Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Exile

More or less describes my situation, and I would guess the majority of people subscribed to this thread. Except for Mike, Ken, & Third Day who we know have a much smaller "footprint" because of the individual choices they have personally made. Is this starting to sink in, L-E?

Beyond the individual actions that each of us can take, systemic changes are required in the production of energy for both industrial and consumer use.

Large energy production is still required, but the time lag is long. For example, a shift from diesel electric locomotives to trains using clean electrical energy is a huge endeavour. Large scale power plants will take time to build.

That is why foresight is necessary.

[Kenomac]

Originally Posted by jackdale

refuse, reduce, reuse, recycle, energy efficient vehicle and home.

Very good. Thanks for answering my question

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Exile

And despite all these efforts, I'm presuming that Jack's electricity is coming from the same local power grid that is at least 80%-plus powered by fossil fuels, to say nothing of supplying his winter heating needs (natural gas, I assume?).

That is why I am supporting my local, provincial and federal governments as they move away from coal generation. Ontario has all ready done so.

My heating system is about 95% efficient. It has no chimney and exhausts through a PVC pipe. It is an on-demand system. Unfortunately being leading edge, it is also somewhat "bleeding edge." The heating coil burst while I was in the middle of the South Atlantic. My wife was not very happy. The coil was replaced on warranty, but we had to pay for labour.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by mr_f

I will put aside the somewhat odd suggestion that you can't have a warming trend without every year being warmer than the previous year. I assume you are aware of inter annual variability.

Yes, of course, and I never intended to weigh in on well-documented variabilities in what is claimed by the scientific consensus as an overall warming trend. The comment was instead directed towards one of mine & Jack's many distracting side-debates, this time centered around the political motivation for continuing to use the term "climate change" vs. "global warming" in the effort to convince people such warming is in fact occurring.

But, I think it is worth pointing out some reasons for questioning your claim that it is only the 3rd warmest year in the satellite record. That is one groups interpretation of the satellite temperature data. In particular a group that does not make their correction for diurnal drift publicly available for comparison. Other groups come to different estimates using the same data, and publish how they handle diurnal drift.

The following paper deals with the differences between the UAH interpretation to which you refer and others:



http://www.atmos.uw.edu/~qfu/Publica...edley.2015.pdf

As an aside, here is another paper that suggests that the current techniques for interpreting tropospheric temperature from satellites may lead to underestimates:

Uncertainty of AMSU-A derived temperature trends in relationship with clouds and precipitation over ocean - Springer

Certainly not MY claim. I'm hardly the guy with the scientific background amongst this crowd, and certainly never claimed to be. I was merely citing Dr. Christy's findings as published in the Daily Caller (thanks Third Day). But any such scientific research that challenges previous findings (like you posted above) is always welcome, and can only further the effort to improve the complex science surrounding climatology. That's why I so strongly object to efforts to suppress non-consensus views.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Exile

That's why I so strongly object to efforts to suppress non-consensus views.

How about attempts to suppress consensus views by folks like Inhofe and Lamar. or Cuccinelli / Mann

Virginia Supreme Court tosses out AG Cuccinelli inquisition on Michael Mann | Climate Science Watch

Skeptics like Christy, Curry Lindzen, Pielke, Legates are government funded. How is that suppressing them?

They still enjoy intellectual freedom at their respective universities. Legates, McKitrick, Pielke, Scarfetta, Patterson etc. all still have their faculty positions.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Exile

The comment was instead directed towards one of mine & Jack's many distracting side-debates, this time centered around the political motivation for continuing to use the term "climate change" vs. "global warming" in the effort to convince people such warming is in fact occurring.

Both terms are still used in the science community and they have different meanings.

Warming still occurring.

Using 30 years (the WMO standard for climate) of UAH satellite data (Spencer and Christy)



Using RSS satellite data



Since 1994 not one data point below the mean - above average temperatures are warming.

Using HADcrut data for 30 years.



For this century alone

The year 2014 was the warmest year across global land and ocean surfaces since records began in 1880. The annually-averaged temperature was 0.69°C (1.24°F) above the 20th century average of 13.9°C (57.0°F), easily breaking the previous records of 2005 and 2010 by 0.04°C (0.07°F). This also marks the 38th consecutive year (since 1977) that the yearly global temperature was above average. Including 2014, 9 of the 10 warmest years in the 135-year period of record have occurred in the 21st century. 1998 currently ranks as the fourth warmest year on record.

The only way you getting anything saying that there is no warming is by cherry-picking a period of time that gives inordinate emphasis to the strongest El Nino of the previous 50 years.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

More or less describes my situation, and I would guess the majority of people subscribed to this thread. Except for Mike, Ken, & Third Day who we know have a much smaller "footprint" because of the individual choices they have personally made. Is this starting to sink in, L-E?

Not everyone who wants to can get out cruising, be 100% living aboard, or install solar. And I didn't realize it was a precondition for having an opinion, sorry.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Beyond the individual actions that each of us can take, systemic changes are required in the production of energy for both industrial and consumer use.

Large energy production is still required, but the time lag is long. For example, a shift from diesel electric locomotives to trains using clean electrical energy is a huge endeavour. Large scale power plants will take time to build.

That is why foresight is necessary.

Agreed, but the necessary systemic changes will be expensive and thus require popular consent. This will get harder to achieve if liberal politicians continue to tell people about all the "free" energy their commuter trains, city services & homes are getting from renewables while they watch their utility bills and taxes steadily climb. In the long run, and assuming the scientific consensus on impacts becomes more settled and thus convincing, I'd prefer a more honest message that explains why a cleaner environment is worth paying for. That could lead to more widespread individual and systemic changes. More and more individual choices in this direction are important because it helps change attitudes and the overall "culture" surrounding the issue. Then it becomes easier for govt. to step in with the systemic changes.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by jackdale

That is why I am supporting my local, provincial and federal governments as they move away from coal generation. Ontario has all ready done so.

My heating system is about 95% efficient. It has no chimney and exhausts through a PVC pipe. It is an on-demand system. Unfortunately being leading edge, it is also somewhat "bleeding edge." The heating coil burst while I was in the middle of the South Atlantic. My wife was not very happy. The coil was replaced on warranty, but we had to pay for labour.

Given your background & knowledge, and regardless if I or anyone else agree with you, I have no doubt that you are making a significant contribution to a cause you care deeply about by educating others and supporting your govts.' efforts. It sounds like you walk the walk.

Yeah, the advancements in efficiency for home heating systems have been coming fast. I've already replaced one perfectly good furnace because the increased efficiency would pay for the replacement in pretty short order. The new one also heats my hot water as I suspect yours does too. Sorry you had a failure and had to pay for labor costs, but are you really disclosing the "true costs" of that failure given your wife's unhappiness over the incident??

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Not everyone who wants to can get out cruising, be 100% living aboard, or install solar. And I didn't realize it was a precondition for having an opinion, sorry.

As we've see in just the last few pages of this thread, there are no preconditions to making a difference on an issue that you have expressed such passionate opinions about. It's just that in your case, there doesn't seem to be much walk that matches the high volume of your talk.

[jimbunyard]

Originally Posted by Kenomac

The founding documents of the USA, The Declaration of Independence, The Constitution and the Bill of Rights are not based on or about some commie, coming together crapola.

Read them and see for yourself... They're about the exact opposite, freedom from tyranny and oppression...

Oppression, like a one world type Socialist government and the alarmists telling everyone what to do and demanding unnecessary carbon (tea) taxes.

Now let's get back to the original subject matter. What new technologies will the future bring to make the current worriers about global warming forget about it... And stop worrying about some sort of human-based apocalyptic meltdown?

Well, I don't think any, but I'm a realist and feel that technology caused about 50 percent of the problem, with the remainder caused by human (or more correctly, life's) nature.

But that's another argument. Most likely, any technologies that help will be refinements of existing ones. Energy storage is very important (this is of course one of the greatest things about fossil fuels in general, and crude oil especially), but nuclear and gas are too. Hydro, solar, wind, tide and geothermal will all play parts, depending on application and environmental criteria.

Here's a couple of newish storage ideas, though they're not based on any new principles, and both are still in varying stages of development.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?featur...Ixt6nMf-IQ#t=3


Technology - LightSail Energy

The real problem (if one believes there is one) can be grasped by taking one of the 'greenie' tests like this,

ISCFC: Calculate Your Footprint#

I took it, and my score was around 13000 tons. The average for my area was 39000 tons (if I remember correctly, it might have been 33000). At any rate, to keep the CO2 PPM below 450, the number they say has to be around 1000 tons per world capita. I'd say the real consumers (like me) have quite a job on their hands...this is also one of the reasons why the 'hand wringers' are so worried.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Exile

but are you really disclosing the "true costs" of that failure given your wife's unhappiness over the incident??

The cost had already been factored in. I missed our anniversary but I had promised her a souvenir of of famous South African export, and we were not talking Cabernet Sauvignon.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by jackdale

How about attempts to suppress consensus views by folks like Inhofe and Lamar. or Cuccinelli / Mann

Virginia Supreme Court tosses out AG Cuccinelli inquisition on Michael Mann | Climate Science Watch

Skeptics like Christy, Curry Lindzen, Pielke, Legates are government funded. How is that suppressing them?

They still enjoy intellectual freedom at their respective universities. Legates, McKitrick, Pielke, Scarfetta, Patterson etc. all still have their faculty positions.

Your allegations of political attempts to suppress consensus views seem oxymoronic given your frequent references to the overwhelming 97-99.9% consensus that the scientific community has purportedly achieved. If the intended effort is suppression -- as opposed to trying to insure a fair hearing for those who hold non-consensus opinions -- then I'd say Inhofe's & Lamar's constituents need to fire them. You don't have to believe it, of course, but the level of ostracization of skeptics within the scientific community has been testified to before the US Congress, and publicized by a number of scientists themselves, including Curry, Dyson & others.

I read about the Virginia Supreme Court's opinion rejecting Cuccinelli's case against Michael Mann & UVA some time ago, but I read about it in a publication a bit less biased than "Climate Science & Policy Watch," who's byline is "[p]romoting integrity in the use of climate science in government." So I missed the article's reference to, for example, a "McCarthyite inquisition, by yet another agent of the global warming denial machine." But no matter, all of the courts in Va. apparently ruled in Mann's favor, with the state supreme court deciding on narrow statutory grounds that the AG lacked jurisdiction to bring the case. So if anything, Cuccinelli's efforts solidly reaffirmed university scientists' rights to freedom of thought & discussion amongst their colleagues, and should reassure them that they need not fear court-sanctioned suppression.

As for Mann himself, my understanding is that he has now turned around and sued conservative commentator Mark Steyn & National Review, both frequent critics of the AGW consensus and its many adherents. Haven't looked into the specifics, but go figure . . . .

[Exile]

Originally Posted by jackdale

The cost had already been factored in. I missed our anniversary but I had promised her a souvenir of of famous South African export, and we were not talking Cabernet Sauvignon.

HA-HA! We have to pay either way to keep our "climate" safe, whether it be the planet's or just a tad closer to home.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Exile

HA-HA! We have to pay either way to keep our "climate" safe, whether it be the planet's or just a tad closer to home.

Ironically, its chemical formula is C. That might about the only safe way to harvest sequestered carbon.