Something that almost never happens in this forum

[Threegoofs]

Ok lets not make this a finger pointing exercise, lets try something different, what do you believe the cost to our grandchildren will be exactly?

I'll direct you to WG2 of the IPCC report.

For a summary of the whole report, download https://ipcc-wg2.gov/AR5/images/uploads/WG2AR5_SPM_FINAL.pdf

And before you say I'm avoiding your question, you have to realize that there are a lot of impacts, all are listed as probabilities, since thats how you do things in future scientific predictions.

 

[blaxshep]

I'll direct you to WG2 of the IPCC report.

For a summary of the whole report, download https://ipcc-wg2.gov/AR5/images/uploads/WG2AR5_SPM_FINAL.pdf

And before you say I'm avoiding your question, you have to realize that there are a lot of impacts, all are listed as probabilities, since thats how you do things in future scientific predictions.

Interesting read, but I of course just skimmed it for now, ill look at it in greater detail later.

What I was looking for right now was the economic impact and this is what we get from the link:

Global economic impacts from climate change are difficult to estimate. Economic impact estimates completed over the past 20 years vary in their coverage of subsets of economic sectors and depend on a large number of assumptions, many of which are disputable, and many estimates do not account for catastrophic changes, tipping points, and many other factors.59With these recognized limitations, the incomplete estimates of global annual economic losses for additional temperature increases of ~2°C are between 0.2 and 2.0% of income (±1 standard deviation around the mean) (medium evidence, medium agreement). Losses are more likely than not to be greater, rather than smaller, than this range (limited evidence, high agreement). Additionally, there are large differences between and within countries. Losses accelerate with greater warming (limited evidence, high agreement), but few quantitative estimates have been completed for additional warming around 3°C or above. Estimates of the incremental economic impact of emitting carbon dioxide lie between a few dollars and several hundreds of dollars per tonne of carbon60 (robust evidence, medium agreement). Estimates vary strongly with the assumed damage function and discount rate.61

What I am interested in what are the economic differences between the economic consequences of taxation and run away government expansion vs the increased debt of tax breaks as incentives assuming that the IPCC model is accepted. I realize there are more serious implications than just economic but I am trying to understand is if the cost of taxation to solve the problem is any batter or worse than the debt of incentivizing the solution now to future generations. This question may be more complex than the climate issue itself.

 

[Threegoofs]

Interesting read, but I of course just skimmed it for now, ill look at it in greater detail later.

What I was looking for right now was the economic impact and this is what we get from the link:



What I am interested in what are the economic differences between the economic consequences of taxation and run away government expansion vs the increased debt of tax breaks as incentives assuming that the IPCC model is accepted. I realize there are more serious implications than just economic but I am trying to understand is if the cost of taxation to solve the problem is any batter or worse than the debt of incentivizing the solution now to future generations. This question may be more complex than the climate issue itself.

Narrowing this to economic effects only is pretty short sighted.

The biologic effects will be tremendous and likely permanent.

This might be a bit easier to read from the Nature Conservancy

Climate Change Impacts & Threats | The Nature Conservancy

Heres a good comprehensive British government report that estimates the effect of climate change may eventually cost anywhere between 5 and 20 percent of global domestic product, vs the most radical solutions which cost less than 1% now.

http://webarchive.nationalarchives....ww.hm-treasury.gov.uk/d/Executive_Summary.pdf

And when you think of the actual effects a rise above 2 degrees will have, this isnt too unreasonable, especially given the other stressors we are putting on the planet. With or without global warming, we will probably lose most of the worlds wild fisheries in the next fifty years or so. With AGW? Maybe 30. That alone is a pretty massive economic impact.

 

[blaxshep]

1) Narrowing this to economic effects only is pretty short sighted.The biologic effects will be tremendous and likely permanent.

2) When you think of the actual effects a rise above 2 degrees will have, this isnt too unreasonable, especially given the other stressors we are putting on the planet. With or without global warming, we will probably lose most of the worlds wild fisheries in the next fifty years or so. With AGW? Maybe 30. That alone is a pretty massive economic impact.

1) No argument there I was just looking at the economic implications.

2) I think all of this is inevitable just due to the lack of population control.

 

[Mithrae]

Re: Foolishly buying assumptions.

<snip for length>

Tell me. What percentage of equalization in how many years would you like me to plot using the SORCE data?

I don't want you to plot anything for me You should show how your results can be replicated and checked by others. Google docs is extremely useful for this (admittedly not as useful for graphing as Excel). Though in fairness, working it out for myself may have helped with seeing a possible problem.

I believe the problem with your original graph is that a response coefficient of 0.033 is far too low. 0.0915 graphed above is closer to the mark, but really I suspect it should be 0.12 or even as high as 0.2, because what we're really interested in here is the solar impact on global surface temperatures: That's what our temperature records are about, and that's what is of most interest to humans.

If you leave a glass of water out in the sun it'll heat up in a matter of hours, not decades. A household swimming pool takes a lot longer - it's still fairly cool even by 3pm, and cools down again overnight so it never heats up completely. But if it were left in perpetual daylight, after a few days it too would would be just as hot as that glass of water. The difference there is simply the volume of water being heated.

In the case of the ocean, the volume is unfathomably greater. Even under moderate steady forcing, bringing it to equilibrium would take centuries or millenia. But, we're not really talking about heating the whole ocean - we're talking about the surface of the ocean, and its effect on global surface temperatures. Heating the top meter or two is much easier. It's harder than heating a 1 or 2m pool only because of diffusion with deeper waters, and the big global currents which bring deeper waters up and surface waters down.

Point being that ultimately we're not talking about a near-linear curve here. It might take centuries to reach a 90% response for the whole ocean, as the great global circulation turns the waters over and over, but in any given year over that period the surface waters (only a fraction of which are actually overturning with the deeper waters) will be warming up much faster than that average long-term rate. So the first year response will be considerably higher than you might assume.

That's how I see it anyway, and the reason is that I've only managed to find three or so bits of reliable (and comprehensible) data on which to base my guesses about response rates and thermal inertia:
> The IPCC's AR5 Figure 12.5, which for RCP4.5 (forcing stabilizes around 2080) takes a couple of centuries for the temperature response to stabilize
> Hansen et al 2004, which suggests that some 60% of the temperature response should be apparent within some 25-50 years
> And a paper from the 1980s I once found on the NOAA site which for the life of me I haven't been able to find again; but it suggested that as much as 30% of the temperature response should be apparent within three years

Those three points can't all fit a single, simple exponential equation like you're using, and it's those first three years which have too much response. Now granted, it was a fairly old paper so maybe it could be simply dismissed as inconsistent and unpersuasive. But, given all the above, I think it actually makes sense to consider it: The ocean is not a static body of water, so there's simply no reason to assume that its year-to-year rate of surface warming (and hence its influence/contribution to global surface temperatures) must be in line with the long-term warming rate for the whole ocean.

Plus, of course, the land air temperatures have still higher response rates, and ~28% of global surface area is not something to be ignored.

So assuming that 30% in three years was accurate - and the corresponding bias towards earlier years over later - the response coefficient would have to be at least 0.12 or so. Maybe as high as 0.2, even. But, as you can see on your own charts, if each year's TSI had even just a 12% impact on global surface temperatures, the shape of its effect would be something like this:

Obviously not close enough to the shape of temperature graphs to suggest it's the dominant influence.


I'll admit that with a very low response coefficient your claim of ongoing solar warming during declining activity isn't as absurd as I thought - if only you'd actually explained yourself all these times But if we're talking about solar impact on global surface temperatures that very low coefficient is itself rather dubious.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Re: Foolishly buying assumptions.

Though in fairness, working it out for myself may have helped with seeing a possible problem.

I believe the problem with your original graph is that a response coefficient of 0.033 is far too low. 0.0915 graphed above is closer to the mark, but really I suspect it should be 0.12 or even as high as 0.2, because what we're really interested in here is the solar impact on global surface temperatures: That's what our temperature records are about, and that's what is of most interest to humans.

Yes, a much faster response is required to see surface variations. My longer cycle was to show the heat most likely continues to build in the ocean decades after the average levels fall and then has influence over a longer term.

Point being that ultimately we're not talking about a near-linear curve here. It might take centuries to reach a 90% response for the whole ocean, as the great global circulation turns the waters over and over, but in any given year over that period the surface waters (only a fraction of which are actually overturning with the deeper waters) will be warming up much faster than that average long-term rate. So the first year response will be considerably higher than you might assume.

Yes, that's going farther yet than this idea of warming a few decades past maximum. For the periods of time we are looking for, the approximate 1,000 year ocean circulation I thing doesn't apply.

That's how I see it anyway, and the reason is that I've only managed to find three or so bits of reliable (and comprehensible) data on which to base my guesses about response rates and thermal inertia:
> The IPCC's AR5 Figure 12.5, which for RCP4.5 (forcing stabilizes around 2080) takes a couple of centuries for the temperature response to stabilize
> Hansen et al 2004, which suggests that some 60% of the temperature response should be apparent within some 25-50 years
> And a paper from the 1980s I once found on the NOAA site which for the life of me I haven't been able to find again; but it suggested that as much as 30% of the temperature response should be apparent within three years

Hansen actually does some very excellent work. I just hate it however when any paper appears to be made for a preconceived notion.

Would you agree that my 90% at 55 years fits within his 60% at 25 to 50 years?

I also agree with the 30% within three years, because the earth is about 30% land, right?

What I haven't done yet is combined an approximate 30% short response for the approximate 30% land and an approximate 70% for the approximate ocean. Combine on a graph, both. Maybe you will want to beat me to it?

It appears you replicated what I did very well.

It was pointed out to me however my 1948 mistake... should be 1958. I kept repeating a typo...

Those three points can't all fit a single, simple exponential equation like you're using, and it's those first three years which have too much response. Now granted, it was a fairly old paper so maybe it could be simply dismissed as inconsistent and unpersuasive. But, given all the above, I think it actually makes sense to consider it: The ocean is not a static body of water, so there's simply no reason to assume that its year-to-year rate of surface warming (and hence its influence/contribution to global surface temperatures) must be in line with the long-term warming rate for the whole ocean.

Plus, of course, the land air temperatures have still higher response rates, and ~28% of global surface area is not something to be ignored.

So assuming that 30% in three years was accurate - and the corresponding bias towards earlier years over later - the response coefficient would have to be at least 0.12 or so. Maybe as high as 0.2, even. But, as you can see on your own charts, if each year's TSI had even just a 12% impact on global surface temperatures, the shape of its effect would be something like this:
View attachment 67176806
Obviously not close enough to the shape of temperature graphs to suggest it's the dominant influence.


I'll admit that with a very low response coefficient your claim of ongoing solar warming during declining activity isn't as absurd as I thought - if only you'd actually explained yourself all these times But if we're talking about solar impact on global surface temperatures that very low coefficient is itself rather dubious.

Careful...

You are starting to think like I do!

As for my explanation, that's why I don't do technical papers. I admit I am very bad at explanations at times. Please, ask away when you think I am not explaining something well.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Re: Foolishly buying assumptions.

What I would really like, is to plot the daily TSI ever since we have measured the sun daily, but the only data I find is "corrected" data. To do daily data correctly, it needs to be the actual TSI at the earth, not the corrected value to 1 AU. If the solar TSI were to remain stable, the earth receives almost 7% more energy in early January than it does in early July, because of the elliptical orbit, plus the southern hemisphere is angled such that it is the southern oceans more than land receiving this extra heat from the closer proximity.

 

[Mithrae]

Re: Foolishly buying assumptions.

Hansen actually does some very excellent work. I just hate it however when any paper appears to be made for a preconceived notion.

Would you agree that my 90% at 55 years fits within his 60% at 25 to 50 years?

Your 0.03333 coefficient fits at Hansen's lower (25yr) end, which I gather corresponds to a ~1.9 degree equilibrium climate sensitivity. It's only the 30% response in three years which doesn't fit a straight-forward exponential equation, given those other two data points: To fit that, the earliest years have to have a higher response rate.

I also agree with the 30% within three years, because the earth is about 30% land, right?

What I haven't done yet is combined an approximate 30% short response for the approximate 30% land and an approximate 70% for the approximate ocean. Combine on a graph, both. Maybe you will want to beat me to it?

It appears you replicated what I did very well.

Thankyou. I alternate between considering Longview or yourself the more reasonable of (it seems) the only reasonable sceptics on the forum. I doubt I'll delve any further into this question, unless and until you prompt me to.

It was pointed out to me however my 1948 mistake... should be 1958. I kept repeating a typo...

I figured I'd let it pass

Careful...

You are starting to think like I do!

As for my explanation, that's why I don't do technical papers. I admit I am very bad at explanations at times. Please, ask away when you think I am not explaining something well.

I'll try not to jump the gun too much. But (though I imagine the feeling is mutual) it seems that every time I look into your ideas - while they are often interesting and I learn a lot by doing so - ultimately there's something fundamental which you seem to be either ignoring, or haven't done the legwork to account for (and haven't acknowledged that uncertainty in your initial claims).

I'm not sure I'd count this as one of those occasions (since my contrary view is based primarily on a memory of a 1980s paper which I can't even reference)... though since it is indeed counter-intuitive that the sun keeps warming even when it's cooling, and you seem to agree with the 30% in three years bit, and didn't offer much/any reason for your <0.1 coefficient, maybe I should :lol: Regardless, despite frequent disagreements at least you're one of the more interesting and informative folk to debate with

 

[Lord of Planar]

Re: Foolishly buying assumptions.

I'm not sure I'd count this as one of those occasions (since my contrary view is based primarily on a memory of a 1980s paper which I can't even reference)... though since it is indeed counter-intuitive that the sun keeps warming even when it's cooling, and you seem to agree with the 30% in three years bit, and didn't offer much/any reason for your <0.1 coefficient, maybe I should :lol: Regardless, despite frequent disagreements at least you're one of the more interesting and informative folk to debate with

I used the approximate 0.03 to 0.04 values because they fit my beliefs of how long it takes the ocean to equailze, right or wrong. It took me a few years to change to the 55 years I now go with from 70. I wouldn't be able to recount all my reasoning over the last decade, but feel free to try to change my mind.

 

[Lord of Planar]

If we take the midpoint of 37.5 of Hansen's 25 to 50 years for 60%, then a value of 2.38% annual works nice.

Funny thing is, it puts my 55 years at 74% equalized, and my 70 years at 82%. The 90% point becomes 94 years!

 

[code1211]

I have been in opposition to the idea of climate change rather vocally on these threads for quite some time and I am still not completely convinced, however I have spend the last two days in conversations with a friend of mine who is an evolutionary biologist and some one he introduced to me as a climatologist. We have gone over the data extensively and I have re-reviewed many of the links posted here on the subject. After doing so I have been convinced that I may be wrong. In my opinion there is in fact a strong argument for the position for man made climate change due to the burning of fossil fuels. I doubt I can change any minds based on this admission, however if I can at least hope that maybe others can at least consider the possibility.

The Doubters on this board don't question the idea that CO2 is a GHG, that Man is contributing CO2 to the atmosphere or that additional CO2 can warm the planet through a Greenhouse effect.

The Doubters seem prone to question the strength of the effect, the expertise of those who make outlandish climate predictions not supported by real world data and the motivations of those who politicize the issue and recommend Draconian solutions to a seemingly inconsequential effect rising from the cause.

What was your previous position and what did your conversation lead you to accept that was different from your previous position?

 

[LowDown]

I have been in opposition to the idea of climate change rather vocally on these threads for quite some time and I am still not completely convinced, however I have spend the last two days in conversations with a friend of mine who is an evolutionary biologist and some one he introduced to me as a climatologist. We have gone over the data extensively and I have re-reviewed many of the links posted here on the subject. After doing so I have been convinced that I may be wrong. In my opinion there is in fact a strong argument for the position for man made climate change due to the burning of fossil fuels. I doubt I can change any minds based on this admission, however if I can at least hope that maybe others can at least consider the possibility.

That increasing CO2 from whatever cause has some effect on the climate in terms of warming is accepted by most skeptics. What skeptics question is whether the effect is strong enough to overcome natural variations in the climate and produce what alarmists refer to as catestrophic global warming. I've never seen anything written anywhere that lays these doubt to rest. I'd appreciate any information you have about that.

 

[Threegoofs]

That increasing CO2 from whatever cause has some effect on the climate in terms of warming is accepted by most skeptics. What skeptics question is whether the effect is strong enough to overcome natural variations in the climate and produce what alarmists refer to as catestrophic global warming. I've never seen anything written anywhere that lays these doubt to rest. I'd appreciate any information you have about that.

Have you heard of this site?

www.ipcc.ch

You might find it informative.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Have you heard of this site?

www.ipcc.ch

You might find it informative.

Doesn't answer his valid question.

 

[Threegoofs]

Doesn't answer his valid question.

if not, he's not actually reading then.

 

[Tim the plumber]

if not, he's not actually reading then.

Which passage do you think actually explains why the temperature will react to increases in CO2 as described by the claims of the report you cited?

 

[Threegoofs]

Which passage do you think actually explains why the temperature will react to increases in CO2 as described by the claims of the report you cited?

WG 1.

Read it.

 

[Tim the plumber]

WG 1.

Read it.

Can you actually quote the bit or at least give a page number please? You know, something that shows that you have actually read it yourself.

 

[blaxshep]

The Doubters on this board don't question the idea that CO2 is a GHG, that Man is contributing CO2 to the atmosphere or that additional CO2 can warm the planet through a Greenhouse effect.

The Doubters seem prone to question the strength of the effect, the expertise of those who make outlandish climate predictions not supported by real world data and the motivations of those who politicize the issue and recommend Draconian solutions to a seemingly inconsequential effect rising from the cause.

What was your previous position and what did your conversation lead you to accept that was different from your previous position?

What I have come to accept is not the lock stock and barrel alarmist agenda (Especially not their solutions) but I have come to accept that their argument is not manufactured and that data on past global extinction events do in fact correlate with their predictions (Although I am not prepared to accept that it is a direct and absolute predictive correlation or that the sky is falling just yet). Even more recently I have come to accept that they do have models which have proven to be accurate when compared with real world data from at least 1990 - 2012. In short I would ask the doubters to take a new look at the current data and stop believing that the failed data of the past negates the entire argument as well as to ask the alarmists to refrain from the arrogance of insisting that only their arguments are credible. The reality is not either black or white but more likely grey.

 

[blaxshep]

That increasing CO2 from whatever cause has some effect on the climate in terms of warming is accepted by most skeptics. What skeptics question is whether the effect is strong enough to overcome natural variations in the climate and produce what alarmists refer to as catestrophic global warming. I've never seen anything written anywhere that lays these doubt to rest. I'd appreciate any information you have about that.

I have to agree with you on this, the only thing I caution you on is that past extinction events, such as the Permian extinction, do correlate with the catastrophic predictions so it is possible, even though comparing a hundred years or two of man made CO2 with ten thousand years of volcanic activity is apples to oranges. I think the idea that we should err on the side of caution and oppose pollution in general are reasonable conclusions to make even if we are not looking at catastrophic results.

 

[Eric7216]

I have been a believer in climate change for some time. All species impact the environment and man's impact have been immense, rapid, and global. However, a lot of the hostility directed to the AGW is based on other things. People get tired of other people telling them what to do when they don't seem to be following any of there rules themselves. When the people who harp on AGW live a lifestyle as if they believe it people are more likely to listen. When the plans to eliminate the impact of global warming gases seem to be something other than crony corporatism and handouts to special interests people will be more likely to believe in it.

And, unfortunately, the environment movement seems suspect. DDT was eliminated and millions die from malaria. Talk about dirty air and water has subsided and air and water are getting better and better. Acid rain is seldom talked about anymore. What happened to the hole in the ozone that we were so concerned about. Previous problems have been solved with minimal impact and the feeling is that AGW will as well. And most environmental groups have been basically subsidiaries of the Democratic Party first and environmentalist second.

In the meantime, I live my life as I always have-trying to have minimal impact on the environment by limiting my travel, traveling efficiently, live in small homes, plant trees and bushes, and donate to international conservation organization.

 

[Threegoofs]

Can you actually quote the bit or at least give a page number please? You know, something that shows that you have actually read it yourself.

Meh. I'm sure you can find it.

Funny how you tell me I haven't read it, and then in the next breath you tell me that I cant think for myself because I am completely beholden to this document and cant interpret anything outside of it. Yet apparently, I have no idea what it says.

 

[Threegoofs]

What I have come to accept is not the lock stock and barrel alarmist agenda (Especially not their solutions) but I have come to accept that their argument is not manufactured and that data on past global extinction events do in fact correlate with their predictions (Although I am not prepared to accept that it is a direct and absolute predictive correlation or that the sky is falling just yet). Even more recently I have come to accept that they do have models which have proven to be accurate when compared with real world data from at least 1990 - 2012. In short I would ask the doubters to take a new look at the current data and stop believing that the failed data of the past negates the entire argument as well as to ask the alarmists to refrain from the arrogance of insisting that only their arguments are credible. The reality is not either black or white but more likely grey.

LOL. Everytime you learn something, you are adopting the standard scientific position. Yet you still cling to the delusion that the deniers still have credible arguments, even though they are getting shot down one by one.

I suppose there are real alarmists on the other side of science that are really calling for catastrophe. Maybe its arrogant of you to determine that their arguments are not credible.

The reality is that the most appropriate angle to take is to stick with the solid science. And that knocks out deniers on both sides.

 

[blaxshep]

LOL. Everytime you learn something, you are adopting the standard scientific position. Yet you still cling to the delusion that the deniers still have credible arguments, even though they are getting shot down one by one.

I suppose there are real alarmists on the other side of science that are really calling for catastrophe. Maybe its arrogant of you to determine that their arguments are not credible.

The reality is that the most appropriate angle to take is to stick with the solid science. And that knocks out deniers on both sides.

Sorry if I don't just buy everything the IPCC says blindly like you do.

I couldn't help but notice you have not replied to the IPCCs determination that:

75-86% of existing proven fossil fuel reserves will have to be left in the ground in order to achieve our national and international climate goal of limiting global warming to less than 2 degrees

The only way you can remain consistency in your arguments is to support this 100% because only climatologists have any credible input on the subject. Deniers have no credible argument against this either. After all it would be arrogant of me to oppose the idea that we should completely shut down modern society to avoid a couple of degrees in global warming? BTW - If we are going to leave 86% of the world's oil in the ground how are you going to tax it?

 

[Threegoofs]

Sorry if I don't just buy everything the IPCC says blindly like you do.

I couldn't help but notice you have not replied to the IPCCs determination that:

75-86% of existing proven fossil fuel reserves will have to be left in the ground in order to achieve our national and international climate goal of limiting global warming to less than 2 degrees

The only way you can remain consistency in your arguments is to support this 100% because only climatologists have any credible input on the subject. Deniers have no credible argument against this either. After all it would be arrogant of me to oppose the idea that we should completely shut down modern society to avoid a couple of degrees in global warming? BTW - If we are going to leave 86% of the world's oil in the ground how are you going to tax it?

Who says you will need to 'completely shut down modern society'?

Oh, thats right. Deniers.

Protip - dont listen to them.