In ClimateWire today, Darren Samuelsohn has a valuable profile of Lindsey Graham, who's emerged as the highest-profile swing vote on climate change, especially after his Times op-ed with John Kerry over the weekend urging the Senate to pass legislation. It seems Graham's been particularly impressed by the national-security arguments in favor of curbing America's carbon dependency:
Sen. Lindsey Graham spent his summer testing out lines on global warming. As the Republican hit the town halls in South Carolina, a state with a major military presence and one of the country's highest unemployment rates, Graham would ask people if they thought climate change was a problem.
Few did.
But Graham quickly followed with another question, asking for a show of hands from those concerned about energy security. The response was strong, and Graham wasted little time making the connection.
"You can't look at it in isolation," Graham said in an interview last week. "I'm trying to say, OK, you're skeptical about global warming, you're worried about the compliance costs, and you think maybe there's not much benefit to the environment. I'm not there, but I respect that.
"What if I took something you agree with, that this country had a lot of resources that need to be explored and extracted, and every barrel of oil that we can find off South Carolina with South Carolina's permission, and natural gas deposits, make us more energy independent?" he added. "What if you married those two things up? And took some of the revenue from oil and gas exploration and put it toward reducing our carbon dependency? I think that's a deal that a lot of people would go for. You don't have to be a true believer of drilling offshore or that climate change is real. You've just got to be willing to give and take."
There are plenty of other reasons for Graham's burgeoning interest in climate policy. South Carolina is home to seven nuclear reactors, with four more in the planning stage, and cap-and-trade could give those projects a leg up. Hunters in his state are increasingly dismayed about global warming's adverse effects on wildlife. And Graham himself feels comfortable wandering across the aisle and working with Democrats (he's not a Jim DeMint, scorched-earth type). But the national-security fears loom largest: Graham snaps to attention every time generals and intelligence analysts warn that a sharp increase in global temperatures, bringing droughts, floods, and refugee crises, could make the world a more dangerous place.
It's also no coincidence that, in recent weeks, Democrats have been stressing this security angle as they stump for carbon legislation. As Lisa Lerer reports in Politico today, that's precisely why John Kerry, rather than Barbara Boxer, has become the face of the Senate climate bill—as the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee he can (the theory goes) more credibly make this pitch to colleagues. Environmentalists, in turn, are hitching up with veterans' groups —this week, Operation Free is sending Iraq and Afghanistan vets on a 21-state tour to talk about how climate change could impact American security.
Now, is this a viable strategy for 60 Senate votes? Who knows? The security frame does poll pretty well: Clean Energy Works recently commissioned a poll in Arkansas, of all places, that found overwhelming support for cap-and-trade (55 percent to 37 percent) when the oil-dependency/security pitch was stacked up against the right's "cap-and-tax" mantra. On the other hand, from a policy perspective, relying too heavily on national-security arguments could create a few knots. Bolstering energy security and reducing greenhouse-gas emissions are, after all, two distinct goals that can sometimes come into conflict. To take just one example, tapping Canada's tar sands would make us less dependent on Middle Eastern oil, but it's also a carbon-intensive process. So we'll have to see how this plays out.
(Flickr photo credit: Rob Bluey)
Print
COMMENTS (20)
I can accept energy independance as a national security interest-we've been asking for drilling and nuclear power plants for decades-you say no.
Onto global warming-the planet heats and cools over time-the recent increase in temperatures have nothing, simply nothing to do with CO2 emissions.
First, the basics, since about 1600, every decade, the earth has heated about 0.50 degrees Celsius-just about what happened in the 20th century.
Second, from 1860 to 1940, the earth heated about 0.70 degrees Celsius-before the IPCC said CO2 concentrations would effect temperature. Then, for rest of decade, heated up about 0.40 degrees Celsius-after CO2 emissions savaged the atmosphere.
view full comment
I can accept energy independance as a national security interest-we've been asking for drilling and nuclear power plants for decades-you say no.
Onto global warming-the planet heats and cools over time-the recent increase in temperatures have nothing, simply nothing to do with CO2 emissions.
First, the basics, since about 1600, every decade, the earth has heated about 0.50 degrees Celsius-just about what happened in the 20th century.
Second, from 1860 to 1940, the earth heated about 0.70 degrees Celsius-before the IPCC said CO2 concentrations would effect temperature. Then, for rest of decade, heated up about 0.40 degrees Celsius-after CO2 emissions savaged the atmosphere.
Third, the IPCC models cannot, if reset to 1900, predict the 20th century temperatures. When they are so challenged, they are off, they are high and they are high by 2.00 degrees Celsius.
Fourth, all climate scientists agree, that a doubling of CO2 concentrations would increase temperatures 1.00 degrees Celsius. For global warming to exceed that, other feedbacks must operate, and two, water vapour and cloud cover, would add another 2.00 to 2.50 degrees Celsius to the warming. That extra heating is due to the original heating from CO2.
Fifth, the IPCC itself, in 2007, said it's 23 models-the ones which project future temperatures, cannot model water vapour and cloud cover.
Sixth, the evidence since IPCC 2007 (which cut-off research as of May, 2006), has established that: water vapour has not increased and cloud predictions are wrong and that, most likely, those climate variables will cool the earth. So, forget about the extra 2.00 to 2.50 degree heating.
Seventh, the International Energy Agency now claims the developed world will need to spend $10.50 trillion over the next 20 years to reduce CO2 emissions. The Obama Administration admits such costs are likely to approach $300 billion annually. For what?
Eigth, despite all that fear mongering, and expenditures, Waxman-Markley, through 2100, will reduce "potential" global warming by just 0.11 degrees. Again, why?
You can find people to say world wars, nuke exchanges, more terrorism and such from global warming-but the link-actual global warming-is not occuring due to CO2.
You are wrong. You know it. It's disgusting.
Nice world you live in there, lobosven. Too bad the science is not on your side.
Nice world you live in there, lobosven. Too bad the science is not on your side.
JEFF FREY, can you amplify your statement succinctly so that those of us not yet convinced can finally come around?
JEFF FREY, can you amplify your statement succinctly so that those of us not yet convinced can finally come around?
Jeff, you now have your chance-have you ever read the IPCC material? Or, like the rest of you smug progressives, is the "Inconvenient Truth" the extent of your search for the truth. Mr. ennis, I suggest you read two things:
The 4th IPCC, 2007-just chapters 8 and 10-this is where they admit their models can't reproduce 20th century temperatures and climate "fingerprints"-especially clouds and water vapour
Then find the "Non-intergovermental Panel and climate Change", 2009, a set of scientists who spell out what the real science is.
My high school debate team is handling this prompt: UN should prioritize poverty reduction over environmental protection (essentially CO2 reduction). Jeff, ... view full comment
Jeff, you now have your chance-have you ever read the IPCC material? Or, like the rest of you smug progressives, is the "Inconvenient Truth" the extent of your search for the truth. Mr. ennis, I suggest you read two things:
The 4th IPCC, 2007-just chapters 8 and 10-this is where they admit their models can't reproduce 20th century temperatures and climate "fingerprints"-especially clouds and water vapour
Then find the "Non-intergovermental Panel and climate Change", 2009, a set of scientists who spell out what the real science is.
My high school debate team is handling this prompt: UN should prioritize poverty reduction over environmental protection (essentially CO2 reduction). Jeff, you should see these wee ones-we live in Marin-parroting their parents, and like you, spewing nonsense (too bad the science is not on your side)...........then reading real science and realizing they've been fooled for years. More incredibly, when they go home and question their progressive parents about the competing scientific evidence-their parents go ballistic. Great culture we have.
So, Jeff, what have you read and what do you really know???
Cap and Trade provisions of Waxman Markey and Boxer Kerry will harm energy security and independence by causing massive shurdowns of domestic refineries in favor of additional imports from Saudi Arabia, UAE, China and India, all of whom are planning export refining facilities to displace about 5 million barrels per day of domestic refinert capacity.
Waxman Markey specifically cites energy security as a reason for the legislation, but if overseas refineries do not have to pay for their CO2 emissions, they will have an overwhelming advantage over domestic refiners. What is even more significant, most of the refineries that shut down use exclusively U.S. or at least North American crude oil supp ... view full comment
Cap and Trade provisions of Waxman Markey and Boxer Kerry will harm energy security and independence by causing massive shurdowns of domestic refineries in favor of additional imports from Saudi Arabia, UAE, China and India, all of whom are planning export refining facilities to displace about 5 million barrels per day of domestic refinert capacity.
Waxman Markey specifically cites energy security as a reason for the legislation, but if overseas refineries do not have to pay for their CO2 emissions, they will have an overwhelming advantage over domestic refiners. What is even more significant, most of the refineries that shut down use exclusively U.S. or at least North American crude oil supply, that will now not find an economic outlet. So a double whammy. I wrote to Graham and McCain to point out these problems.
r.ennis--I'm curious, would a carbon tariff on overseas refiners counteract that problem?
r.ennis--I'm curious, would a carbon tariff on overseas refiners counteract that problem?
Brad, yes, but then government involvement becomes insane: if those countries do "something" about CO2 (less than OECD, more than nothing), then tax doesn't kick in. Others on your side of table say, Europe's CO2 plans are more robust than ours-then-they can tax our exports. Then, you worry, about, like Bush's dustup on steel and Obama's on tires-both BS-that we or other countries use these CO2 goals as trade weapons.
Brad, the real issue is-what does the best of science show. The best of science shows that the man-made global warming case is less than weak, it's almost comical, really.
Before we spend trillions on worthless solutions-reducing employment, slowing our growth and ... view full comment
Brad, yes, but then government involvement becomes insane: if those countries do "something" about CO2 (less than OECD, more than nothing), then tax doesn't kick in. Others on your side of table say, Europe's CO2 plans are more robust than ours-then-they can tax our exports. Then, you worry, about, like Bush's dustup on steel and Obama's on tires-both BS-that we or other countries use these CO2 goals as trade weapons.
Brad, the real issue is-what does the best of science show. The best of science shows that the man-made global warming case is less than weak, it's almost comical, really.
Before we spend trillions on worthless solutions-reducing employment, slowing our growth and increasing the costs of energy-just read both sides and use your mind.
"Fifth, the IPCC itself, in 2007, said it's 23 models-the ones which project future temperatures, cannot model water vapour and cloud cover."
All the climate models include water vapor and changes in cloud cover. See section 8.6 of the IPCC WG1:
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_Ch08.pdf
True, cloud cover is still a big source of uncertainty, and the IPCC AR4 said as much, but you can't get from there to "CO2 doesn't cause global warming." And the uncertainty isn't necessarily good news. There was a study in Science over the s ... view full comment
"Fifth, the IPCC itself, in 2007, said it's 23 models-the ones which project future temperatures, cannot model water vapour and cloud cover."
All the climate models include water vapor and changes in cloud cover. See section 8.6 of the IPCC WG1:
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_Ch08.pdf
True, cloud cover is still a big source of uncertainty, and the IPCC AR4 said as much, but you can't get from there to "CO2 doesn't cause global warming." And the uncertainty isn't necessarily good news. There was a study in Science over the summer that took observed changes in cloud cover and compared them with climate-model predictions and found that almost all of the models had underestimated the feedback effects of cloud cover (the only model that appeared to get this right was the Hadley Center's model, which had a higher climate sensitivity than the median IPCC model and predicted a 4.4C rise for every doubling in CO2 concentrations—not good news):
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/short/325/5939/376
Finally, if you want to have a civil discussion, do try not to call people "disgusting" right off the bat. I'm sure even in high-school debate they teach you that that's bad manners.
"Finally, if you want to have a civil discussion, do try not to call people "disgusting" right off the bat." I wholeheartedly agree. But what about Krugman who says that those of us who are unconvinced are planetary traitors? Or Gore for that matter who refuses to discuss the accuracy of the claims he has made? Heated rhetoric begets more heated rhetoric. Nobody has convinced me with the facts that the science is settled. We need a real oublic debate by qualified scientists.
"Finally, if you want to have a civil discussion, do try not to call people "disgusting" right off the bat." I wholeheartedly agree. But what about Krugman who says that those of us who are unconvinced are planetary traitors? Or Gore for that matter who refuses to discuss the accuracy of the claims he has made? Heated rhetoric begets more heated rhetoric. Nobody has convinced me with the facts that the science is settled. We need a real oublic debate by qualified scientists.
Brad, it is disgusting, there is nothing civil about a plan to reduce CO2, costing perhaps $10.50 trillion to the OECD over the next 20 years, which: (a) is not supported by the best science, (b) will result in slower growth and lost jobs, and (c) won't work (Waxman-Markley over 90 years, at best-assuming it all works-reduces projeced temperatures by 0.11 degrees Celsius (doubled, if Europe goes nuts and makes it happen). Disgusting because you progressives wish to waste our money with higher energy costs for no real purpose. Think, too, of what social causes or business advances don't occur because of your jihad.
Now, to the IPCC:
"The response of global warming to deep convect ... view full comment
Brad, it is disgusting, there is nothing civil about a plan to reduce CO2, costing perhaps $10.50 trillion to the OECD over the next 20 years, which: (a) is not supported by the best science, (b) will result in slower growth and lost jobs, and (c) won't work (Waxman-Markley over 90 years, at best-assuming it all works-reduces projeced temperatures by 0.11 degrees Celsius (doubled, if Europe goes nuts and makes it happen). Disgusting because you progressives wish to waste our money with higher energy costs for no real purpose. Think, too, of what social causes or business advances don't occur because of your jihad.
Now, to the IPCC:
"The response of global warming to deep convective clouds is also a substantial source of uncertainty-it is not yet possible to determine which estimates of the climate change model are most reliable. page 593. Brad, do you get this? IPCC says cloud feedback adds 0.70 to 1.00 degrees to global warming. IPCC here admits their models can't accurately forecast this. In opposition, scientists have found that cloud feedback following CO2 warming actually cool the earth: "As the ocean warmed, low level clouds increased in density. Contrary to IPCC models, original global warming will actually cool the Earth." Professor Roy Spencer.
"Confidence in water vapour feedback is thus affected by uncertainties in the physical processes controlling water vapour. Many models individually display substantial rain biases. Any errors in the water vapour distribution should affect the outgoing LW radiation." page 611. Brad, this is even more incredible-they say the models aren't modeling water vapour correctly and that the models are wrong. We both know, water vapour feedback is theorized to add 1.80 to 2.00 degrees Celsius to original CO2 warming. Water vapour must lead to increased rain for this to me true. Studies show: "from 1932 to 2004, in comparing observed monsoon rainful with simulated rainfall values from 20 IPCC models, not a single one of those models was able to simulate correctly the variation of rainfall. In addition, the models frequently failed to correctly capture even the sign of observed rainall." Non-governmental IPCC.
So we can be all serious people, look at the accuracy of these models: "Dr. Akasofu asked the IPCC Arctic group to hindcast-a necessary hurdle to establish accuracy of the models. The models predicted results which were dramatically different than the actual temperature reading. By 2008, the models projected a warming from 1970 for 1.4 to 1.6 degrees. The actual temperature increase was 0.30 degrees." The Deniers.
So, Brad, I remain disgusted-our country faces a myriad of problems and challenges so that my kids-their future-is protected. You wish to destory it. And, what we know, is that your fear-or belief-is founded upon models which simply don't work, are biased upwards by the amount of warming you're afraid of and are contrary to observed, actual conditions.
I'm all for energy security and energy independence, but isn't it more than a little naieve to think that simply expanding domestic sources of petroleum (as well as obtaining more petroleum from friendly countries such as Canada) do a whole lot to defang terrorism or Middle Eastern instability? Because petroleum and natural gas are global commodities and prices are based on global supply and demand, revenue from petroleum and natural gas production would continue to rise unless demand slips worldwide (for example, a US recession that began in January 2008 had no impact on rising gas prices because falling US demand was far outstripped by rising demand elsewhere). If the US eliminated its p ... view full comment
I'm all for energy security and energy independence, but isn't it more than a little naieve to think that simply expanding domestic sources of petroleum (as well as obtaining more petroleum from friendly countries such as Canada) do a whole lot to defang terrorism or Middle Eastern instability? Because petroleum and natural gas are global commodities and prices are based on global supply and demand, revenue from petroleum and natural gas production would continue to rise unless demand slips worldwide (for example, a US recession that began in January 2008 had no impact on rising gas prices because falling US demand was far outstripped by rising demand elsewhere). If the US eliminated its petroleum or natural gas purchases from Middle Eastern nations entirely, couldn't those producers simply recoup their losses from rising demand from China, India and other growing markets that lack a domestic supply? On the flip side, if global petroleum prices decline rapidly and stay low for a long time, the resulting pain to petroleum producing countries could breed even more instability than you have now. That may be one reason for why Osama Bin Laden and his compatriots stayed in the global jihad business in the 1990s rather than getting jobs in Saudi Arabia's stagnant 1990s economy.
If we increase domestic production by 1 million barrels per day, a very conservative estimate of additional production from ANWR and OCS, prices would fall dramatically. What it would do to stability in the middle east is a pure guess, but would probably have minimal impact. Of the 5 million barrels per day of OPEC oil we import, only 900,000 barrels per day come from Saudi. And the only other middle east oil we import is from Iraq - 300,000 barrels per day. In contrast, we import over 4 million from Nafta sources.
If we increase domestic production by 1 million barrels per day, a very conservative estimate of additional production from ANWR and OCS, prices would fall dramatically. What it would do to stability in the middle east is a pure guess, but would probably have minimal impact. Of the 5 million barrels per day of OPEC oil we import, only 900,000 barrels per day come from Saudi. And the only other middle east oil we import is from Iraq - 300,000 barrels per day. In contrast, we import over 4 million from Nafta sources.
lobosven:
Finding an issue that a scientific theory does not currently explain well (and one that the authors freely admit to that) does not provide sufficient evidence to claim that the whole thing is bunk.
Climate change is obviously fraught with uncertainty and a lot of inference. There are many unknowns and to call it a multi-variant problem is to not do justice to the complexity of the issue.
Before I start, I haven't looked at this in a while, but from memory the models that did not account for the warming levels observed from the 40s until the 80s likely weren't accounting for aerosols, which was definitely a problem in the early models.
However, given the burden of the accumulat ... view full comment
lobosven:
Finding an issue that a scientific theory does not currently explain well (and one that the authors freely admit to that) does not provide sufficient evidence to claim that the whole thing is bunk.
Climate change is obviously fraught with uncertainty and a lot of inference. There are many unknowns and to call it a multi-variant problem is to not do justice to the complexity of the issue.
Before I start, I haven't looked at this in a while, but from memory the models that did not account for the warming levels observed from the 40s until the 80s likely weren't accounting for aerosols, which was definitely a problem in the early models.
However, given the burden of the accumulation of decades of evidence is on the side of AGW, there are a number of things that need to be explained if the theory is to be dismissed. I'll outline three here:
Firstly, what is happening to the CO2 (and other greenhouse gases) that are being pumped into the atmosphere? No-one (well, basically no-one) argues that they are greenhouse gases; this effect is very easy to experimentally reproduce and observe (see, Venus, hotter than closer-to-the-sun-Mercury). You may argue that we are producing insufficient greenhouse gases to affect a system as large as the planet, but modern and historical measurements of atmospheric carbon levels do not support that. If they are escaping into space, how come we are measuring increases?
Secondly, if not GHG, what is warming the planet? The argument over whether the planet is warming is (thankfully) over. There is obviously (and frequently stated) uncertainty as to the rate and amount, but this does not mean that we should not be considering their cause given the very obvious problems the heating will cause us. If the planet is heating up, why?
It doesn't appear to be solar irradiance or additional activity in the core of the planet. We also haven't noticed any foreign objects smashing into the surface and hurling stuff into the atmosphere, major volcanoes (who spew GHG anyway) or massive changes in plant or animal species similar to when plants started exuding oxygen that would explain the changes. It is possible that something that we cannot detect or measure is causing the heating, but since we have many separate lines of evidence that can be used to track historical temperatures and we also find a very good correlation with carbon levels, it seems a very reasonable inference.
Thirdly, how to explain the apparent complete break down in the scientific process within the community that studies this? Either we have the case of the largest scientific fraud ever committed, or there might be something to what is being claimed. Frauds tend to be difficult to maintain, as the scientific community is full of people who have nothing other than prestige to strive for (its not like they get paid dramatically differently), and a really easy way to gain prestige is to produce a new theory that either improves on or destroys an existing one. And this is not even including the considerable resources the energy sector has devoted to trying to find contrary evidence. And this theory has been gaining traction for decades.
And to (knowingly) maintain a fraud on this scale is almost unimaginably difficult. Even simple honest mistakes (see Fleischmann and Pons) can end a scientific career. To knowingly ignore contrary data that disproves a theory is effective academic suicide.
This is not to say categorically that AGW is an inviolable theory; it is not, and neither is any other true scientific theory. However it best explains the evidence we have today, and as more evidence is found, it tends to get better supported rather than disproved.
A coda to r.ennis: It is important to not confuse the "conflict" that appears in the media, popular press and some trade journals with that within the scientific community (i.e. real scientists). I am not aware of a great deal of debate about the basics of AGW. This is based on a number of surveys that have been commissioned over the last decade or so by people who were serious about finding the results. While there is considerable debate regarding rates, effects and some of the conclusions of the IPCC (who themselves quite freely admit which conclusions are speculative), there is not much debate that the carbon being released by human activity is a primary forcer of climate change.
Nari. You gave the typical defense of AGW. That's not enough. Progressive projections of the costs of CO2 reductions are monumental ($10.5 trillion over 20 years, lower economic growth, higher utility bills, more unemployment). To support those results, you need significant proof-which you don't have.
All climate scientists say-all-when you double CO2 in atmosphere, at worst, you get a 1.00 degree Celsius warming. That's it. The only way to get to another 2.00 or 3.00 degrees is through feedbacks from that initial warming-largely water vapour (resulting in more rain) and through changes in cloud cover (more high clouds and fewer lower clouds). That's where the "science" comes in. ... view full comment
Nari. You gave the typical defense of AGW. That's not enough. Progressive projections of the costs of CO2 reductions are monumental ($10.5 trillion over 20 years, lower economic growth, higher utility bills, more unemployment). To support those results, you need significant proof-which you don't have.
All climate scientists say-all-when you double CO2 in atmosphere, at worst, you get a 1.00 degree Celsius warming. That's it. The only way to get to another 2.00 or 3.00 degrees is through feedbacks from that initial warming-largely water vapour (resulting in more rain) and through changes in cloud cover (more high clouds and fewer lower clouds). That's where the "science" comes in.
Please refresh your memory and read above: models predicted 1.5 degree warming by 2008-it was 0.30-hence, models are biased to warm and quite high.
Where's the CO2-that is interesting. One question we've had is: AGW's add up the CO2 emissions and can't account for 50% of the CO2 (it's not in the atmosphere. Thus, naturally, the system purged half of the emissions.
You ask what is warming the planet? There's actually a large number of explanations: since 1600, before CO2, planet has warmed about 0.50 degrees Celsius. From 1860 to 1940 (before any AGW says temperatures would rise), we warmed 0.70 degrees Celsius (just 0.30 since then-after the massive emissions of CO2). Others establish solar activity is the culprit-including some recent work establishing that solar radiance effects clouds. It's not our job to explain this-if it's natural-it's your job to prove it.
It's clear to me that those who deny AGW find it difficult to obtain grants and are pilloried within the scientific community. Fraud-of course it is. Early this year, 31,000 American scientists signed a letter saying: temperature increases are not man-made and that the recent increases in temperature will benefit the planet (see Non-governmental Panel on Climate Change). So-there's a massive group of scientists who say there has been a fraud.
The recent best evidence I've read says two things: one, rain hasn't increased as predicted by the 23 IPCC models, thus, it's hard to believe their projections that another 1.8 to 2.0 degrees Celsius will result from this feedback (some, think, the feedback will cool) and two, the predicted cloud changes (projected to warm an additional .80 to 1.00 degrees Celsius) haven't occured (some, have established that low clouds have increased and that the feedback will be cooling).
The American public don't believe the fraud, nor do they want to spend the trillions to cure a problem which isn't caused by CO2. I hope you can understand that.
I run a high school debate team, we are debating global warming this month, two vignettes: one, a Dane, and a budding scientist (he just sold a game app through Apple Iphone and works on robot club), was asked by me to read a book declaiming AGW. When he presented some counter-arguments, his parents went nuts. Two, the team asked me what "motive" could these scientists have. I simply said: I don't know. But the same could be said of the anti-AGW folks-what is their motive in questioning the truth? So, that's a game that I don't want to play.
What I do, is read it all-as shown above, I read the 2007 IPCC. I understand modelling. If the models don't work-then-you have no reasonable basis to "predict" (IPCC word, not mine) another 2 or 3 or 4 degrees of warming. If you can't establish this with certainty-I'd say-substantially more likely than not, then you have no right to burden our economy and our children with costs and losses.
I'm ready, at any time, to respond to the AGW allegations.
Personally, and I know this doesn't matter, I was offended at the holes, mistakes, exaggerations and hysteria pushed by the AGW side. It's wrong, It's bad science. Its' poor public policy.
"Progressive projections of the costs of CO2 reductions are monumental ($10.5 trillion over 20 years, lower economic growth, higher utility bills, more unemployment)."
So... is this an example of a "good" model that must be taken as gospel, as opposed to the "bad" models you don't like? Well, fair enough. But either way, it'd be more helpful to add links so we can see where the numbers come from. Here's what the IEA actually said:
http://www.iea.org/press/pressdetail.asp?PRESS_REL_ID=290
"To achieve this energy revolution, incremental investment of ... view full comment
"Progressive projections of the costs of CO2 reductions are monumental ($10.5 trillion over 20 years, lower economic growth, higher utility bills, more unemployment)."
So... is this an example of a "good" model that must be taken as gospel, as opposed to the "bad" models you don't like? Well, fair enough. But either way, it'd be more helpful to add links so we can see where the numbers come from. Here's what the IEA actually said:
http://www.iea.org/press/pressdetail.asp?PRESS_REL_ID=290
"To achieve this energy revolution, incremental investment of USD 10 trillion will be necessary between 2010 and 2030 in the energy sector - equivalent to 0.5% of global GDP in 2020, rising to 1.1% of GDP in 2030. Yet fuel savings across industry, transport and buildings total USD 8.6 trillion between today and 2030, similar to the additional investment in these sectors."
Sounds a bit different when put that way, no?
Brad, I use progressive models for one reason-if I use conservative ones your readers attack. Not saying I'm endorsing-but-just using the work of the people who you know and trust.
I also understand that Mckinsey is now trying to say that green changes and CO2 reductions will be a net benefit to economies.
As far at the IEA, I understand fuel savings, but my guess, as solar and wind generated electricity costs so much more than coal/gas/nuclear (magnitude of 3 to 4-plus-you must keep the conventional plants around as wind and sun have habit of disappearing), that the savings on fuel is more than offset by higher electrical bills. That leaves us, still, at the $10.50 trillion.
view full comment
Brad, I use progressive models for one reason-if I use conservative ones your readers attack. Not saying I'm endorsing-but-just using the work of the people who you know and trust.
I also understand that Mckinsey is now trying to say that green changes and CO2 reductions will be a net benefit to economies.
As far at the IEA, I understand fuel savings, but my guess, as solar and wind generated electricity costs so much more than coal/gas/nuclear (magnitude of 3 to 4-plus-you must keep the conventional plants around as wind and sun have habit of disappearing), that the savings on fuel is more than offset by higher electrical bills. That leaves us, still, at the $10.50 trillion.
Now that we're on solutions-are you in favor of rapidly increasing our nuclear power plants? It's green. It's cheap. It's not subject to intermittance? That energy would also be available to power the electric cars of the future.
Brad, we're still left with the warrant for any expenditure-global warming is not manmade so controlling CO2 emissions is, crazy.
Ah, well you should've just said, "IEA projections plus my guesswork gives us $10.5 trillion in costs." Can't argue with that. And yes, I'm totally fine with nuclear power, and have said so many times. Most recent studies have suggested that it's actually quite expensive (see, e.g., MIT's report: http://web.mit.edu/nuclearpower/pdf/nuclearpower-update2009.pdf), but hell, if we slap a price on carbon, streamline the regulatory process, and nukes win out over wind turbines, more power to them. They can bury the waste in my backyard for all I care ... view full comment
Ah, well you should've just said, "IEA projections plus my guesswork gives us $10.5 trillion in costs." Can't argue with that. And yes, I'm totally fine with nuclear power, and have said so many times. Most recent studies have suggested that it's actually quite expensive (see, e.g., MIT's report: http://web.mit.edu/nuclearpower/pdf/nuclearpower-update2009.pdf), but hell, if we slap a price on carbon, streamline the regulatory process, and nukes win out over wind turbines, more power to them. They can bury the waste in my backyard for all I care.
Anyway, it's great that you're so positive global warming isn't man-made, but really, this is all being wasted in a blog comment section. If you have the goods get 'em peer-reviewed and published in Nature or Science. Decisively upending everything climate scientists know about the subject would bring nothing but fame and glory. Maybe even a Nobel Prize. That's big money. At least consider it.
lobosven:
Your arguments would carry more weight if you did not attempt to produce widely dismissed evidence for your position, such as the petition by "31,000 American Scientists". A very quick search reveals the following:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Petition
which lists, shall we say, some concerning shortcomings with the veracity of the claims and the method used to distribute the survey. It is possible to find evolutionary biologists who deny evolution (although not many), at least as an explanation for the origins of man. To find one or two individuals who disagree w ... view full comment
lobosven:
Your arguments would carry more weight if you did not attempt to produce widely dismissed evidence for your position, such as the petition by "31,000 American Scientists". A very quick search reveals the following:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Petition
which lists, shall we say, some concerning shortcomings with the veracity of the claims and the method used to distribute the survey. It is possible to find evolutionary biologists who deny evolution (although not many), at least as an explanation for the origins of man. To find one or two individuals who disagree with a consensus is not evidence that the consensus is incorrect. For some reason it always appears possible to find a physicist to disagree with pretty much any other field of science, such as the head of the NIPPC, S. Fred Singer who is better known for his denial of the dangers of second hand smoke.
It's not our job to explain this-if it's natural-it's your job to prove it. (re what is warming the planet)
Actually that's not how science works. Those who have spent substantial time (decades in this case) developing a theory that explains a multitude of observations do not have to "prove" it. That burden is on those who wish to disprove the theory, or at least on those who find contrary evidence. The same goes for those who make claims of fraud.
And it's not like theories never get revised and frauds do not get exposed. There are legions of theories that worked well and have since been abandoned as new things were discovered or identified.
If the causes of warming are natural (as is claimed by the NIPCC) these causes must, by definition, be measurable and observable. If this is the case, it would appear to be rather simple to provide proof positive against AGW. If not, these causes have to be super-natural and we can stop the discussion there, as that is outside the realm of science. As Brad has suggested, write it up and get it published in a peer reviewed magazine. Unless they're in on the fraud as well I guess.
But the same could be said of the anti-AGW folks-what is their motive in questioning the truth?
The answer to this is so absurdly obvious that I'm not sure if it's serious. In the US it's printed on green paper. Now in fairness, there are plenty of people who gave serious (and legitimate) concerns about moving from a carbon based economy (fellow poster r.ennis is one). And don't think that every climate scientist is pining for some sort of electricity-free agrarian existence. But given that there is a very obvious and plausible explanation for the "no-AGW" side, what is the explanation for the scientists to lie - you don't know. Funny that.
Also, you are correct that there is significant hysteria, mistakes and exaggeration on the AGW "side". And the models are imperfect. However this does not provide any evidence against the underlying theory, or the fact that if we want to preserve the Greenland ice sheet we'd better understand what's going on and fast.
Brad, the 2009 IEA isn't published and the 2008 IEA costs, so I took quick look at 2007. They are focused on 2 goals: energy security and climate change. As indicated, and I'm glad we agree on nuclear power (I have like 8 estimates on per Kwh costs), let's fight for energy independance and efficiency. IEA looked at over 1,400 strategies-it's not clear to me which ones they use and how much impact they have. It is clear, though, that non-nuke renewables play a minor role in 2030-less than 1% of global energy demand in 2030. They also claim that China will "generate 10% of its electricity from renewables by 2010" and to "cut overall energy intensity by 20% between 2005 and 2010". How? ... view full comment
Brad, the 2009 IEA isn't published and the 2008 IEA costs, so I took quick look at 2007. They are focused on 2 goals: energy security and climate change. As indicated, and I'm glad we agree on nuclear power (I have like 8 estimates on per Kwh costs), let's fight for energy independance and efficiency. IEA looked at over 1,400 strategies-it's not clear to me which ones they use and how much impact they have. It is clear, though, that non-nuke renewables play a minor role in 2030-less than 1% of global energy demand in 2030. They also claim that China will "generate 10% of its electricity from renewables by 2010" and to "cut overall energy intensity by 20% between 2005 and 2010". How? It appears to me that most, if not all, of their "fuel" savings come from slowing the demand for energy (both electricity and in transporation). Laudable goals. They don't discuss the price of electricity-other sources indicate 20% to 80% increases within their time frame. They do say: "consumers spend $2.3 trillion more". The last thing they omit-the non-energy sector costs to achieve the slow-down in energy use. I'm open to any and all conservation programs which are reasonably cost effective-I, like all Americans, wish to decrease useage of all energies-for a whole host of reasons (more discretionary spending and less dependance upon foreign sources).
My man Nari-I'm not a fan of quoting Wikipedia, but my source for the 31,000 scientists isn't the Oregon petition-it's part of (please google) the "Non-governmental Panel and Climate Change", 2009.
No, if you wish one to spend valuable monies to reduce CO2-you need to prove it. You haven't. It's not like there are one or two silly members of the vast right-wing conspiracy running around denying AGW-there's an army (and, most likely, vastly outnumber your IPCC boys). You have a theory-OK-in science, you advance a hypothesis (for you, CO2 global warming and temperature increases in 20th century), then you test-this is what you haven't done. When tested-your models are wrong, they're high and they're high in the early years by about the amount of additional global warming the IPCC says will happen. Then, you have scientists publishing peer reviewed papers showiing that the feedbacks-which IPCC says are going to increase temperatures, either non-existent in the world or actually operating to decrease temperatures.
The sun boys, actually, have extensive peer reviewed papers on the influence of solar raditation and historic temperatures-read the NIPCC.
My evidence isn't against imperfection-those models, are, simply "incoherent and invalid from a scientific oint of view." Dr. Antonio Zichichi. Now, none of us are scientists, here's Antonio's resume: discovered nuclear antimatter, discovered structure of proton, conjectures about third lepton, discovered third family of fundamental particles, discovered effective energy between quarks and gluons and proof that it's impossible to break the proton. Argue with him, not me.
Finally, Nari, here's what I believe: there are usually multiple causes to anything, this is especially true in climate. As the earth had warmed and cooled over it's history-natural processes are at work. Those who study the sun find strong links between solar radiation and our climate. So, for those who ignore that, and isolate CO2, you're missing history and science-especially since your fears are based soley and exclusively on 23 models which don't work.
As far as the AGW guys: Nari, it's simple-the earth is warming and CO2 is increasing-a correlation. theoritically, initial CO2 warming can add water vapour and change cloud cover. They are operating in good faith, design models, and make predictions. Fine. But, that's not how the IPCC works, is it? The scientists don't write the reports. Those who do have an agenda-of course-just like the political one you progressives have here.
I'm out guys. Appreciate it all. At this point, like most things of disagreement in politics, we just disagree.
lobosven:
uh, the "Oregon Petition" is what the petition that the NIPCC link to (appendix 4). It just morphed into the "Global Warming Petition Project" (compare the text if you wish). And sadly, even after the name change, the list is still full of dead people, duplicate names, suspect names and people whose PHDs and expertise lie in other fields. This alone is not sufficient to reject it, but I believe some of the estimates of people who tried to confirm the veracity of the signers estimate that there are about 200 climate scientists who would still sign it.
Which really doesn't sound that impressive when you think about it.number.
(It's always a good to check your facts before present ... view full comment
lobosven:
uh, the "Oregon Petition" is what the petition that the NIPCC link to (appendix 4). It just morphed into the "Global Warming Petition Project" (compare the text if you wish). And sadly, even after the name change, the list is still full of dead people, duplicate names, suspect names and people whose PHDs and expertise lie in other fields. This alone is not sufficient to reject it, but I believe some of the estimates of people who tried to confirm the veracity of the signers estimate that there are about 200 climate scientists who would still sign it.
Which really doesn't sound that impressive when you think about it.number.
(It's always a good to check your facts before presenting them.)
The argument that the sun is causing the warming actually gets a little tiring. Those who actually study it do NOT find a link between solar radiation and climate change. The work of the small number of exceptions to this has been found very wanting. There are definitely some unknown interactions between Galactic Cosmic Rays (love that name) and clouds, but the evidence that the sun is responsible for the forcings of temperatures that we are measuring is very weak:
Most fortuitously, first article on realclimate.org:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/10/why-the-continued-...
If the sun is heating things up, that should be very easy to demonstrate. And so again, we either have a very large number of people risking academic purgatory by ignoring a very obvious flaw in the theory, or the evidence for the sun just doesn't stack up.
As for the issues that models do not accurately re-create the past, I think you are misunderstanding their purpose. I am not aware of any of them making the claim to be historically predictive; the SNR is far too poor to accurately describe even within the a granularity of a decade or so. While atmospheric models have strong physical model origins, they are not dealing with things that will predictably remain constant in the future; they are instead (basically) statistical models. And statistical models contain errors; however we use them all the time as they are the best tool we have for analysing complex data.
But since I have other things to do today, instead of debating the specifics of the models, lets try a different question:
If the models are so bad, why do people use them? If it is so easy to demonstrate their inaccuracy, why are people not doing so? And why does the procedure that the people who attempt to do this always appear to be cherry picking data that does not match rather than using appropriate statistical analysis?
Figure that one out and you'll probably be rich.