only listens to big fossil ”
Are you referring to the same big fossil which urged Trump not to pull out? Can’t have it both ways Jim.
“climate didn’t figure much into the Trump supporters voting,”
How do you know? How many Trump voters have you talked to? I voted for him and the politicalization of the climate debate figured into the reasons he received my vote.
“Their main drivers were a common hate of other races, other religions, other countries, other lifestyles”
Cancel the last question. You just demonstrated you haven’t a clue why people voted for Trump. On the other hand you have demonstrated your well honed ability to make bald assertions unsupported by any fact, as well as your competence in parroting characterizations from a biased media.
“Trump is a buffoon ”
And yet you can still give him pointers on how to be a buffoon.
“I think the people who voted for him expected him to help them …”
Piece of advice Jim – never start out with the phrase “I think”. Because that’s a sure sign what you are about to say is nonsense. Seriously, you offer opinions on more subjects you have zero experience in or understanding of than any other commentator here.
Timg56, plus many for your “Seriously, you offer opinions on more subjects you have zero experience in or understanding of than any other commentator here.” concerning Jim D.
You can try to deviate away from the fact that people favored staying in Paris over leaving by two to one. Trump wasn’t representing Pittsburgh at all. They voted for Hillary and also wanted to stay with Paris. There’s all kinds of things wrong with saying Trump was doing what the people want regarding the climate question. Many in his own administration were against this move and they probably voted for him hoping he would see sense.
From personal experience, Jim D, a leader must make the hard decisions. Only in the unknowable future will the winners and losers be determined.
Trump wants the US to be freeloaders on climate mitigation. If he bends US emissions up again, it is not a win, but just cheating. This gives the country the same selfish image as Trump has cultivated for himself.
You finally get it, Jim D. We are following what I will call the “China model.”
China is cutting emissions despite a faster GDP growth rate than the US due largely to development. We can only hope that the US also reduces its carbon intensity at the same rate, but I suspect they lag. Developing countries have to reduce carbon intensity under Paris, which is different from developed countries. It allows for growth.
Reductions to be paid for by U.S. and other taxpayers.
Developing countries (Third World, mostly) made it abundantly clear that they would do nothing without Western cash. Get real, Jim D!
I notice you do not use my name when responding to me. I have to assume it is your unconscious way of depersonalizing your personal attacks on me.
China and India were a special case of large growing economies. A major part of Paris was getting them on board with carbon intensity reductions. Now China is even more on board than the US, and likely to develop a renewable energy market in the third world. If I made a personal attack, sorry. What was it so I don’t do it again because it was inadvertent.
Personally condescending verbiage is scattered throughout your discourse, and not only with me. I suggest you review your missives for unwarranted personal slights before posting them, Jim D.
Sorry about the delayed response; I had to feed and water the horses.
I don’t say personal things like calling someone a Soviet. DM and others say a lot worse about me often being deleted for their troubles. I can take it. It’s a spirited blog here sometimes. Part of the game.
I didn’t call anyone a “Soviet,” Jim D. I said the “Soviet Union solution.” I believe.
But I admit I do throw in some personal slights at times. Pardon, me.
Oh, Jim D, an afterthought: China and others’ talk is cheap. Give it a few years before drawing any conclusions from the Paris happy talk.
I posted a link that there is evidence they already peaked. India is thinking better of solar than coal these days too.
Please post it again, Jim D. All I have seen as factual data shows CO2 emissions growing in India and China.
This is the link.
Ho, Ho, Ho, Jim D. A Greenpeace study?
Was this before the revelation of a 17% under-reporting of coal use?
It would be horrible for you if China has already peaked, right? All that dissing them for nothing, revising your opinions. China is trying harder than Trump for sure. They have bought in, and Europe appreciates their effort.
Where do you get Greenpeace from, by the way? Insideclimatenews is “A Pulitzer Prize-winning, non-profit, non-partisan news organization dedicated to covering climate change, energy and the environment.”
If you bothered to read the article, Jim D, you would have noticed it all came from Greenpeace. Read it!
No, they quote Greenpeace among several other corroborating sources for the main story, as journalists do. If even Greenpeace think China is doing enough, that is a statement because they should be even more skeptical than you of emitters like China.
They got the data from Greenpeace. Statements by the NRDC. Fluff propaganda from China. Come on, Jim D!
You may notice a few more sources in there too. What does your preferred news say?
Oh, Jim D, throw in the NRDC to boot. I really trust green NGOs to provide impartial news.
Sure, find some alternative up-to-date facts then.
Like China’s 17% under-reporting of coal consumption?
For which year? What is the trend?
Come on, Jim D; do your own reading of the news.
I gave you a trend. You didn’t have an alternative. We’ll leave it at that.
You gave me Greenpeace propaganda.
Well, Jim D, its been fun, but your dodging around the fundamental issues is getting tiresome.
I’ll get some dessert and watch some mindless TV before bed.
I love the progressives’ new limp-wristed battle cry.
Jim D, I really don’t care if someone predicts 700 ppm CO2 ramping up over the next 83 years. It will be what it will be. There is no evidence that concentrations at that level (and above) will harm our climate. Do you have such evidence?
I wonder what will happen when the $100 Billion a year Green Climate Fund doesn’t materialize. China was counting on that money going to Third World countries to pay for China equipment and construction companies.
Developing countries will continue to develop with mainly fossil fuels. Without Western handouts, they won’t pay a premium for unreliable stuff.
You have interesting conspiracy theories. I will file them where they belong. You are OK with 700 ppm then. That’s all I need to know. 700 ppm A OK climate according to Dave Fair – check. Talk to someone about it.
You don’t get it, Jim D.
The 700 ppm CO2 is a fantasy number; I don’t care about it. It is speculation based on assumptions about an unknown future energy economy. You don’t pay money for speculation, no matter how “sciency” the speculation sounds.
The “Precautionary Principle” is just another way for individuals and groups to hijack power and money from the rubes. Show me that IPCC climate models aren’t bunk, Jim D.
OK, these numbers come from per capita emissions, so we get emission growth via two factors: development and population growth. If per capita emissions are to stay the same or come down we need to be going to other energy sources, but you’re not interested in this part of the debate, so I will not bother you with it.
This is not a debate. It is throwing around a lot of assumptions.
Thank you for promising to not bother me anymore.
Conventional wisdom (left-wing loons and #nevertrumpers) say POTUS Most Powerful Man in the World D.J. Trump will surely pay a price for destroying the world when 2020 rolls around. Same clowns who said he had virtually no chance of being POTUS.
That seems fair, yimmy. We have been saving the world from totalitarian monsters for a long time. We will continue to shoulder that burden, costly in both treasure and American lives. We’ll let somebody else pretend to do something about this alleged threat. It will give them a reason to feel good about themselves, for a change.
Don, let’s call it a “Reverse Neville Chamberlain!”
It is more economically favorable to mitigate and stabilize the climate than to keep adapting ad infinitum. The sums have been done. Mitigation is cheaper than you think because it doesn’t remove money from the economy, just redirects it into more worthwhile futureproof directions.
The “broken window” analogy again, Jim D?
Get a bunch of real planners and engineers on the task.
My analogy for this is bailing out a boat. Either you continue bailing forever or you fix the hole. Fixing the hole is cheaper in the long run.
I guess, then, Jim D, that we will never again in the future need bilge pumps.
Not unless we start messing with the climate again.
Trump did about all anyone could do to justify action based on economic common sense without being drawn into the corrupted and corrupting pseudoscience of global warming.
Bjorn Lomoborg has been great. This podcast in particular: https://soundcloud.com/reasonmag/bjorn-lomborg-the-us-was-right-to-withdraw-from-the-paris-climate-accord
I agree with your statement: “The challenge is to redirect the political angst over this issue into productive directions that increase the well being of humans and ecosystems.”
The ‘+Intense Political Symbolism part of Hennesey’s acronym is hard to deny:
Retirement from academia seems to agree with you. This is an excellent focused post. Please keep them coming.
But them so is our host’s , The Heartland Institute’s and the GWPF’s status as part of the QTIIPS problem.
Do you have anything other than the same old tired smears of scientists?
Yes- that It is a capital mistake to confuse state of the art science with things tired old scientists persist in repeating .
Russell, Thank you for confirming that you have nothing of any substance beyond smearing scientists with whom you disagree.
There are some claims that despite sea level rise Bangladesh (too) is gaining land area, e.g. “A Study of Morphological Changes in the Coastal Areas and Offshore Islands of Bangladesh Using Remote Sensing” http://article.sapub.org/10.5923.j.ajgis.20130201.03.html
Pingback: Paris Accord: QTIIPS – Enjeux énergies et environnement
Although not used to support Trump’s decision to withdraw from the Paris Treaty, the technical argument to withdraw is also compelling.
Some physicists (most recently President Rosenbaum of Caltech) now posit that nature cannot be modeled with Newtonian physics but possibly might be modeled with quantum physics. The European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN) in December 2016 predicted a century of non-warming in which CO2 does not play a significant role. CERN concludes that climate models used by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to estimate future temperatures are too high and that the models should be redone. The CERN models are driven by quantum physics. The framework for the Paris Treaty has been constructed from the results of Newtonian physics, the wrong science, and the policies flowing out from the Treaty are the wrong policies.
On a much shorter time frame, my analysis of the HadCRUT4 time-temperature data supports the long-term predictions from the CERN studies. The data indicate a high likelihood of the beginning of a decline in the global mean surface temperature trend line within the next decade. The first derivative of the temperature trend line has been positive for the past 20 years but has decreased in value each month for the past 20 years. The derivative is likely to become negative in the mid-2020s and increase in negative slope well into the 2030s, i.e., the mean global surface temperature will decline.
Let me suggest what U.S. withdrawal from the Paris Climate Agreement means. It means that the U.S. will not waste trillions of dollars implementing the wrong environmental policies. It means that billions of people in undeveloped countries will have the opportunity to rise out of poverty because of the availability of cheap, hydrocarbon-based energy sources. It means that the economies of the U.S. and the world will prosper, and the prospect of world-wide armed conflicts will decrease.
The emphasis now should be to roll back Ill-advised environmental regulations before they destroy the U.S. economy. A rational environmental protection program and a vibrant economy can co-exist. Getting out of the Paris Agreement is a huge step in the right direction.
That comment rings a bell.
The “bell” banned further comment by me.
Sad. Dr. Seismo was a great puppet name.
Officially calling BS on the MIT press release.
Here’s their 2015 report: https://globalchange.mit.edu/sites/default/files/newsletters/files/2015%20Energy%20%26%20Climate%20Outlook.pdf
Slide 14, figure 17 shows their expected CO2 concentrations: 710 ppm by the end of the century. And yes, these are the CO2 concentrations they expect under Paris; if you check their 2014 report you’ll see they expected 750ppm instead of 710ppm, and the difference is due to additional ‘pledges’ made in 2015 (the 2014 report used the Copenhagen-Cancun pledges in its projections).
(page 12, figure 17)
There is no way Paris can save the world 1ºC of warming and still end up at 700ppm. It’s fantasy – it would imply concentrations, without mitigation, of over 1000ppm.
Of course, all the climate pledges so far have done absolutely nothing to decarbonize the economy, so why would anyone expect different from Paris is a mystery.
why anyone would (wrong word order)
My concern is that Trump labeled CO2 emissions as “pollution” rather than questioning the alarmist science, as he should have done. He made the right decision for the wrong reason. It is not a matter of the Chinese et al not doing enough, or letting their emissions increase, etc. There is no scientific basis for anyone doing anything to reduce emissions at this point. That message was missed.
BTW the green fund is $100 billion/yr, not $100 billion. That’s a trillion $ a decade.
right decision for the wrong reason
Good assessment. May be because, while observations seem to corroborate more good than harm, one can never extinguish every imagination of future harm, no matter how unlikely.
TE, let’s engrave your “one can never extinguish every imagination of future harm, no matter how unlikely” on the portals of Congress.
As Dr. Curry has said: “IPCC climate models are not sufficient for fundamentally altering our society, economy and energy systems.”
Paris enthusiasm was based on unreliable models. The same goes for EPA’s Social Cost of Carbon.
DW, in a brief speech to the public It is easier to say Paris is a bad deal, MAGA. The offer to renegotiate was a sop to his administrations remainers, likely knowing Merkel and Macron would immediately reject it.
I think the right place to expose the poor climate science is redoing the endangerment finding, Gina McCarthy’s EPA relied on IPCC. That offers plenty of targets of opportunity in AR4 and now AR5 to show how biased/corrupted the ‘official’ settled science is. The CCA describes the fact finding process, which can then be summarized. When Greens sue to overturn the new result, those same summarized facts get into the court record. Much more robust than a speech.
Trump is not a climate scientist. He is a politician. He has a responsibility. It was an excellent speech.
POTUS The Donald avoided arguing the alleged climate science of CAGW. No point in doing that. The Donald is in charge.
“The Donald is in charge.”
You are showing how sore are your little rumps. POTUS The Donald’s foot has done a lot of damage to the hind ends of innumerable little leftish cartoon characters. And you got a lot more coming.
On the contrary, what the President says establishes Admin policy. Every federal Department and Agency can now refer to CO2 “polluters” and “pollution” with impunity. This may well have been the biggest climate policy event in his Presidency. He had the opportunity to advance skepticism as policy, with just a single sentence, but he blew it. The government is larded with alarmists and the chances of bringing them to heel are now greatly reduced. If CO2 is pollution then it must be reduced.
DW, to fix that all he has to do is give another speech with Pruitt in the background as they officially start the endangerment redo. I don’t think they have all the assets in place for that yet.
David is under the mis-impression that a word uttered in the Rose Garden is gospel. The POTUS Commander in Chief and Most Powerful Man in the World can step out into the Rose, at his convenience, and unutter the word that offends David.
Until you recognise that your beliefs you keep stating without any evidence to support them are just baseless assertions, you are wasting your time. Until you realise that the economic costs and benefits of GHG emissions are required to support your claim, you’ll keep repeating baseless beliefs endlessly, just like Jimmy D does.
That is your belief. It is a baseless assertion. You cannot support it with authoritative sources.
You will never be able to support it until you can show the benefits of GHG emissions outweigh the damages. To do that, you need valid damage functions and a widely accepted value for the social cost of carbon. To achieve these needs objective, unbiased studies, research and anlalysis. It’s what at least half the research effort should have been been on for the past 30 years. But it hasn’t – possibly because the climatariate recognised it would undermine or totaly negate their message.
US emissions are already lower than Paris goal trends, and will likely continue:
This occurred not because of government mandates or taxes, but because of market innovation ( increased efficiency and fracking for natural gas ), as well as demographic trends.
This does get to the emotional heart of some of the reaction:
Climate Super Heroes who fantasize about saving the planet can only do so by government imposition and feel threatened by Adam Smith free market choices doing the same thing.
Beyond the US, the fracking that has led to much of the US decrease has not yet expanded rapidly, but given that the technology exists ( and is getting further refined every day ) the rest of the world will also enjoy reduced CO2 emissions by using nat gas instead of coal.
And I’ll yet again re-iterate: demographic trends are reducing global demand for everything, including fossil fuels. These trends are probably not well captured in the economic models and explain why CO2 emissions have recently peaked.
Cliff Mass has a great blog post on this issue.
The non QTIIPs aspect of this is not Paris. It was Trumps simultaneous announcement about also pulling of of the Green Climate Fund. I have now researched that in some detail.
The GCF was set up persuant to Copenhagen. The headquarters was established in Korea in 2010, so plainly GCF is NOT part of Paris. It is separate entity under UNFCCC.
The specific GCF enabling UNFCCC language is Article 4(3). To paraphrase, it says annex 2 countries (developed) SHALL pay new and additional funds fo mitigate or adapt ALL climate damage to all other UNFCCC signatories. All Paris did was set the notional bill at $100 billion/yr by 2020. Paris is voluntary. UNFCCC 4(3) is mandatory with no formal ‘damage’ claims yet presented. Small island state water desal is just the tip of the iceberg (guest post Caribbean Water).
UNFCCC is a Congressional Pact adopted (‘ratified’ by majority vote of both chambers) by Congress under Clinton on 21 March 1994. It is legally binding on the US. Literally, Tuvalu could present a bill for ‘damages’ in US federal court and force proportionate payment. As US is by far the largest Annex 2 economy, it would shoulder by far the largest proportion of these ‘damages’. Thats why Trump’s speech said tens and tens of billions per year. This has to go.
The exit mechanism is simple. Send written notice of withdrawal from UNFCCC under Article 25 section 3. One year and out with no complications. By operation of that section and of mirrored Paris Article 28 section 3, that is automatically also withdrawal from the Paris accord. Two birds with one stone in one year with a one sentance letter. All the complexities of Paris exit delays in Article 28 sections 1 and 2 fall away.
And since PL 103-236 passed in 1994 prohibits any funding to UNFCCC and derivatives (GCF) after April 2016 since that month UNFCCC recognized Palestine as a full member state, we can give a second reason for withdrawing even though no reason is required. The second $500 million Obama sent GCF on January 17 2017 was clearly unlawful, with 2011 UNESCO as established precedent. In my opinion a high crime or misdemeanor, but too late for impeachment.
You argued that a withdrawal from the UNFCCC was the fastest way out of Paris. With Pruitt’s gallery of lawyers he is undoubtedly aware of it. As a Negotiator In Chief he is probably hiding a couple of cards in his sleeves.
It may be that the treat of withdrawal from UNFCCC may be a “Trump” card to be used at a some future date if the hassle or legal bills pile up. He already has taken the flack. Maybe he could say: “I won’t pull out of UNFCCC if the Democrats go along with some parts of my agenda. A meatless tradeoff for the Climate, to dangle before the partisan Democrats who seem to be clutching at straws right now.
Rivstan, you say too late for impeachment. How about charges of treason?
FG, a sitting president is immune from civil and criminal prosecution to avoid political harassment. Established in a series of SCOTUS rulings starting with US v. Nixon in 1973. The only possible action is impeachment in the house followed by conviction in the senate and removal from office. That Obama did a half $billion knowingly unlawful act three days before leaving office is now part of his permanent legacy. Just like the stayed unconstitutional CPP and the ‘if you like your doctor you can keep your doctor’ lie. History will not be kind. Here I just named and shamed.
So immunity for treasonous actions in office once no longer president?
How about just docking his pension?
You folks are kidding yourselves. Trump was barely able to pull out of Paris (and has offered to rejoin). He is not about to pull out of the long standing UNFCCC.
DW, the ONLY way to exit mandatory GCF obligations under UNFCCC article 4(3) is exit UNFCCC. If my legal analysis upthread missed something, please explain that something so I can learn. The UNFCCC text is available with one google click (UNFCCC text), as is all the GCF stuff with one google click (Green Climate Fund).
Rud, remember that Russia is a proud guarantor of the territorial integrity of Ukraine (together with the United States and other important countries). There are many ways to fulfill your obligations.
CG, only because we allowed them to despite other implicit promises. There was nothing treaty binding at that time, so I find not starting WW3 equivalent to WW1 a rationsl decision. Msybe corrupt Ukraine should shoulder some responsibility.
Where is the substitute energy going to come from in any effort to reduce CO2? Wind, solar, tidal, amd geothermal only provide 1.3% of the total energy use globally (2014 IEA data). That fact hides behind other sources (wood etc) in the renewable discussions.
“It’s essential that we not fly blind into this uncertain future.”
I would argue that we fly blind into a future that is always uncertain.
We use our emotional self, many times through unconscious mechanisms as a guide to anticipating future events, drawing upon episodes of past experiences and learned behavior for coping strategies.
Our emotional self is at play in the polarizing of thoughts regarding issues that may seem trivial to outsiders although perceived by us as existential to our well being.
I am guilty of such emotional energy guiding my passions, requiring, either a stiff drink or a long walk walk to sort out my thoughts. It seems to me that others may not want to be dissuaded from that energy or “high” that comes from an “all in” commitment to a world changing ideology.
In preparing myself for the future, whatever stage of life I have found for my own self, I have had to adjust. Tenacity and resolution toward a goal doesn’t involved my riling against some entity or person as obstacles to those goals.
Those who seem to blame others or institutional barriers for resolution require others or institutions to change which seems to me to be a very long drawn out process, something the individual perceive aggrieved may never see in their life time.
My philosophy is to prepare myself to adapt to life’s persistent questions as opposed to searching out tea leaves for answers to life’s eternal uncertainties.
Enjoy the journey for as long as it lasts.
RiH008, you are a true philosopher and I agree with much of what you say.
It appears true that “… others may not want to be dissuaded from that energy or “high” that comes from an “all in” commitment to a world changing ideology.”
Your “… the individual perceive aggrieved …” may (likely) enjoy the blame and riling against human and institutional targets to foolishly to try to eliminate life’s unavoidable “uncertainties.”
There seem to be many aggrieved CAGWers commenting here. IPCC climate models are a pretty flimsy basis for “a world changing ideology.”
So grateful for the leave Paris accord decision and refocus on domestic policy and perhaps energy independence. As efficiency increases US will reduce emissions as TE notes. Big issue is focus foreign aid to clean water, sewage treatment and cooking and light in domestic housing. The windmills and solar were not going to provide distributed power under the kleptomatic systems. Perhaps so small scale solar and clean water systems may help. But stop the fraudulent green machine.
Stop Algore flying his private jet to various homes and massive energy footprint of Dicaprio private jet romps to lecture the world on low carbon footprints. What hypocrisy.!!
“Big issue is focus foreign aid to clean water, sewage treatment and cooking and light in domestic housing.”
These are not sexy enough issues to attract coastal elite charitable funding. Everything has to be on a grand scale: damming rivers for hydro-electric; providing wide spread solar cooking pots which require 4 hours a day of direct overhead sunlight for the family bean meal; or an improved stove to burn dung less repugnantly; or… Whatever the “no coal fired electric generation” crowd can conceive.
Failed imagination has lead to failed wastefully overpriced programs, which, of course, don’t do the job.
Climate change hysteria is a lagging indicator of climate change, I’d bet.
$100 billion a year. For what 125 “poor” countries? Will poor countries actually use something like $800 million to, what install, 250 windmills to generate power to homes that don’t have electric – anything.
The problem with defining “a poor country” is that they have minimal infrastructure and still carry water back to their city home on top of their heads with clay pots. Now, what do they do with $800 million worth of solar panels?
Better off not building the windmills and solar panels and kept their CO2 contributions from manufacturing same, in the ground.
One aspect that may not be QTIIPS is the indigent nations fund.
$3 billion of taxpayer money going to dictatorship led 3rd world countries, all without ever having been approved by the taxpayers representatives.
No taxation without representation?
In the grand scheme of things, $3 billion isn’t a large percentage of US spending. But with ever growing entitlements and deficits, it’s not surprising that the US would balk at this.
I think this should go to help cover Mosher’s social security rather than another golden palace for some dictator.
Quantitatively small amount of money, but large violation of US sovereignty, as was the whole charade of ‘agreement’ versus treaty to begin with.
Thanks for he post
If the concern about Paris is the Environment and the health and welfare of people in the Developing World, then Judith Curry is absolutely spot on with this bit:
Those of you who have not spent a couple of years living in the wilds of the Developing World — and this means not in a cushy hotel in the Capitals or an All-Inclusive walled Tourist Enclave — have no idea what is means to live without running water, without drinkable water, without sanitation (toilets, showers, bathtubs), without 24/7 electrical power which means no refrigeration, no safe food.
Spending millions and billions on intermittent solar panels and wind generators in countries where mothers still walk miles and spend hours every day to collect water (unsafe water in most cases), where children die of easily-curable diseases and grow up mentally handicapped due to malnutrition and lack of vitamins costing a penny or two a day, such spending makes a mockery of altruism and humanitarianism — it is a cruel slap-in-the-face of those struggling to stay alive and raise their families.
KH, have not walkd in your shoes but have been to those countries. Will never forget something the country head of the largest European company in the largest South American country told me one time on a strategy planning mission: Dr. Istvan, never forget that half the people in this country count for nothing economically.
ristvan ==> Yes, they count for nothing because the consume almost nothing sold in stores, and produce nothing sold in stores or traded intra- or internationally.
But they are humans, our brothers and sisters, and we are, by our shared humanity, obligated to help them.
Governments providing accessible, dependable, cheap electrical power and subsidized (if necessary) cooking gas and clean safe drinking water are good starting points.
Kip, no argument, completely agree. Which is why the last word of the quote was economically. A true but horrific view.
ristvan: “A true but horrific view.”
There is no horror in truth. All horror originates in untruth – no matter how it is dressed up.
From the outside, you can’t help the poor’s situation if the “leadership” of that country doesn’t care about what you feel for their poor.
Another part of that country manager’s message, which I never forgot,
Thank God the Trump pulled out of the PA because now those people’s problems are going to be solved.
And don’t forget the Trump is going to start solving their problems by cutting foreign aid
Joshua ==> You are quite right that the US back-off on Paris will not help the poor in Africa or the Caribbean. US two-party politics is in actuality almost entirely meaningless and has little effect on the real world.
Re-direction of international aid funds has, however, a tremendous effect on who gets help where for what problems.
Aid funds spent on things that don’t provide any real benefit are wasted in the first place, and are in effect, stolen from problems that needs those funds.
We’ll have to wait and see what the Rump administration actually does with US foreign aid. You can expect that there will be less wasted funds, less funds sent to the bank accounts of kleptocrats and more funds spent on programs that actually benefit people in their homes.
Sorry for the brief comment above, but I can’t post on Climate Etc. but it seems I can on the Reader section of WordPress.com.
Folks here should read Andy Revkin’s piece if they haven’t already. https://www.propublica.org
Andy’s piece is a bit on the Believer side of Judith’s, but would agree that Trump’s move is more symbolic than having any real practical effect. He thinks there’s real value in the Climate Accord and resents Trump’s political stunt in opting out, which will do real damage to the pact. He properly questions the credentials of several countries, states and cities who presume to take international leadership on climate change.
At any rate, Andy as usual has written a thoughtful piece reflecting his experience on the climate issue.
You are so right. correct I mean. Right is now a swear word to the big green machine. Hopefully the CAGW alarmist crowd will abandon the crusade to seal from the taxpayers in the US now that the money spigot is turned down.
The entire scam was an effort to control the peasants by central control of energy and economic freedom.
Oh, by the way, Rud Istvan (my lawyer) asserts that the U.S. can exit on one year’s notice, while I hear on NPR and other places (NYT) that it takes 4 years.
Anyone care to weigh in?
Its complicated. But since all action by participating Nations is voluntary, the US can say “we’re doing nothing.” — and actually do nothing — without penalty. The US can, at the same time, say we intend to withdraw and begin the complicated process of withdrawal as laid out in the agreement – which takes a prescribed route and a set amount of time.
Relative to pledges we’ve already made but have not paid, we would be obligated to pay because of previous UNFCCC convention approved by Congress some years ago. But our payments are “subject to the availability of funds”. Other than this language, I’m not sure we can get out of it, but I’m confident the Trump administration won’t pay anyway.
Scraft1, trust ‘your’ lawyer. More crappy MSM half baked analysis. They read Paris Article sections 1 and 2, not 3, and forget Trump also promised to exit the GCF, which is only possible via UNFCCC Article 25 section 3, mirrored in Paris Article 28 section 3.
As long as the US does not send money – 4 years or 40 years no matter
I disagree with this:
I think it is a really important step towards stopping policies (and hopefully retards the spread of the ideology) that would substantially damage the world economy and slow the rate of improvement in human well-being over this century and beyond. The damage would be locked in forever. It’s like a lost golf stroke. it cannot be recovered.
Peter Lang: “It’s like a lost golf stroke. it cannot be recovered.”
Trump certainly understands golf – both as a player and as an entrepreneur. It may well be that a primitive mind that can at least fully grasp golf places Trump morally and intellectually a million miles above the current flock of world leaders.
“While I make no pretense at any particular wisdom in understanding complex geopolitics, the current trajectory of the Paris Climate Agreement is not going to change the Earth’s climate in any meaningful way.”
They know that.
It’s the geopolitics they want to change.
The dissolution of nations and the access to power that nations make possible,
and it’s American sovereignty that they particularly despise.
All we have to do is not send a check for $10,000,000,000 in the first year as a down payment on $100,000,000,000 and the handout seekers will get the message. Then cut the contributions to IPCC to 0. Trump already cut DOE and EPA science dramatically. Too bad lots of good science gets cut along with the models but payback must be expected for gross overreach and abdication of science professionalism by CAGW activists.
By PL 103-236 passed in 1994, the US can find ZERO of UNFCCC and any of its subsidiary sequela ( which include IPCC, GCF, and Paris) after April 2016, the month UNFCCC admitted Palestine as a full member state. Google Unesco 2011 for details.
Trump has not cut anything. He has merely requested it.
Whatever money is appropriated for the DOE and EPA, it will be spent by Trump appointed administrators. I am guessing spending on Obama imposed BS will be de-emphasised.
Just about the dumbest reaction to the quitting-Paris thing: a proposal for a carbon tax against US exports. Notice that although this is supposed to account for CO2 emissions embedded into these exports, the headline makes it quite clear that the point is simply to punish the country for refusing to go along with the Paris farce, regardless of emissions.
My response (copied and pasted from other blog):
‘This proposal is unjustified. The US economy is more CO2-efficient than the world average, so if anything the US should tax imports from other countries, not the other way around. (Of course, any tax that targets the less CO2-efficient economies will inevitably hit hardest poor or developing countries like Ukraine, India, etc.)
When speaking about manufactured exports, the main component of their CO2 footprint is the electric power used to run factories. On average, the US electric system is less CO2-efficient than Europe’s… but more CO2-efficient than Germany’s, which just happens to be Europe’s export powerhouse. Again, should the US tax German cars to account for the relatively high CO2 emissions involved in their manufacture?
A more logical case for a tax on internationally-traded goods would be to hit countries that are improving their CO2 efficiency very slowly, that is, those are decarbonizing slowly. But the US has decarbonized its economy, since 2000, faster than Europe’s (though the difference is very small).
(the US vs Europe chart I posted above)
And far more quickly than the world average.
(the global decarbonization chart I posted before)
Your last sentence, ‘if the US presses ahead with the unfettered use of fossil fuels’, says it all. There is no ‘unfettered’ or ‘unrestrained’ or ‘business as usual’ use of fossil fuels. There is use of fossil fuels that is fettered, restrained by people’s innate desire to do more with less. So far this desire, in the US, has trumped all the regulations and carbon trades and renewable quotas implemented in Europe.’
> if anything the US should tax imports from other countries
It already does.
First responsibility of (responsible) government is to
protect the cits from the enemy without and enemy within.
EU on this a big FAIL.
Another responsibility, foster a prosperous economy. Taxing yr own producers to git even re Paris Deal another FAIL.
Oh, and the US doesn’t tax its exports.
> the US doesn’t tax its exports.
From any states.
On GDP per emission, the US ranks somewhat below all west European countries. Germany is 50% better. I think it is the transportation sector that costs the US its efficiency. Those SUVs and long commutes. They need to have plans like India, that wants all electric cars in a few decades.
JD, we officially no longer care.
Rud, in spades!
By the way, thanks for the response up thread about leaving Paris, IPCC and the other alphabet agencies of the global big green machine.
Stop wasting our funds now!!
I enjoy your articles and books. Specially look for your comments as rationale and informed.
Doing something like this just plays into Trump’s hand.
Exports account for 11% of GDP. Look up the percentage for EU countries. Only one winner in a trade fight. That waning, joke of a country called the United States.
Pingback: The cold facts about the Paris Agreement, global warming, & the Constitution – Fabius Maximus website
The source of the political angst is the semi-hidden agenda of a large portion of the people bewailing the loss of the Paris Accord – lower growth, lower standard of living, and massive wealth transfer are the motivations of the anti/post/late-capitalism crowd. They want everyone living on little communes, tending their kitchen gardens.
If they were truly concerned about solving the problem of CO2 then they’d be out marching for more nuclear power, more natural gas, more pipelines, etc.
Spot on. The economic damage being done by the polices is enormous, and the benefit may be negative or negligible, but not substantial positive.
If someone can show the policies will be beneficial, why haven’t they done so, convincingly, in the past 30 years?
If anyone can show persuasive evidence that global warming, if it does occur, would be harmful to the planet, why haven’t they done so in the past 30 years.
Reminder: temperature change is not a biophysical or economic impact. Impacts need to be stated in units that can be applied globally to all impacts, both positive and negative – e.g. the economic impact.
The scientific literature is full of thousands of studies, probably many thousands, that project harmful impacts from future global warming, typically around 4 degrees C I think. You may not be persuaded by these but others are, persuasion being a personal matter.
Are you claiming that such warming would be harmless if it does occur? That is a pretty strong claim.
And the 4 degrees C comes from where? Even the IPCC AR5 had to back off the mid-term warming “projections” of the CMIP5 models.
IPCC climate models are proven bunk.
Yes, I fully realise there are thousands of studies. The issue with these is that they are highly selective to show damages, not benefits. Then people use innuendo to imply they mean we are doomed. It’s a nonsense. There is no point just saying they are junk, irrelevant, or whatever. We need to deal with it. It’s important. That is why, unbiased, objective studies into the overall costs and benefits of warming is required. This is how to demonstrate – using the climatariate’s own tool (Social Cost of Carbon) – what the true cost and benefit of GHG emissions and global warming are.
Unfortunately, as you have acknowledged previously, you have little interest in or understanding of the IAM’s, the damage functions, or the methods used to estimate costs and benefits of global warming.
FUND is one of the three most cited and used IAMs. It is the most complex. It allows for disaggregation by region and impact sector. This gives us the ability to do reality checks on each impact sector. Tol (2013) plotted actual economic impact of the main sectors from 1900 to 2000 and projected from 2000 to 2100. This is important because it is an attempt to estimate the positive and negative impacts, for all the most important impact sectors. And it is the total global impact, not just the selected bad impacts. Figure 3 shows global warming would be beneficial to around 4C warming (except for energy projection which I am becoming more convinced in wrong).
And why is the $100B climate fund being used to being used to block coal power stations and waste massive amounts of money on next to useless renewable power projects.
Surely you know the answer to this question. We are in the grip of a powerful social and political movement.
Of course I know understand the climatartiate agenda. I am trying to point out want needs to be done to reduce the damage they are doing. What point are you trying to make with these recent replies to my comments ?
Subterfuge, if by necessity, is the mother of invention.
True. But better still would be to get back to sound economically rational policy analysis and implementation of economically rational policies.
True. But let’s ensure the definition of clean and dirty is clear and everyone understands it. CO is no dirty; it’s clean. Dirty means contains toxic pollutants. CO2 is not toxic and not damaging.
That is not the intended definition. Dirty means damaging, especially to the climate. These are politically charged words, just as climate change means dangerous, human caused climate change.
These political meanings are quite clear when one reads how they are used. As Wittgenstein said, the meaning of a word is its use.
I don’t understand the purpose of your responses to my comments. Of course I understand that the climatariate have an intended definition of “dirty” that is not the normal definition. I fully realise their agenda. What I am obviously trying to do, if you had read my comments more carefully, is to point out what is happening and what needs to be done. I am getting the impression you either do not understand what I am arguing (and have been for years) or you are so entrenched in your belief that we cannot estimate costs and benefits of proposed polices, therefore we should not even make best efforts to do so. Frankly, that strikes me as demonstrating ignorance of how rational policy analysis and justification for policies and expenditure is done.
If I have misunderstood the intended purpose of your string of replies to my comments, I appologise for this.
Man made climate change is a fantasy on a par with the Jules Verne’s ‘Voyage au centre de la terre’
Let’s predict that the Democrats will gain control of Congress in 2018 and will take back the White House in 2020. If they don’t enact a stiff tax on carbon in 2021; and if they don’t start using the full legal authority of the Clean Air Act to regulate all sources of carbon emissions — implementing what is in effect a carbon fuel rationing scheme — then they can be rightly accused of being totally dishonest and hypocritical in claiming to be concerned about the impacts of climate change.
Don’t have to wait until 2021 and the very unlikely scenario that those Dim clowns will reign to accuse the rascals of being totally dishonest and hypocritical. They were in a position in 2009 to do something meaningful about the alleged existential threat of CAGW.
It is dishonest of ANYONE today to claim that they know that reducing CO2 emissions will improve the climate in the future.
At higher levels of CO2, some locations will experience better climates while other locations will have less favorable climates. NOBODY knows which locations will fall into which category. NOBODY can accurately predict changes in rainfall patterns as a function of CO2 and that is FAR more important that potential changes in temperature.
And yet these predictions are not only being made, they are being bought and believed. Local and regional planners are increasingly being ordered to factor climate change into their plans. There is a standing DOD order to factor climate change into all military planning, from bases to battle plans. Are you unaware of all this?
They are already reporting that Trump is favored to win reelection in 2020. And all of that crowing over Dem’s grabbing House seats in special elections this year? How’s that turning out?
Unlike global warming a hurricane is not a Left vs. right issue, although it is true that global warming alarmists’ try their best to change that paradigm when they point to catastrophic weather events and blame them on global warming.
Once again we have a tempest in a teapot!
If you go back and look at Bjorn Lomborgs peer reviewed paper presented by JC back in November 9th 2015 he has figures for the climate impact of Paris. If all the participants fully complied we would get a 0.086 degree centigrade lower temperature than we may expect otherwise by 2100.
Is it just me or is all this Paris hype look like mass hysteria?
“Just as men in dark suits and dark ties carrying briefcases explained to Trump that it was not Washington’s policy to normalize relations with Russia, they explained to him that it was not Washington’s policy to exit the Paris Accord . Trump said something like this: Look, you guys, you have already required me to abandon my peace initiative with Russia and my intent to pull out of Syria. Now you are forcing me off my “America First” pledge. If people realize that I am not really the president, who are you going to rule through? What about a compromise?
Here is the deal, as Trump made perfectly clear in his speech. He is temporarily pulling the US out of the Paris Accord while he immediately opens negotiations to rejoin the Paris Accord on terms less burdensome to Americans. In other words, the “pull out” is a face-saving gesture that will result in a small reduction in America’s share of the cost. We will have a “Trump victory” and no damage to the Paris Accord. ”
Interesting theory but who do you think will be willing to give enough ground to trump that will enable him to claim a victory? Countries, or rather their leaders, are pretty mad at trump and I can not see any significant concessions being made.
What do you think will be the minimum that trump could accept?
The terms could be we don’t give funds to these green blob rent seakers and all who want to reduce CO2 emissions go ahead and just do it.
No more give us f;unds and we will reduce in 30 years.
This is just silly. Paris is dead. It’s business. The USA was put at a business disadvantage and those who put us at a disadvantage aren’t going to give in. Particularly, China and India are not going to give up their advantage. Game over. End of story. Maybe in about seven more years more people will have a better understanding of The Donald. America first.
I would pay good money to be at the initial ‘ renegotiation’ meeting when the US side made that statement!
But I think Trump already did that at the G7 mtgs.
What is left is to see who will pay the world and destroy their own economies industrial base.
Not China or India. Maybe Germany. Hope so.
Don’t know about Great Britain.
The Brits may decide 3 attacks in 3 months is a bigger problem than 2*C in 100 years.
I think a carbon content tax/tariff leveled on all exports into the US would be a good negotiation tactic. When you think about it a lot of the global emissions are created as a by-product of feeding the US’s gluttonous material consumption. It’s why we have such a huge trade deficit.
What criteria would be used to set the tax?
China is now a major emitter even on a per capita basis as is Germany. The UK falls well below them. Would our exports be non taxable whilst those from china be heavily penalised?
I don’t know a ton about the specifics of the Paris accord, but I think the point is Trump just needs to do something superficial to save face. Then the presstitute media can blow the small gesture up from a molehill to Mt. Everst and claim Trump is the greatest president that ever lived, etc, etc…
Usually these kinds of agreements are just ways to get the US and other nations to cede their sovereignty to boards of international corporations and bankers, I can’t imagine Paris is anything different, especially when you look at how all the corporations are lusting after it:
** I mean, anyone who believe these corporations ^^ are just good citizens is completely off their rocker. There is obviously a ton of cash in this agreement or they would not touch it with a ten billion mile long stick.
climatereason: “Countries, or rather their leaders”
You draw an important distinction. Whatever concessions leaders are or are not prepared to make to Trump, they will eventually be forced to pay attention to the concerns of their own electorates.
There is a hoax being perpetrated by world leaders that they represent the views of their own people. This is becoming less and less true.
For example, Merkel’s outrage at Trump is not on behalf of Germans, no matter how much she tries to represent it as such. Her outrage is at Trump breaking ranks with the global political classes, of which she is a certified member. If she had to choose between the planet going up in flames or her legitimacy going up in flames, the planet would be ash.
Merkel was a communist right up until the time she realised she could be more influential if she joined a leading party.
Wronmg approach. Give the media nothing to encourage then to contine their Marskist agenda. instead, show the economic costs of climate polices and that the benefits of the policies would be near zero or even negative (SCC may be positive, not negative).
TonyB, No-one has to give any ground for Trump to claim victory and for most voters to believe him. Failed “leaders” like Merkel and Marcon, who have allowed the Islamic ideology of hatred and intolerance to gain a foothold in their countries are transparently unpersuasive. Tolerance did not work with the evil ideologies of the past including Naziism and Communism. It will not work with Islamism either, which is equally irrational and persuasive to the faithful.
TonyB, Americans are not Euro-peons and do not fall into line nearly as well. In any case, the Paris accord was signed by Obama in a clearly anti democratic act. He didn’t submit it to Congress for ratification because it would have been badly defeated. As a result, his signature does not have the force of US law and was the biggest virtue signal of all time. If people want the US to really do anything they are not doing anyway, they will need to follow our Constitution and our laws. It’s as simple as that.
> TonyB, Americans are not Euro-peons
Something has been said about contempt earlier in the thread. But where?
I really hope he keeps US out of Paris Accord. In fact, I’d like him to pull US out of UNFCCC. I am hoping this will be the begining of the end for the Left’s/Socialists’/Marxists’ advance across the OECD.
Yes, I hope the accord is dead.
But I’m thinking more and more that the office of the presidency has long been irrelevant to American policy.
“Higher gas prices are rationing consumption by electricity generators, especially owners of combined-cycle plants that operate as baseload and consume large volumes of fuel. Power producers paid an average price of $3.36 per million British thermal units for gas in March 2017 up from just $2.23 in March 2016. Coal costs have actually fallen to just $2.08 per million British thermal units compared with an average of $2.18 in the same month last year. The shift in relative prices has spurred a modest shift in power generation away from natural gas and back towards coal. Coal-fired power plants saw a sharp increase in capacity utilisation, running at an average of 45 percent of their full capacity, up from just 36 percent in the same month last year. –Reuters, 5 June 2017 ”
Source: Benny Peiser, GWPF Newsletter
“Two days after the decision by US President Donald Trump to withdraw from the Paris climate agreement, the conservative wing of the ruling Christian Democratic Party (CDU) is demanding a radical change in Germany’s climate policy. A statement submitted to the ARD Capital Studio, the “Berliner Kreis (Berlin Circle)”, which includes numerous federal and communal politicians of the Christian Democratic Union (CDU), calls for an end to “moral blackmail” by climate research and a “farewell to unilateral German CO2 targets.” –Arnd Henze, Die Tagesschau, 3 June 2017”
Source: Benny Peiser, GWPF Newsletter
“The reputable Copenhagen Consensus Centre has calculated that the Paris accords will reduce world temperatures by 0.17C by 2100, and over the next 25 years the world will spend $2.5 trillion in renewables subsidies to reduce temperatures by an almost immeasurable amount.”
Excerpt from letter by Dough Hurst to The Australian
When it comes to climate change, QTIIPS stands for, Quackery and Tautologous Ignorant Ideological Professional Sorcerery, which explains in part why the Urban Heat Island (UHI) effect even exists…
Thanks to teh Donald:
China “leads” in exactly what ways?
If you think the developed world is going to allow a mercantilist China to continually dump unneeded junk on them, you are a fool.
Speaking of unneeded junk, Charlie Contrarian, you’ll never guess the second biggest US import in China:
Teh Donald will make waste and scrap great again!
I believe the discussion has to do with wind and solar junk.
Nations do not idly stand by when their economic interests are at stake. The whole “China as the good guy” will go by the wayside, especially when China provokes hostilities with neighbor countries over the South China Sea and its new militarized islands.
Here, have some Pittsburgh photos:
Speaking of which, seems that teh Donald did not get Pittsburgh mayor’s memo.
Har, har! CO2 is not pollution. Changing the subject does not work.
Once you go on editorial squirrel chase, dear Charlie, you don’t get to tell anyone what’s OT or not.
Coal pollution is indeed something that matters to China, and also to Pittsburgh.
W has to rely on Abbott and Costello era photos found on the internet to tell the adults in the room about pollution in Pittsburgh. Of course the adults don’t need to rely on history books for their brains since they lived through the period and experienced the crud in the air first hand. Play pen command of the subject matter by W.
“Residential coal burning
R: What is your suggestion on coal burning other than coal-fired power plants?
W: Coal consumed in power plants accounts only for 51% of coal consumption in China in 2013. Although residential coal burning emits lower NOX, it has a larger impact on people’s life because the chimneys are lower, the emissions are mainly in densely populated areas. We should minimize residential coal burning and substitute coal-fired power plants for it. In developed countries, power plants take up over 80% of coal consumption. In the US, for example, the proportion is 90%. This substitution should be a macro replanning rather than direct replacement. For example, we can substitute some residential coal burning and industrial boiler for electricity, or fuel-engine vehicles for electric vehicles; save natural gas for residential use; and for those who still have to burn coal, provide them with high quality coal.”
“R: Could you specify the reasons for smog in Beijing?
W: Pollutants come from local sources in Beijing: automobile, residential coal-burning and construction. Compared to other cities, oil quality might be better, but the quantity of automobile is large day and night including trucks passing-by at night, which makes automobile the major reason for smog in Beijing. And coal-burning, mainly residential coal-burning, is a serious source of pollution. Coal-fired power plants burn 41% of coal consumption in Beijing, but only emit 2.4% of major pollutants (SO2, NOX and flue dust).”
Hmmm, I would imagine that “berkeley earth’s” non peer reviewed estimates of deaths per giga watt could be destroyed if it was actually taken seriously. The moral case for central power generation gets stronger by the day.
> W has to rely on Abbott and Costello era photo
That’s vintage 2016.
It’s just fun to remind Denizens of the Donald’s bogus bragging about Pittsburgh. I could also pick photos from the five American cities that are more polluted than Pittsburgh:
Wow, the top worst ozone cities are in California. They are ranking right up there with the UK, France and Germany, all fearless leaders in the fight to end carbon pollution. They love the smell of bio-diesel in the morning.
> the top worst ozone cities are in California
You stopped reading at the first column, Cap’n.
Search for “particle pollution.”
There’s still hope:
There’s still despair:
And then Denizens wonder why Elon quit teh Donald’s advisory councils.
“You stopped reading at the first column, Cap’n.”
Nope, have expanded my reading. Take this 2013 MIT study that draws conclusions from data ending in 2005. That would grossly over estimate coal contributions because nearly 50% of coal emissions have stopped since 2005 with most of the reduction after 2010. Your epiphany is over a decade old bubba, validity wise.
You need to step up your game because climate data has a short shelf life.
What happened to your boss kenny, willito? Is he OK? Paris must have been a big shock for that little rascal. Is he still trying to figure out how to build planets? Maybe a moon would be easier. Pass that along.
W meet Fog. Fog meet W. Nothing like Fog in the most pristine, unpolluted wilderness, coming in on little cat feet in the middle of the Pigeon River Country State Forest or along the Big Hearted River in Northern Michigan, or in any of the most unspoiled natural areas of America, miles from civilization, undisturbed by industrialization. I love the smell of Fog in the morning, sitting next to an isolated, remote lake far removed from any hint of man’s fingerprint.
Of course, the air pollution of today, to the extent that it exists, is the dainty, lightweight, light in its shoes kind, that send the twerpy eco-terrorrrrrists into eye fluttering catatonic states, nothing like the real man’s air pollution pre 1970s. But if it exists, what does that say about the failure and incompetence of the Obama EPA efforts to reduce it? Billions of dollars spent with negligible impact on the quality of our air. A disastrous environmental record by Obama.
Go ahead, Willard, show your contempt and link to an ad advising voters to tell Congress to impeach Trump. It’s a stupid strategy that will not work. Hatred is not an effective political strategy. You need to read carefully this piece about contempt and loathing.
Perhaps you will see a reflection of yourself.
Thank you for your concerns, David P Young.
Here would be something that looks more like an ad, BTW:
Right – the delusional hatred of Hillary did not work.
Right-even the old hag’s own people want her to just STFU and disappear.
And dementia-impaired, sundowner-riddled Grandpa’s own people wanted him to stop tweeting… as in: STFU.
That’s POTUS Donald Most Powerful Man in the World Grandpa to you, clownboy. I’m with Hillary 2020! We will start up a pool on how many times she has to be loaded feet first into her scooby van/scooby ambulance.
NYT laments skeptical students:
“Climate Science” Meets a Stubborn Obstacle: Students
(I put “climate science” in quotes because the NYT is doing the usual trick of falsely equating speculative AGW with settled science.)
The article suggests that Trump quitting the Paris debacle has emboldened skeptical students. Let’s hope so. It would help these students if they had skeptical materials, written for their grade level, that countered their teacher’s pro-AGW claims.
Hence my project to collect and publish such just materials:
Tell the students to focus on the economics – the costs and benefits of no polices and of various policies.
Point out, that in the end, policies are only sustainable if the public continues to believe the benefits exceed the costs. Rational analysis is essential. Of course, for a teacher to teach this, he/she needs to understand it himself/herself.
Here’s and easy short statement to understand:
“The reputable Copenhagen Consensus Centre has calculated that the Paris accords will reduce world temperatures by 0.17C by 2100, and over the next 25 years the world will spend $2.5 trillion in renewables subsidies to reduce temperatures by an almost immeasurable amount.”
Source: Dough Hurst letter to the Weekend Australian 3 Jun 2017.
K-12 science classes in the US do not go into economics or policy issues. They just do science, as mandated by the state standards. Plus the statement you quote is worthless advocacy. You seem to have no concept of the nature of K-12 science education.
I don’t know what K-12 means but if it is year 12, then your education system must be a long way behind other developed countries. I was learning economics from year 9. That was over 60 years ago. Perhaps the lack of any teaching of basic economics in your schools explains why you seem to not understand and seem to be be uninterested in economics and policy, and don’t understand their relevance for policy decisions.
Have you heard the common saying regarding elections: “It’s the economics, stupid“
K-12 means kindergarten thru 12th grade. What is taught is specified by state standards. I led a massive study of this content and economics is not included. A new set of standards are coming on, called the Next Generation Science Standards. There is a lot more on climate change than in the past, but no economics. See for yourself:
You missed the point or dodged it.
And explain why it is so important to fix the method of estimating Social Cost of Carbon! That is what is needed to get an acceptable estimate of the true economic impact of GHG emissions (positive or negative).
There is no acceptable estimate.
Exactly the point I’ve been making. That’s why we need to do the studies to collect the necessary data and do the impact analyses. Clearly, you haven’t followed this and don’t understand it. your comments seem a bit like Jim D’s on this matter.
The skeptics are still chasing their tails on this matter as they are clearly incapable of any estimates at all. Blame their thinktanks for this lack of progress and rather significant failure to participate in the SCC debate with any quantitative input. The world has moved on because the economists have already had their say on this.
The economists and their models have had a say!?! Seriously, Jim D, you must be delusional or been functionally asleep most of your life.
Maybe you missed that the social cost of carbon has been widely discussed already, and the skeptics did not have a dog in that fight. It was a major loss, and only now they are saying ‘oops, didn’t see that coming’.
Widely discussed by NGOs and politicized bureaucrats. No skeptics allowed.
I looked at the EPA’s “work” on that. Minimal discount rate and 300 year planning horizon! Remember, I was a planner. I used models. You can’t kid a kidder.
Under President Trump we ought to have a more balanced look.
Where are the skeptics on this? They missed the boat. Blame the skeptic thinktanks who didn’t hire anyone halfway capable apparently.
And the courts said to the skeptics: Under the principle of deferring to a Federal agency in any dispute, we let the EPA’s analyses stand.
The courts, including SCOTUS, did not look at the science nor the economics. The EPA politicians and bureaucrats’ pussy-footing around with green NGOs passed as science and economics under Obama.
EPA stands with the science. This is as it should be.
I was preparing a lengthy response with AR5 ” TS.6 Key Uncertainties” paragraphs and seem to have vanished it.
Anyway, just read TS.6 on your own to get an idea of what the scientists really think. The SPM is lies.
You can say which parts of WG1 you have dismissed. Do you agree with the century old science that explains that 33 C and 150 W/m2 is the current level of GHG warming and that science can explain it quantitatively with radiative transfer theory, or would you even dispute Arrhenius?
First of all, Jim D, I don’t “dismiss” any parts of AR5 WG1. On the contrary, I applaud the bare scientific work. Such work, as shown in TS.6 Key Uncertainties, includes humble statements that are distorted and even lied about in the SPM. Such observations have been made many times by many qualified people over the years.
If one reads and understands TS.6 and realizes the limits of our current knowledge of the climate and, additionally understands the complete failure of climate models in reflecting observed climate variables, one would not be so gung ho spend Trillions on clunky technology.
There is no clear danger to the people of the planet from releasing CO2 into the atmosphere at reasonably conceivable levels. Every measurement of key climatic variables has indicated that the “everything else being equal” lab experiments reflected in the models is not realized in the dynamic and chaotic climate.
IPCC climate models are bunk; prove me wrong.
Does this mean you are fine with reaching 700 ppm by 2100? Skeptics usually try to avoid this question. Anything significantly less requires mitigation.
The skeptics are celebrating the demise of the Paris fraud. America first! Trump rules!
I told you all this was going to happen, way back when the ditching of the Paris accord was just a glint in the eye of the man who had no chance of being The Most powerful Man in the World. I believe my approximate words were “POTUS Trump Most Powerful Man in the World will render all this yammering and arguing over alleged CAGW moot.”
It’s moot. Somebody tell jimmy dee.
Jimmy D cannot be told. He doesn’t listen to anyone other than those who support his beliefs. He is an extreme denier. That’s what the “D” stands for.
I thought it stood for Huffpo Drone. We could both be right. Yeah, that’s it.
What puzzles me, Peter, is that you keep calling for something that is impossible, given the present debate. Your comments make no sense. The range of projections for CO2 increase caused warming range from zero to catastrophic, so there is clearly no way to project future damages, which you are calling for.
You seem oblivious to this obvious fact. So I have started to point that out. As I see it, your repeated comments, with their false implication, are confusing the debate. Feel free to actually join in.
It is you that doesn’t understand. You seem to have no understanding whatsoe ever about how policy anlaysis is done and what is needed to justify policies and what is needed for policies to be politically sustainable over the long term. You also seem to be confused about times scales. You don’t seem to understand that conditions that are poliitical constraints or blocks no are irrelevant over the long term. If emissions are a threat, policies are required to function and be sustainable and economically justified for many decades, perhaps centuries. Most of all you don’t seem to understand : “It’s the economics, stupid”.
This is projection:
You could begin to join in by actually engaging on what is relevant. You could try to understand why the economics is key to policy success. You could stop repeating it’s impossible to estimate costs and benefits, so don’t try. That is display of ignorance.
Does this mean you are fine with reaching 700 ppm by 2100? Skeptics usually try to avoid this question. Anything significantly less requires mitigation.
700ppm is an abstraction upon abstractions.
It would represent ( 300ppm / 83years ) = 3.6ppm CO2 increase per year.
That’s probably not happening, especially since global emissions have been falling for a couple of years now. Now, accumulations did increase for 2015 & 2016 even though emissions were at a falling rate. This bears watching, but is likely the result of El Ninos which seem to reduce CO2 uptake ( perhaps the oceans release CO2 at the same time they release heat ).
Longer term, demographics are still destiny ( see fertility and emissions chart above ).
As for the abstractions, 700ppm is an abstraction.
The forcing change ( ~3 W/m^2) it represents is also an abstraction.
The implied warming is also an abstraction ( global mean ).
Actual change or harm is very hard to actually assess.
Some people’s imaginations don’t let that stand in their way, but there are other possibilities, many predicted by models, of benefits from 700ppm.
We’ll probably never know.
I hate it when people resort to facts.
TE, global emissions are starting to level off and should soon be falling, and this is due to the efforts already made, and the impracticality of long-term fossil fuels becoming increasingly obvious. People are converting which is great news. To not see 700 ppm we need to keep well below 5000 GtCO2 emitted implying a lot of fossil fuels left in the ground. That implies not looking for new resources like in the Arctic Ocean or methane hydrates, or fully exploiting things like tar sands, let alone not digging up most of the coal left. If you are on board with this, it seems you have come half way. Ideally less than 2000 GtCO2 would be emitted before we are fully converted. The difference between 2000 and 5000 GtCO2 is about 2 degrees C.
What we are looking for is a transition dominated by market fundamentals – supply and demand – and not by taxes, or regulations.
“A recent analysis from the Center for Global Development, for instance, estimates that if $10 billion were invested in renewable energy technology in sub-Saharan Africa, then 30 million would gain access to electricity. If the same amount of money was given to gas-fired generation, it would supply around 90 million – or three times as many people.”
Certainly not anything based on immensely silly back of the envelope calcs from Jimmy D.
All the global natural gas reserves add up to 500 GtCO2. After that runs out, what do you give the Africans? 500 GtCO2 once burned adds 70 ppm, half of which stays in the atmosphere. Natural gas is not the problem because it is self-limiting. Let Africa have nat gas, but it is less for the rest of us, and will just get more expensive as it gets depleted faster. Short-term solution, but also short-sighted, and not really a plan.
> That’s probably not happening, especially since global emissions have been falling for a couple of years now.
TE, global emissions are starting to level off and should soon be falling,
One could probably add error bars, but by the numbers, CO2 estimates have already fallen since 2014:
and this is due to the efforts already made
Remember, Paris efforts don’t even start until 2021.
What’s happened to date is free markets making free choices, and the realities of fewer working age people and in some cases fewer total people to need energy. It may be that that’s enough. Scott Adams may have been right about the economic assumptions in climate models. Economists may have underestimated global economic response to falling populations and increased automation.
and the impracticality of long-term fossil fuels becoming increasingly obvious.
No. Fossil fuels are much more practical than renewables for the simple reason that fossil fuels allow not only access to the energy, but to the energy on demand because fossil fuels represent stored energy while renewables solar and wind represent only flux but not storage. Until they run out, fossil fuels will probably always be cheaper and more efficient than renewables, and more practical. But, natural gas has lower carbon concentration than other fossil fuels, and it seems that fracked natural gas will be the major source of energy for some time. Now, nuclear represents stored energy also, but previous iterations of nuclear have not been as responsive to demand, as inexpensive, or as potentially bomb safe. I wouldn’t mind seeing tax dollars going to build Thorium based designs which would be adjustable and scalable.
Maybe that’s something to do instead.
Not having punitive taxes or unaccounted slush funds for developing nations, but more research into practical nuclear?
TE, replacing coal with natural gas is a major reason the US emissions have fallen. Other countries also are replacing coal with whatever they can. This is all good. Some countries were responding to Kyoto, and also the economic downturn in 2008 left a dip, so now with the recovery where are people turning? Well, that is where Paris and precursors like Copenhagen come in. No one was surprised by Paris. People had already been planning out 15-20 years based on wanting to reduce emissions and also on some very real needs regarding energy security and self-sufficiency. A little while ago skeptics were saying emissions could not be reduced without harming the global economy, but now they see it happening anyway and have to shift their ground. Next they’ll be saying the Paris targets are where we’re headed anyway because they finally realized that fossil fuels are unsustainable from an economic perspective. Maybe even Trump can’t stop this happening.
> Maybe that’s something to do instead.
Maybe there’s no dichotomy.
Maybe we’ll do both.
Maybe we already do.
Maybe fossil fuels are too irreplaceable to waste away.
Maybe all this “China is peaking” thing is a red herring.
Maybe cars don’t stop when the foot pulls away from the gas peddle.
Maybe it’s about stopping to dump carbon in the atmosphere.
Maybe we should act as if there will be a tomorrow.
Maybe teh Donald will be a good thing, after all.
Yes JimD, market forces are reducing emissions and that trend will continue given the very low price of natural gas. The government could easily accelerate the trend by encouraging gas stations to install natural gas compressors and people to convert their vehicles. Many companies and government transit agencies already use natural gas as their vehicles return to their terminals every night and can be refilled. It’s a low cost way to kill two birds with one stone. Why didn’t Obama do it? Because the virtue signaling value is low. Why isn’t Trump doing it? He should.
One reason that may be impending this trend is the very high taxes on gasoline. It would take a lot of time for ponderous beaurocracies to respond to raise the revenue they “need.”
This raises an important point. There are lots of things we can do that are actually practical and make economic sense. The problem here is that Green NGO’s don’t want to press for it because they are doing the “good is the enemy of the prefect.” Same for nuclear power of course. These are issues of ideological purity and not real issues.
Another obviously effective measure is to increase gas mileage on new cars. Saves fuel costs, keeps US cars competitive in a world market where that will be the trend. Obama did that. Guess what Trump did.
Obama endorses Pickens plan for natural gas vehicles
But not long ago, energy was the issue that looked like it was driving a wedge between Pickens and the Republican Party. The “Pickens Plan” to move America from oil to natural gas and wind energy, as well as the oilman’s proposed taxpayer subsidies for natural gas, proved far more popular with Democrats than Republicans.
Pickens’ energy plan has been praised by President Obama and endorsed by former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman. An amendment pushing Pickens’ natural gas subsidies nearly passed a Democratic-controlled Senate but was blocked by the Republicans.
In fact, the amendment has received only six Republican votes in the Senate. “The Kochs don’t want it,” Pickens told the Examiner. Championed by then Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., and Sen. Robert Menendez, D-N.J., only six Democrats voted against the measure.
I’ve had a lot of experience with natural gas and propane vehicles. They’re not for the average joe. I would not want Gomer Pyle refilling mine.
Teh Donald might already know about this.
The comments are as precious as the article.
A lot of cute, feel-good back patting of True Believers.
Climate is self regulating and we cannot cause much difference
China is staying in. Doing nothing until 2030. A VERY effective method of climate control.
Some say China has already peaked. They are very active in reductions policies.
Ah, a glorious forecast. Keep your fingers crossed.
“Some say China has already peaked.”
Sure looks like it:
“They are very active in reductions policies.”
The reduction doesn’t have anything to do with government policy, but probably does have something to do with demographics. Fewer working age people means fewer workers emitting at work and less income to burn on energy.
And China needs to be watched on the world stage now that the US is retreating. It’s just business for them.
Also let’s fact check Trump’s speech.
aaron – you remind me of a 1950 East European socialism. At a meeting convened by the Party, the speaker thunders: We will command winds and rain! A guy in the audience farts loudly and yells: I just commanded winds. Follow me outside to see how I command rain.
Reblogged this on I Didn't Ask To Be a Blog.
There are no effective methods of climate control.!!!
Maybe inside a buiding with HVAC.
Outside, we can’t measure it reliably yet.
It is a trojan horse to gain control for the elites and to transfer funds.
We left Paris and if Germany and Great Britain want to continue to destroy their industry that is Ok.
On the other hand, China and India continue a massive expansion of coal fired power plants. Plus the existing pollution air quality in China is choking the life our of the people.
Britain and Europe have an urgent and existential environmental problem and it has nothing to do with climate or pollution.
Can you tell us what it is?
The Paris accord requires that western countries give billions of dollars to countries that kill gay people. I think this is appalling.
I’d much rather see western countries place trade & aid embargos on countries that kill gay people, to put pressure on countries to stop killing gay people, similar to what was done to end Apartheid in South Africa.
-1… here’s what oil is doing to kill people…
“Oil companies will operate in other countries that have even worse human rights records than Sudan did, but if it is not on the radar screen of the activists, then you can go along and mind your own business.”
Just look what all that oil money paid for.
So… by your thinking using oil to kill gays is good? Hmm? Might wanna think that through a bit more.
Just so you know -1… Ethical Oil Canada has spent considerable effort educating people about the evils of using oil from other countries;
Sudan is a major player in the oil industry … or do you mean South Sudan? Canada advertising Canadian oil… How did you get here? Did you get lost? Are you against 21st century slavery?
Would you be willing to check something for me? It’s regarding the damage function for energy in FUND3.9 (Equations E.1 and E.2 in FUND3.9 Documentation http://www.fund-model.org/versions )
Maybe. What am I checking?
The damage function is the largest source of uncertainty when it comes to evaluating the optimal level of taxation of CO2 emissions. Its basis right now is pretty weak.
Thanks you. I have attempted to reproduce the energy projection in the bottom panel of Tol 2013 Figure 3 (free access to Tol 2011 working paper with same Figure 3 here: http://www.copenhagenconsensus.com/sites/default/files/climate_change.pdf ). I am unable to reproduce the magnitudes for a number of reasons. I would like someone who understands this to check my spreadsheet. I can send it to you with an explanation of what I have done if you are interested. If so, can you tell me how I can contact you?
[I agree with your comment about the damage functions. I am trying to do a reality check on the energy damage function. I think it is substantially over estimating the negative impact of global warming on energy.
@ Peter – That sounds like a lot of work. I don’t think I have time to do that right now, but maybe I will in the future.
OK. Let me know if and when you are interested.
You have made several more responses to my comment in a similar vein to your comments yesterday. However, you didn’t respond to this one. Why not? Did you not understand it? Or, did you understand it, but chose not to respond to avoid admitting your misunderstandings about the importance of economic analyses in justifying policies?
Yes, I fully realise there are thousands of studies. The issue with these is that they are highly selective to show damages, not benefits. Then people use innuendo to imply they mean we are doomed. It’s a nonsense. However, there is no point just saying they are junk, irrelevant, or whatever. We need to deal with it. It’s important. That is why, unbiased, objective studies into the overall costs and benefits of warming is required. This is how to demonstrate – using the climatariate’s own tool (Social Cost of Carbon) – what the true cost and benefit of GHG emissions and global warming are.
Unfortunately, as you have acknowledged previously, you have little interest in or understanding of the IAM’s, the damage functions, or the methods used to estimate costs and benefits of global warming.
FUND is one of the three most cited and used IAMs. It is the most complex. It allows for disaggregation by region and impact sector. This gives us the ability to do reality checks on each impact sector individualy. Tol (2013) plotted actual economic impact of the main sectors from 1900 to 2000 and projected from 2000 to 2100. This is important because it is an attempt to estimate the positive and negative impacts, for all the most important impact sectors. And it is the total global impact, not just the studies showing negative impacts. Figure 3 shows global warming would be beneficial to around 4C warming (except for the energy projection which I am becoming more convinced in wrong).”
Peter, sorry for not getting back sooner. I was marrying off a daughter, and working, of course. Get rid of the f, add at sign sc.rr dot com.
I don’t think you can invalidate a statistical approach as you will need one as well. You would show it unlikely to extremely unlikely. I don’t know that the easier method would be to look at the 2C, then use a first order approximation from a simpler model based on what the other models found.
Thank you. Much appreciated. I am writing something up now. It will take me a few more days. I’ll send it to you when it is (hopefully) understandable. After you have looked at it, if you are interested in checking my spreadsheet, I’ll explain it and send it to you.
I am sending you an email now to check I’ve correctly interpreted your address.
Congratulation on daughter’s wedding.
jpittman (at sign) sc dot rr dot com
Just made another attempt to send email.
Far from practical solutions – Paris is all symbolic – all smoke and mirrors. It costs the US nothing significant. The US has a gas to nuclear transition strategy that remains the only practical way forward given commercialization of 21st century nuclear technologies. The ‘debate’ here is all oppositional quibbling of climate warriors – noise and fury signifying nothing.
“To provide [electricity] in today’s world, an ‘advanced reactor’ must improve over existing reactors in the following 4-core objectives. It must produce significantly less costly, cost-competitive clean electricity, be safer, produce significantly less waste and reduce proliferation risk. It is not sufficient to excel at one without regard to the others.” Dr. Christina Back, Vice President, Nuclear Technologies and Materials for General Atomics, May 2016 testimony before the US Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee hearing on the status of advanced nuclear technologies.
It is a fifty year old technology with hundreds of years of operational experience. The first of the advanced designs will be in operation in the next decade and rolling out of factories soon after. If nothing better comes along.
On climate I am inclined to think that most 20th century warming was quite natural. With a dimming sun and associated resurgent La Niña activity suggesting a cooling influence this century. Starting with the next Pacific climate shift due in a 2018 to 2028 window. If you have not heard of this – I guess it will come as a surprise. There is even ‘peer reviewed science’ that says precisely this.
“Interdecadal 20th century temperature deviations, such as the accelerated observed 1910–1940 warming that has been attributed to an unverifiable increase in solar irradiance (4, 7, 19, 20), appear to instead be due to natural variability. The same is true for the observed mid-40s to mid-70s cooling, previously attributed to enhanced sulfate aerosol activity (4, 6, 7, 12). Finally, a fraction of the post-1970s warming also appears to be attributable to natural variability.” http://www.pnas.org/content/106/38/16120.full
It does not change the risk assessment for changing the atmospheric composition. There is a risk that small changes in the radiative properties of the atmosphere, in terrestrial hydrology and in ocean chemistry can trigger large responses in the Earth system.
It is an unknown risk with potentially extreme consequences.
Peter Lang and others here have got it precisely arse about. The policy decision is whether the objective risk analysis is such that reductions in emissions is clearly the wisest policy. It is. The question then is how to practically move forward in ways that increase human dignity – while having benefits that exceed costs.
On the other hand, Robert, in the report’s conclusion we have: ” Finally, the presence of vigorous climate variability presents significant challenges to near-term climate prediction (25, 26), leaving open the possibility of steady or even declining global mean surface temperatures over the next several decades that could present a significant empirical obstacle to the implementation of policies directed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions (27). However, global warming could likewise suddenly and without any ostensive cause accelerate due to internal variability. To paraphrase C. S. Lewis, the climate system appears wild, and may continue to hold many surprises if pressed.”
That does not sound like your: “… reductions in emissions is clearly the wisest policy.” It sounds more like: “IPCC climate models are bunk and we don’t know what the climate is going to do, so just monitor and adapt as warranted at the time.”
We have here an example of the sort of cognitive gymnastics climate warriors are committed to.
“In sum, a strategy must recognise what is possible. In climate research and modelling, we should recognise that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible. The most we can expect to achieve is the prediction of the probability distribution of the system’s future possible states by the generation of ensembles of model solutions. This reduces climate change to the discernment of significant differences in the statistics of such ensembles. The generation of such model ensembles will require the dedication of greatly increased computer resources and the application of new methods of model diagnosis. Addressing adequately the statistical nature of climate is computationally intensive, but such statistical information is essential.” http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/505.htm
I always include the whole quote – because here we are talking probabilities based on perturbed physics ensembles. And not the nonsense of the IPCC’s opportunistic ensembles. It is true that the future of climate is unpredictable. It is also true that – for the same reason – climate is wild and may respond in unforeseeable but damaging ways.
The message in the conclusion quoted by David is clear. Does he imagine I haven’t read it – or indeed quoted it – previously? His take out message is that models are crap? So what? That is what the quote – inter alia – says. Along with the idea that not warming for decades might encourage the idea that there isn’t a problem with changing the atmospheric composition in a system that is climatically, hydrologically and ecologically wild.
I have an idea that we may lose the natural warming of the 20th century this century. But this does not mean that carbon mitigation is not the most prudent course. Not doing so is taking a leap in the dark of unknown risks. Imagining that such a leap is good policy is beyond nonsense.
The alternative as I said is to build farmland productivity and restore ecosystems – while commercializing innovative energy sources.
Robert, I take your “a leap in the dark of unknown risks.” every moment of my life. IPCC climate models are not sufficient to fundamentally change our society, economy and energy systems. The same way fear of being run over by a vehicle does not stop me from moving about.
The costs to us far exceed the speculated benefits of ignorantly screwing around with our energy systems. I was, at one time, a systems planning engineer at one of the largest electric systems on the planet. I tell you that inefficient, unreliable and costly additions to our energy mix is a bigger “leap in the dark of unknown risks.” Except we do know the risks and they are unacceptable to a modern, efficient economy.
“Robert, I take your “a leap in the dark of unknown risks.” every moment of my life.”
i am pretty sure that you don’t. It’s a calculated risk – a small one – like flying. And if it doesn’t pan out – at most it is a planeload of people.
“IPCC climate models are not sufficient to fundamentally change our society, economy and energy systems. The same way fear of being run over by a vehicle does not stop me from moving about.”
I don’t rely on climate models – as should obvious from the comment above.
“The costs to us far exceed the speculated benefits of ignorantly screwing around with our energy systems. I was, at one time, a systems planning engineer at one of the largest electric systems on the planet. I tell you that inefficient, unreliable and costly additions to our energy mix is a bigger “leap in the dark of unknown risks.” Except we do know the risks and they are unacceptable to a modern, efficient economy.”
Climate warriors have tunnel vision. What I – and many others – suggest is farmland and ecosystem restoration – with many benefits – and an accelerated transition to low cost, abundant and innovative 21st century energy technology. I don’t know who David is arguing with – but it is not me.
“Climate change can’t be solved on the backs of the world’s poorest people,” said Daniel Sarewitz, coauthor and director of ASU’s Consortium for Science, Policy, and Outcomes. “The key to solving for both climate and poverty is helping nations build innovative energy systems that can deliver cheap, clean, and reliable power.”
Climate warriors don’t do much reading outside of blogospheric echo chambers – or any thinking outside that box.
Might countries acting in there own best interest be better at reducing emissions than sacrificing for the greater good? I can think of two examples. The fracked gas revolution in the US and France’s nuclear build out to end dependence on foreign oil.
If there wasn’t an embarrassing precedent, a good slogan for the Paris agreement could’ve been “Climate Action in Our Time”.
My prediction is that it will be new technology that will take us toward zero emissions rather than communist style top down government redistribution plans ala Paris.Take Elon Musk and Bill Gates for example both heavily invested in nuclear energy. Or even Musks investing in battery production and technology. If lefties like Gates and Musk can see it why not Jim D?
BTW It will be the US that pays the redistribution and their alright with that as all the printed money will just go into margin contracts of option and future contracts at the Chicag board of trade. Yes it is a redistribution program designed to take the poor (and rich) taxpayers and redistribute to wealthy derivative traders ala municipalities, states, feds and business interests. What’s not to like big goverments get to redistribute from poor to rich and big business leaders like Musk can continue to play with the profits will still be looked upon as heroic. Musk:please Brief Fox throw me in the brief patch — Breir Rabbit (aka Elon Musk)
Both Gates and Musk are invested in molten salt type of reactor technology. Musk has backed a new type of chemical reactor that uses other chemicals than salt. Yes perhaps they are not heavily invested but are commited none the less. Gates has money in Canadian company that is building it’s first reactor in China.
I don’t think Elon Musk is ” heavily invested in nuclear energy”.
Musk has invested in Transatomic Power and hellion. Transatomic wants to use thorium in a salt reactor. They just received another 2 million to continue from the investors that include Musk. I’m not sure of the total investment so far. Musk has invested 1.5 million in hellion to produce small scale modular type reactors.
According to a blog post on Transatomics:
Carbon Brief has posted an article on the consequences of Paris. The headline says ‘analysis’ but ‘regurgitation’ would be more correct, as it simply repeats the claims of various articles without considering the implications, or whether these claims make sense at all.
At least they’re committed to open debate, having deleted my comment twice. Here I repost it.
The second figure shows that, by 2050, the Paris scenario results in 35% lower emissions (66 vs 43 GtCO2) for a presumably same-sized GDP. That’s an improvement of 54% in the CO2 efficiency of GDP in 33 years. Assuming CO2 efficiency would be constant under a no-policy scenario, that would mean Paris by itself increases the decarbonization rate (the rate of improvement in CO2 efficiency of GDP) from 0% to 1.3%.
Assuming instead the historical rate of decarbonization of 1.1%, CO2 efficiency would increase by 43.5% over the next 33 years; under Paris efficiency would supposedly be 54% higher, which is to say it would increase by 121% (becase 143.5 x 1.54 = 221). Under such a scenario, the emissions depicted in the chart as ‘Paris’ would require a decarbonization rate of 2.4% – which matches the 1.3% of the previous paragraph.
In other words: the article’s second chart is claiming that, under Paris, the decarbonization rate will more than double, increasing from 1.1% to 2.4%. This is fantasy. Consider:
a) Most pledges are a joke
b) The global decarbonization rate plunged right after Kyoto (it was 1.4% before 1997, 0.6% since)
c) This rate was higher in California before the 2006 Global Warming Solutions Act than after, higher in Germany before Energiewende than after, and higher in the US under Bush than in the EU at the same time
d) Just to drive point a) home, India’s INDC actually represents a SLOWDOWN in the decarbonization rate, from about 1.8% in 2005-2014 to 1.5% in 2015-2030.
e) Even in the US, the decarbonization rate has barely budged during the shale revolution – it essentially increased from 2.3% to 2.8% or so.
It seems hardly any country in the world has moved the decarbonization rate upwards by 1.3% over a sustained period of time, and the one major economy that may have done so (the UK) has gone through a coal-to-gas transition that can’t be repeated, while de-industrializing at the same time. Nevertheless, the chart claims this can be done worldwide – and sustained for the rest of the century to boot.
The same problem affects the main Fawcett figure (the one on your Twitter profile). It essentially claims that under ‘business as usual’ emissions will be TWICE as high in 2070 as under the INDCs (80 vs 40 gigatons). Again, this is the same as claiming that ‘Paris’ will DOUBLE carbon efficiency of GDP, compared to business-as-usual; this also works to about 1.3% increase in the decarbonization rate, though this time spread over the next 53 years. In other words, more fantasy.
Finally, if I’m correct the MIT’s 2015 report shows in page 14, figure 17 the CO2 concentrations they expect under Paris:
globalchange.mit.edu/sites/default/files/newsletters/files/2015 Energy %26 Climate Outlook.pdf
You cannot expect 710ppm and simultaneously claim this will reduce temperatures by 1ºC compared to ‘business as usual’. That would imply ‘business as usual’ (whatever that means) results in over 1,000ppm – absurd.
I haven’t looked at the other estimates, but then I don’t get paid to write. If you do, perhaps you should report what is the implicit decarbonization rate in those. Anyone can claim that under ‘business as usual’ emissions can be huge, but since no one knows how much GDP will grow, it’s just hand-waving. Looking at the decarbonization rate of GDP avoids this problem.
For those who like to debate and dicker over statistical temperature graphs, here is a treat: http://notrickszone.com/2017/05/29/80-graphs-from-58-new-2017-papers-invalidate-claims-of-unprecedented-global-scale-modern-warming/#sthash.ktF0tSb7.L6KHprG6.dpbs
David Wojick: here is a treat:
Thank you for the link. Yes, it is a treat.
Thanks for the link. I hadn’t seen or known about these types of studies. Ocean heat content is especially interesting. This looks almost like the opposite of what I’ve seen to date. 80 peer reviewed papers showing the opposite of previous research astonding.
Sorry 58 papers 80 charts
Gosselin’s taste in climate science rivals Stark’s on General Relativity.
Thank you for the link.
Just within the last 5 months, 58 more papers and 80 new graphs have been published that continue to undermine the popularized conception of a slowly cooling Earth temperature history followed by a dramatic hockey-stick-shaped uptick, or an especially unusual global-scale warming during modern times.
Climate warriors continue to dispute the hockey stick well past it’s use by date. Greenhouse gases warm the atmosphere and oceans.
Past global climate changes had strong regional expression. To elucidate their spatio-temporal pattern, we reconstructed past temperatures for seven continental-scale regions during the past one to two millennia. The most coherent feature in nearly all of the regional temperature reconstructions is a long-term cooling trend, which ended late in the nineteenth century. At multi-decadal to centennial scales, temperature variability shows distinctly different regional patterns, with more similarity within each hemisphere than between them. There were no globally synchronous multi-decadal warm or cold intervals that define a worldwide Medieval Warm Period or Little Ice Age, but all reconstructions show generally cold conditions between AD 1580 and 1880, punctuated in some regions by warm decades during the eighteenth century. The transition to these colder conditions occurred earlier in the Arctic, Europe and Asia than in North America or the Southern Hemisphere regions. Recent warming reversed the long-term cooling; during the period AD 1971–2000, the area-weighted average reconstructed temperature was higher than any other time in nearly 1,400 years.
And to advance CO2 fertilisation as some planet wide gardening project.
“Our work was able to tease-out the CO2 fertilisation effect by using mathematical modelling together with satellite data adjusted to take out the observed effects of other influences such as precipitation, air temperature, the amount of light, and land-use changes.”
The fertilisation effect occurs where elevated CO2 enables a leaf during photosynthesis, the process by which green plants convert sunlight into sugar, to extract more carbon from the air or lose less water to the air, or both.
If elevated CO2 causes the water use of individual leaves to drop, plants in arid environments will respond by increasing their total numbers of leaves. These changes in leaf cover can be detected by satellite, particularly in deserts and savannas where the cover is less complete than in wet locations, according to Dr Donohue.
“On the face of it, elevated CO2 boosting the foliage in dry country is good news and could assist forestry and agriculture in such areas; however there will be secondary effects that are likely to influence water availability, the carbon cycle, fire regimes and biodiversity, for example,” Dr Donohue said.
“Ongoing research is required if we are to fully comprehend the potential extent and severity of such secondary effects.”
And to neglect ocean chemistry.
There is a hubris in thinking that we may change Earth systems – with such little real knowledge – on such a large scale with impunity.
Let’s try this one.
New paper by Professor Richard Tol (2017) The Private Benefit of Carbon and its Social Cost https://www.sussex.ac.uk/webteam/gateway/file.php?name=wps-07-2017.pdf&site=24
Repost with corrected format
New paper by Professor Richard Tol (2017) The Private Benefit of Carbon and its Social Cost https://www.sussex.ac.uk/webteam/gateway/file.php?name=wps-07-2017.pdf&site=24
The private benefit of carbon is the value, at the margin, of the energy services provided by the use of fossil fuels. It is the weighted average of the price of energy times the carbon dioxide emission coefficient, with energy used as weights. The private benefits is here estimated, for the first time, at $411/tCO2. The private benefit is lowest for coal use in industry and highest for residential electricity; it is lowest in Kazakhstan and highest in Norway. The private benefit of carbon is much higher than the social cost of carbon.”
Good summary curryja, I’ll just point out again that emissions controls never made any sense even under the lurid IPCC claims about projections. If we’re going to do multi-trillion-dollar global geoengineering in 50-100 year timeframes, there are better options to explore.
Dead right. All that is needed is to remove the impediments on nuclear power that have been being imposed for the past 50 years. If they had never been imposed, the cost of nuclear could now be around 10% of what it is, 66% of electricity generation globally could be from nuclear and 9.5 million fatalities from genuine pollution could have been avoided.
Carbon has no intrinsic social benefit – it is the services that energy provides that that has value. In a purely economic sense energy is a commodity that has greater value than the cost. Cost competitive, low carbon sources have a value greater than that of fossil fueled energy – considering both the costs – including health and environmental – and the risk of emissions.
Risk is the product of probabilities and consequences. A low probability and high consequence event is high risk. The low probability catastrophic disruption of Earth systems – biological, hydrological and climatic – in a standard, objective risk assessment would be assessed as extreme.
There are ways to mitigate the risk – gas and high efficiency, low emission (HELE) coal generation decrease the carbon intensity of energy generation. This is the future of coal. Advanced fast neutron, nuclear designs are based on an existing technology.
We can avoid a billion tonnes of farming and forestry emissions and sequester 1 to 3 billion tonnes of carbon per year – with critical benefits for – inter alia – food security.
Kyoto failed. Paris has failed even before it starts. The true test of sustainable development is to meet the needs of current generations without compromising the future. As a young Environmental Scientist I was inspired by the Rio Earth Summit report – Our Common Future.
” Humanity has the ability to make development sustainable to ensure that it meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. The concept of sustainable development does imply limits – not absolute limits but limitations imposed by the present state of technology and social organization on environmental resources and by the ability of the biosphere to absorb the effects of human
activities. But technology and social organization can be both managed and improved to make way for a new era of economic growth. The Commission believes that widespread poverty is no longer inevitable. Poverty is not only an evil in itself, but sustainable development requires meeting the basic needs of all and extending to all the opportunity to fulfill their aspirations for
a better life. A world in which poverty is endemic will always be prone to ecological and other catastrophes.”
Then there was imagination and optimism. Mostly what remains on sites like this is quibbling about inconclusive (un)science tidbits and either taxes or no taxes on fossil fuels, economic growth or degrowth, strict limits or no limits. I know where I stand on these things. But there are far broader concerns and opportunities to drive real global development and environmental policy forward this century.
If it weren’t for the SJW leading the charge, what you say might even have some merit.
By chance our Freedom Fighters (FFs) are there to save us all from efforts to create more justice in this world.
The debate is plagued by dull minds firing the odd angry – and usually unintelligible – snark across the no man’s land of the climate war.
The global economy is worth about $100 trillion a year. To put aid and philanthropy into perspective – the total is 0.025% of the global economy. If spent on Copenhagen Consensus smart development goals such expenditure can generate a benefit to cost ratio of more than 15. If spent on the UN Sustainable Development Goals you may as well piss it up against a wall. Either way – it is nowhere near the major path to universal prosperity.
Some 3.5 billion people make less than $2 a day. Changing that can only be done by doubling and tripling global production – and doing it as quickly as possible. Optimal economic growth is essential and that requires an understanding and implementation of explicit principles for effective economic governance of free markets. So what are these laws of capitalism?
Markets exist – ideally – in a democratic context. Politics provides a legislative framework for consumer protection, worker and public safety, environmental conservation and a host of other things. Including for regulation of markets – banking capital requirements, anti-monopoly laws, prohibition of insider trading, laws on corporate transparency and probity, tax laws, etc. A key to stable markets – and therefore growth – is fair and transparent regulation, minimal corruption and effective democratic oversight. Markets do best where government is large enough to be an important player and small enough not to squeeze the vitality out of capitalism – government revenue of some 25% of gross domestic product. Markets can’t exist without laws – just as civil society can’t exist without police, courts and armies.
Poor wee willie objects to the great unwashed being free – David objects to straw-men of his own imagining.
> objects to the great unwashed being free
Of course I don’t, dear Chief, nor do I really object to the Freedom Fighters’s fight for freedom:
It’s just not a concept that is independent from justice:
Revisiting Chief’s caricatures of polical philosophy will have to wait.
Of course he does. He lives in the twitterverse and demands a socialist utopia of witless wonders.
“Nearly 1 billion people have been taken out of extreme poverty in 20 years. The world should aim to do the same again.” That’s real fairness – and we aim to do it again and again.
This is done with economic freedom, sound economic management and high standards democratic oversight.
Poor wee willie believes that a centrally planned can be redeemed with – wait for it – computers. Hard to think he will win many recruits here – harder to determine whether he is a bigger anachronism or a joke.
… centrally planned economy..
James Delingpole has just raised Breitbart’s Paris Accord ante to
a cool $ 2,500,000,000,000.00
The trouble is that this figure does not appear anywhere in anything anybody signed in Paris-
I unfortunately see a lot of that here at these blog discussions and particularly so if you throw in the very predictable personality conflicts. I do continue to enjoy and find interest in those too few threads that involve analysis of published papers relating to climate science – such as we obtain from Nic Lewis – and to those general analyses of an area of climate science when well researched and presented by poster.
Pingback: Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup #273 | Watts Up With That?
A hurricane we know is damaging, dangerous.
We don’t know if CO2 is dangerous.
The latter has led to mass hysteria and paranoia
Pingback: Can US Cities, States Help Reduce Carbon Emissions without Feds? Coping with Trump and Climate Change | PLOS Blogs Network