Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

[Exile]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Yes, I did know that. And I buy gasoline from companies that recognize the problem and are doing something about.

You mean like the Shell Foundation that gives millions away to renewable energy projects but is the non-profit arm of Shell Oil Co. which has been trying to obtain permits to drill in the Arctic? Or maybe you mean Exxon/Mobil and others who publicly support a carbon tax, you know the tax that would be imposed on all the oil cos. but then passed to the consumer, i.e. at no cost to the oil co.?

I thought you were more savvy than L-E when it came to understanding basic economics, but now you're scaring me. But please, do tell, which gas stations should we use to fill up our vehicles that would be best for signaling our virtue?

[Exile]

Originally Posted by mr_f

You have it spot on. The current increase in atmospheric CO2 is caused by us.

Not sure about that one given the state of knowledge on the rate of absorption & overall capacity of negative feedbacks. It is my (rather vague) understanding that a natural warming trend (or one that is primarily due to natural forces) would also cause releases of CO2 previously stored in plants, soil & oceans. But it might be helpful to assume, for discussion purposes, that your analysis is correct and all of the increase is anthropogenic.

Delfin's repeated "but but but... plants emit nearly 10 times as much CO2 as we do" is just silly misdirection. Plants uptake twice as much CO2 as they emit. I know that, you know that, Delfin apparently is still confused about that.

Not sure what I know, so best not to assume, in my case anyway!

This nonsense about "magic" CO2 molecules is also silly misdirection. No one has claimed that the CO2 we emit has different radiative properties. It it is the concentration that matters. We have increased the concentration of atmospheric CO2 from 280ppm to 400ppm through our actions, or around 40%.

OK, we can put that one behind us at least.

He has similar math problems with his assertions about the Paris agreements. No one is claiming they are sufficient, but he is way off on how much impact they will have, because he still believes that that humans are only responsible for 3% of the increase in atmospheric CO2.

This is where you lose me. Delfin is using IPCC numbers, right? You might want to flush this one out a bit for us liberal arts types in the crowd. From the beginning of the thread I always thought that impacts, remedies, and potential costs were the sine qua non of the entire issue.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Exile

Btw, most of the scientific community accepts that we are warming, but there's a smaller consensus that believes that, if it wasn't for anthropogenic CO2 and other human influences, we would be cooling.

I have already quote Mike Lockwood, and other solar scientists, on that.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Exile

Y

I thought you were more savvy than L-E when it came to understanding basic economics, but now you're scaring me. But please, do tell, which gas stations should we use to fill up our vehicles that would be best for signaling our virtue?

I buy my gasoline at a cooperative. I avoid Exxon Mobil for suppressing their own science.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by jackdale

I buy my gasoline at a cooperative.

OK and what refinery does the co-op get its fuel from? Where does that refinery get its oil from?

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Kenomac

And most of the truly stupid....... seem to be on government handouts and benefits.

Originally Posted by jackdale

Like John Christy and Roy Spencer?

I guess this is an attempt at sarcasm, but your truncated & dismissive posts often leave me wondering what you're getting at. Not sure what Keno meant, but I don't view funding of scientific research as handouts, no matter the source. But I do think the potential for bias is probably high in a complex, highly politicized, funding-rich area such as climate science when scientists are tasked with proving or disproving the influence of MMGW. There is pressure and competition to obtain available grant money, obtaining the funding is usually tied to career advancement/prestige, and the money is probably often sourced from an entity -- private or govt'l -- that is pursuing an agenda. This doesn't mean the scientists themselves are corrupt, whether they are working for NASA or the Heritage Foundation. It only means there is likely some bias which must be discounted in order to make sound policy decisions.

To that end, there's probably no better way to expose the bias than having scientists working to prove opposing theories, regardless of who's paying the bills. I know L-E likes to turn this into accusations of "corrupt scientists" and "conspiracies," but I thought someone with your background would be better able to understand the distinction.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by newhaul

OK and what refinery does the co-op get its fuel from? Where does that refinery get its oil from?

Probably impossible to know, but let's see if Jack even responds. Qatar maybe?

[Exile]

Originally Posted by jackdale

I avoid Exxon Mobil for suppressing their own science.

Aren't you the one who keeps saying something about assertions requiring evidence? Let's see what "evidence" these state AG's come up with in their lawsuits.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Exile

Probably impossible to know, but let's see if Jack even responds. Qatar maybe?

Likely will ask me that in turn so I will tell ya mine the fuel I purchase comes from.
Gasoline. The local. APP refinery refined from Alaska sweet from the north slope.
Biodiesel . The second largest production plant in america owned by pettit oil in Aberdeen. Wa
Produced from used and new vegetable oil

[mr_f]

Regarding your comment on the uncertainties in the sinks: you are correct there are large uncertainties on all of the natural sources and sinks. These are difficult things to measure globally and to separate into constituent components.

But there is relatively low uncertainty on the current atmospheric CO2 concentration and rate of change.

We would have to be off by off by 50% on our estimates of our emissions for the net natural contribution to be increasing atmospheric CO2. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing at around half the rate that we are emitting. The uncertainties in our emission rates are simply not that large.

transmiterdams point about non-linearities in the system is well taken, but not particularly relevant to this calculation. It is however very relevant to understanding how the natural sources and sinks are changing, their relative importance, etc.

As you point out, several processes may increase net emissions in the future due to warming, (increased soil respiration, reduce solubility in the ocean). If we cause warming, we may reduce the ability for the natural system to offset our emissions.

Originally Posted by Exile

This is where you lose me. Delfin is using IPCC numbers, right? You might want to flush this one out a bit for us liberal arts types in the crowd. From the beginning of the thread I always thought that impacts, remedies, and potential costs were the sine qua non of the entire issue.

Perhaps Delfin can say where he got those numbers. The most widely reported numbers are that the Paris agreements (if fully implemented) may limit warming to somewhere around 3 degrees over pre-industrial levels. (Which is generally considered inadequate.) The IPCC projections if we do nothing are around 4 to 5 degrees warming.

Last time I checked, 4 - 3 does not equal 0.05

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Exile

Aren't you the one who keeps saying something about assertions requiring evidence? Let's see what "evidence" these state AG's come up with in their lawsuits.

The evidence:

http://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/...n-Dossiers.pdf

One piece of it:

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Exile

Probably impossible to know, but let's see if Jack even responds. Qatar maybe?

Their own refinery. Alberta does not import oil from Qatar. Apparently we have a lot of own.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Exile

Is this one of the satellite data sets, surface data, or a combo? (the source for the graph says NASA but not sure re: the data source).

Btw, most of the scientific community accepts that we are warming, but there's a smaller consensus that believes that, if it wasn't for anthropogenic CO2 and other human influences, we would be cooling.

Maybe you can address that one, or is that too much acknowledgment of scientific opinions that don't support your own preferred position?

Originally Posted by jackdale

I have already quote Mike Lockwood, and other solar scientists, on that.

Yes, I remember those quotes well. No analysis and little if any commentary from you, of course, but quotes that were informative nonetheless. But what portion of the scientific community supports the theory that we should currently be in a cooling phase, as opposed to those who believe that we are in a long-term warming trend since the end of the LIA? I bet there are a LOT of inquiring minds that would like to know. You said you follow and participate in Judith Curry's blog, right? Probably don't have to look much beyond that to answer the question.

Without such answers about this and other questions that keep coming up, I'm afraid that posting graphs showing "warming" without more don't go very far. At the very least you should include graphs representing more than just one data-set, especially if there are variances which support natural vs. anthropogenic warming. Sound reasonable?

[Exile]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Their own refinery. Alberta does not import oil from Qatar. Apparently we have a lot of own.

Well, at least your fill-ups aren't supporting repressive Muslim Arab states and their censored media outlets that Al Gore profited from. Good on you. But of course it's all the same CO2 and other harmful emissions to the atmosphere. Then again, we shouldn't discount an effort to act locally. Just need to go to work on that condo assoc.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Exile

At the very least you should include graphs representing more than just one data-set, especially if there are variances which support natural vs. anthropogenic warming. Sound reasonable?

That does sound reasonable. Let's see them. It is your assertion that they exist.

Or are you just JAQing off?