The IPCC fourth assessment report did not give any upper bound to sea level rise this century. But in a spectacularly bad piece of science communication they gave a range of 18 to 59cm excluding effects from accelerating ice sheet flows. Which are potentially the biggest contributors to sea level rise this century. However, a study last year by Siddal et al did come up with an upper bound of 82 cm. But now their study has been retracted, so sea level rise this century may well be more than 82 cm.
In the topsy-turvy world that is the denialists' planet, where up is down and black is white, the retraction proved that sea level rise wasn't going to be a problem and global warming is nothing to worry about. Thers points to a particularly egregious example from Ann Althouse, who holds down a job as a law professor.
- Log in to post comments
The Denialati cheer when they hear that sea level rise will not destroy civilization and the alarmists spit on them. Charming sense of the ridiculous.
Mr dsprt stff frm Tm. Rnn Crbt ls rcknd h cld hv rgn f trrr t hs schl wth blln n stck. Wh nt jst sttl fr mns n mtr t pls tw nd y'r bnd t cvr yrslf. *[DNFTT - Tim]*
You see, there are two marks on a sea wall in Queensland that disproves all of this IPCC malarkey.
El Gordo, you incorrigible dumbass, that isn't what happened here. They didn't "hear that sea level rise will not destroy civilization," they misheard (willfully, I might add) that sea level rise will not be a serious problem for civilization as it is presently constituted, and proceeded to throw a "we told you so, even though we are still just as wrong as we were before" party. For this, they were rightly mocked.
So a low estimate of future sea levels has been retracted. Doubtless there are people right now giggling with anticipation of further retractions, because "obviously" the high estimates can't be right...
All the claims are global warming alarmist are damaging scientific credibility. The way some people are so sure of a relatively new theory which cannot be experimentally tested in a rigors manner is shocking. The claims that global warming is a proven as evolution I think are particularly damaging. Evolution is a much older and well established theory.
Douglas get a grip! Your sentence structure is way beyond the ability of your target audience - delusionals and denialists who infest Deltoid in 2010 - to parse. Tim links to John Cook's Skeptical Science which itself cites a 2008 paper claiming a most likely rise this century of 80cm, and also cites the 2009 paper that caused the Siddall retraction and delusional confusion that's the subject of this post, which paper estimates a range of 75-190cm (PDF).
Normally I suppose I'd be more likely the guilty party myself :) - you forget that these guys can't even understand pictures so never mind grade school sentence structures.
Take home message for you delusionals? - why don't you stop fooling around here, go play in the street or something, because you guys haven't sufficient brain power between you to be reading bedtime stories to pre-schoolers.
>*The Denialati cheer when they hear that sea level rise will not destroy civilization and the alarmists spit on them. Charming sense of the ridiculous.*
el gordo, do you think got this a little wrong? Wrong in quite important ways?
If so how would you feel about correcting the record and raising your cred back up a notch?
Is it really that surprising that they're crowing about the lack of an upper limit? Either they don't understand what an upper limit is or they understand very well but know that others don't.
Smertner:
>The claims that global warming is a proven as evolution I think are particularly damaging. Evolution is a much older and well established theory.
Darwin, Origin of Species = 1859
Svante Arrhenius, Global Warming = 1896
40 years. 40 years is much older??
Given the pace of developments in the 19th century, 40 years wasn't very long. Indeed, 'The Origin of Species' was still being published in 1872 as the primary book on the subject.
It was in the 1872 edition that Darwin referred to 'evolution'.
Doesn't Siddal's retraction state "First, we tested the sensitivity of our results to the length of the time step used in the integration of the model for the period of deglaciation, which we found to be robust. However, we overlooked that the simulations of the twentieth and twenty-first centuries are sensitive to this time step, which led to an overestimation of the sea-level response to warming in the simulations for these centuries."?
So, do I understand it correctly? Siddal et alia, in their initial study, according to their computer simulations, had overestimated the sea level rise?
@Paul UK:
Tyndall already proposed climate change as a result of changing concentrations of greenhouse gases. In 1859...
Ah, thanks Marco.
Basically knowledge about evolution and global warming are of about the same age.
>*we overlooked that the simulations of the twentieth and twenty-first centuries are sensitive to this time step, which led to an overestimation of the sea-level response to warming in the simulations for these centuries."?*
>So, do I understand it correctly? Siddal et alia, in their initial study, according to their computer simulations, had overestimated the sea level rise?*
dhogaza done more than me by actually reading the paper. [He explains](http://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?n=146#9288) that the "response" is not "sea level rise", rather the response that Siddel overestimated is the flattening of sea level rise in response to higher and higher temperatures.
I.e. apparently rate of level rise doesn't diminish with rising temperature at the rate Siddel estimated.
Dang! This warmist conspiracy is getting complicated. Two of these self-appointed 'scientists' pretend to have a disagreement (knowing all along that sea level rise is a hoax), and one of them puts his hand up and says he's wrong? All the sheeple are going to think it shows scientists are honest and science is self-correcting, but fortunately we know better.
Janet, John,
actually it's more complicated. Dhogaza's explanation isn't quite right, it refers to a different, non-critical (though interesting) problem. From Siddall's retraction text you cannot really guess what happened.
What happened was (and I am slightly simplifying here): the reconstruction of sea level based on 22,000 years of data was validated against the instrumental record of sea level rise, i.e., the 20th Century. Due to the erroneous time step, it appeared to validate; computed more correctly, the sea level rise given by the model is much smaller and fails validation. With that, the 21st Century projection becomes meaningless too.
Actually this is sort-of explained in our blog post:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/08/ups-and-downs-of-…
The physical reason for the underestimation over the 20th Century is most likely, that there is a shorter-time-scale reponse (few centuries) which causes most of this sea level rise. The Siddall et al. modelling approach captures the response on the 3kyr (or thereabouts) time scale and misses this shorter time scale response.
Thanks Martin.
The Mertz Glacier becomes an iceberg.
http://news.mongabay.com/2010/0226-iceberg.html
Nothing extraordinary in that, but the BBC admits it has nothing to do with global warming. Now that's news!
Tim (and others), genuine question, how do you think the IPCC could have been clearer on sea level rise? My understanding has always been that they omitted effects from ice sheet flow because they simply couldn't put a figure on what they would be, so they just excluded them from the SLR estimate. They couldn't have made up a figure, as that would have been dishonest. They stated, IIRC, very explicitly that their estimate excluded ice sheet flow.
How does one communicate uncertainties more 'certainly'.
This all presupposes that 1: something really is happening, 2: we are the cause, and 3: we can do something about it.
I think we're still a bit 'iffy' on these points.
In an interview in 21st Century Science & Technology Fall 2007 with Dr. Nils-Axel Morner ("Sea Level Expert") - he states that Sea Level is NOT Rising!
He was probably too busy dowsing to notice the rising seas.
Climate Journal said:
"In an interview in 21st Century Science & Technology Fall 2007 with Dr. Nils-Axel Morner ("Sea Level Expert") - he states that Sea Level is NOT Rising!"
And he's a wrong. Not surprising considering he also believes in dowsing.*
*from wiki:
"a type of divination employed in attempts to locate ground water, buried metals or ores, gemstones, oil, gravesites,[1] and many other objects and materials, as well as so-called currents of earth radiation, without the use of scientific apparatus."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dowsing
The guy is an A1 crank.
But he's a self appointed "sea level expert" who goes against the consensus on global warming so he must be right!
And if that's not enough for you, just remember that no less a figure than Lord Viscount Christopher Monckton cites him in his lectures.
You think that someone who believes in something that is true is a crank?
What does that make someone that believes in something that is not true?
Do you think dowsing is true, Drongo?
Are you a sceptic, John?
Answer my question.
John,
Ever staked a fortune on finding water?
*facepalm*
I know you're trying be clever - not a specialty of yours - but just answer my question. Or are you worried your answer will discredit you more, and give people more reasons to ridicule your grasp (as it were) of anything scientific?
If I answer yours will you answer mine?
No dice.
weak as water.
Nothing like begging the question to say "I got nothing".
In every record of any duration for any period in the earthâs history temperature increase precedes CO2 increase !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Delusional is stamped on every card in the house, a small puff of cold air and the house is on the floor along with the creditability of climate science.
In no time all the know alls in
here will be saying,
'Will someone turn up that bloody heater' Brrrrrr
Er, no, but thanks for playing. You win the double - both false facts and fallacious logic.
Every time I've driven my car, pressing the accelerator has preceded an increase in speed. But then the other day I drove somewhere that wasn't flat for the first time, and found that my car sped up without me pressing the accelerator. I'd driven off a cliff.
17 exclamation marks, and yet I can't imagine why people consider this to be such a pivotal observation.
There's never been an industrial revolution in the whole of Earth's history until very recently, so obviously what's happening now can't have happened before in quite the same way. What's so ridiculous about the idea that CO2 might have a two-way interaction with temperature?
sunspot, you seem to have taken the wrong lesson from previous warming events.
The very important thing to note is the idea of positive feedback - past events show that a warming worlds leads to further increases in atmospheric CO2.
Not good news for us.
Sunspot is correct, CO2 lags temperature incline by 800 years. If you're not careful I'll pull out my graph and prove it.
Strawman coming.
el village idiot:
Yes, that temperature incline 800+ years ago was pretty steep wasn't it?
>*Sunspot is correct, CO2 lags temperature incline by 800 years. If you're not careful I'll pull out my graph and prove it.*
Thanks for the offer el gordo, please prove that SS is correct using this event:
Transport aircraft increases temperature (REF 12 September 2001).
The supertankers increases the temperature (REF 16 supertankers pollute as much as all cars in the world).
Chemtrails (aluminium, barium, boron, etc) heat the atmosphere and cause acid rain.
Despite this, the sea levels do monte not (!)
Hahahaha !
[Vagueofgodalming](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/bad_news_sea_level_rise_may_be…) has already noted this, but it bears repeating...
Isn't it ironic that this classic example of the self-correcting nature of the scientific process, and also of both the conservatism and the robustness of climatology, is completely and diametrically misrepresented by those who deny anthropogenic global warming, and who have never themselves presented a substantiated, self-corrected or robust fact?
Instead, we are treated to more of the same clueless, fact-free trolling...
Trolling is indeed a great natural resource. If only there was some way to harness all that renewable energy - or at least make money off their charming gullibility ;-)
Several commentators here have noted -- correctly -- that in past times, increases in CO2 lagged temperature increases. They do not realize just how damning this observation is to their denialism. Let's simply rephrase their statement:
In past times, when the temperature increased, CO2 concentrations increased somewhat later.
Since they're attempting to induce some causality from this, I'm going to do the same, and induce the following conclusion:
Temperature increases lead to increases in CO2 concentrations.
But it is a proven physical truth that increases in CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere will lead to small increases in temperature. I emphasize "small" because the predictions made by the laws of physics amount to perhaps 1ºC or so -- not enough to worry about.
But the observation that increases in temperature cause increases in CO2 concentration provides the feedback loop that makes our own additions to CO2 concentration so dangerous: we add a little CO2 to the atmosphere, causing the temperature to rise slightly, causing more CO2 to be dumped into the atmosphere by natural causes, causing the temperature to rise even more, and so on and so on. That's why anthropogenic CO2 emissions are so dangerous. They push a feedback loop forward.
Tom Jones asks:
This all presupposes that 1: something really is happening, 2: we are the cause, and 3: we can do something about it.
This reveals the fundamental error that drives so many denialists: the politicization of science. For most denialists, there is no such thing as objective truth; there is only politics, and politics determines truth. Denialists start from the political belief that present economic well-being should never be sacrificed to environmental benefits, and then work backwards from there to conclude that the science must be wrong. My own view is that the science and the politics are completely separate issues -- we should approach the science without any regard for its political implications. If science tells us that the earth is not the center of the universe, so be it. If science tells us that we're descended from apes, so be it. And if science tells us that we're changing the climate, so be it. What we do about that scientific result, the political response we choose to take, is a completely separate issue. But Tom Jones mixes them together.
I don't see how they are able to determine this from the data. It's a pretty short lag. Is ice core dating really that accurate?
Maybe el gordo is referring to something more specific than what I'm thinking.
Joseph, the lag between temperature increase and CO2 concentration has been reliably established. Ice core data are the primary source, but I think that corals and tree rings have also corroborated the hypothesis. Attaching a figure like 800 years is a much less reliable statement. We know that the time constant for the response is on the order of a millennium but I don't think we can be much more precise than that.
@Erasmussimo: Thanks. For some reason el gordo seems to think that if CO2 lags temperature by thousands of years, then temperature can't also lag CO2 for several years.
If you look at a Law Dome + Mauna Loa CO2 series, and compare it with a temperature series like HadCRUT3, you'll find that temperature clearly lags CO2. The lag is going to be 10 or 15 years. It's best to detrend the series to get a better idea of the lag.
The lag is also not a fixed constant. For example, if CO2 were to rise and fall sharply every two years, the lag would be short, but you wouldn't be able to see the full effect of the forcing.
Martin Vermeer ...
If you're still reading here, what did you make of his "can't tell if it's too high or too low"?
Some sort of face-saving "harumph"?
Thanks for the clarification. My post over at skeptical science was based on your and Rahmstorf's post over at real climate, apparently I misunderstood it to some extent.
Tim, in the course of all the fun these new sea level rise results got no attention:
Given that current forcing is much larger, 2 meters/century starts to seem more like a minimum than a maximum for the near future.
Dhogaza, ask something easier... I really don't know what to make of this.
Steve Bloom'
And if, a big if, it is two metres per century what makes you think that nations across the world can't handle it?
Dave Andrews:
>*And if, a big if, it [sea level rise] is two metres per century what makes you think that nations across the world can't handle it?*
The area of cost line would have something to do with it. So too the inequality of resources and a history of want to concentrate wealth.
You've got an immigration backlash in the UK already, that's before things even start to crack up. We also in Aus and USA. Not everyone is open to helping their fellow humans in as generous way as will be required.
But images [like this](http://images.google.com.au/images?um=1&hl=en&rlz=1C1GGLS_enAU362AU362&…). [Or this](http://images.google.com.au/images?um=1&hl=en&rlz=1C1GGLS_enAU362AU362&…) also come to mind.
I suppose you know which areas of Bangladesh will be lost with 2 metre SLR?
Just to name one thing, Dave Andrews, large portions of the world's population are fed primarily by rice -- a crop sensitive to soil salinity -- grown in river deltas within a few meters of the current sea level. Mekong (Vietnam), Ganges (Bangladesh, India), Yangtze (China), etc.
Dave Andrews asks:
And if, a big if, it is two metres per century what makes you think that nations across the world can't handle it?
Yes, they can handle it, but the economic costs of doing so will be staggering -- certainly in the tens to hundreds of trillions of dollars. I'm not kidding. Consider, for example, the San Francisco Bay Area alone. If we wanted to preserve all the existing facilities, buildings, and homes that would be endangered by a two-meter rise in sea level, we'd be talking about perhaps 200 miles of seawall to protect just the Bay Area -- and since a single breach could be devastating, the maintenance costs would be considerable. And Florida -- Florida would require a thousand miles of seawall and the Everglades would simply be lost -- and it's difficult to imagine how Miami could survive if the Everglades were abandoned to the sea. Lake Okeechobee, 50 miles northwest of Miami, is at an altitude of only 4 meters. The ocean surge from a hurricane would swamp everything from Lake Okeechobee southwards.
Now let's start talking about the Netherlands, the Nile Delta, Louisiana, Bangladesh, the deltas of the Yellow and Yangtzee Rivers, the Mekong delta, and all the coral atolls. Of course, the Maldives (population 400,000, highest point: 2.3 meters) would disappear beneath the waves. Can you spare a bedroom for a few homeless Maldiveans?
The costs of a sea level rise of more than one meter will be staggering. But, sure, nations can handle it. Isn't it a good thing you'll be dead by then? Who gives a damn about all the poor suckers being born now. It's their tough luck, right?
Or try Google images Bangladesh sea level which links to this one in particular. One metre sea level rise will have a massive effect, 17,000 sqkm of land submerged in Bangladesh alone, affecting 15 million people.
Martin Vermeer ...
That's a good answer! Thanks ...
Erasmussimo:
There's another major cost here in the the Bay area that peopel dont pay much atentin to.
The Sacramento / San Joaquin Fiver Delta. This is several hundrred square miles of the richest farmland on the planet, stretching up to Sacrament and Stockton, both of which are deep-water sea ports 50 miles inland. Much of tha tfarmland is below sea level, crisscrossed by rivers which are contained by a fragile system of dikes. Subsistence has left much of that land below even the floor of the rivers. We also an island every few yaars now, from winter flooding, and the dikes.
With even 1 meter of sea level rise, we will lose the delta. That rich, extremely valuable, irreplaceable farmland will disappear under a brackish estuarine system.
The delta river system is also the core of the water transmission system for California - losing the islands means that salt water intrusion will make it impossible to continue river channel transmission of water from north to south. A peripheral canal, at a cost of 50 billion dollars or more to carry water around the delta, is just one small cost of that loss.
Most of the studies show that the long term rate of SLR is less than 1.8mm per year.Infact Holgate 2007 showed that SLR is highly variable over decadal timescales with a rapid increase in one decade and then a rapid decrease in the next.SLR was also shown to be higher in the first half of the 20 Century than the second half.This is not catastrophic and it has to go a long way before it is even a problem.
Warren,
You are certainly correct that this is a slow-motion disaster. But remember, if we don't do anything about it for another 20, 30, 50, 100 years, we will have raised the atmospheric CO2 concentration to a point where we will be committed to several degrees of further warming. We haven't yet seen the equilibrium temperature response to the current CO2 concentration, nor have we seen the equilibrium sea level response to the current temperature. Seeing the latter might well take decades or longer even if human CO2 emissions of all kinds (not just fossil fuel burning) stopped entirely tomorrow. Since that certainly is not likely and would not be desirable, perhaps we are wise to take action now to reduce the size and scope of the future disaster (however slowly it may be arriving), no?
Consider a freight train moving at 60 miles per hour. An obstacle emerges 5 miles down the track. Would you have the engineer say "oh, whatever, we won't be there for 5 minutes, let them have some time to get out of the way"? Or would you have him recognize that the train has a lot of momentum and begin to slow down now? It's a similar situation but with much longer time scales. Even if we slam hard on the brakes, and throw the entire civilization heads first into the front of them, it will still take many decades or centuries before the changes already incurred will fully materialize.
Douglas,your analogy is entirely based on the assumption that there is a demonstrable link betwwen CO2 levels and sea-level rise.No such link has been demonstated.Sea levels have been rising since before the start of the industrial revolution."Equilibrium temperature response" and "Equilibrium sea level response" are both scientifically disputed ideas,they are not universally accepted.The current data we have on SLR does not indicate any future disaster.
Warren,
I may agree that attribution studies for the sea level rise to date are murky and point to several causes.
However, I strongly dispute your implied stronger claim (required to make the argument for inaction) that there is no link between CO2 and sea level rise. The link between CO2 and global temperature increases is indisputable. The link between local temperature increases and thermal expansion is similarly indisputable. The link between local temperature increases and melting has been known for thousands of years.
The only part of the link that remains unproven, an assumption I am quite confident in making, and an assumption that I'm sure you'll agree falls under any reasonable approach to the precautionary principle, is that global temperature increases will cause more (or more significant) local temperature increases than local temperature decreases in places where either ice or seawater exist. Since seawater covers 2/3rds of the planet, an extremely remarkable, unlikely, and un-evidenced pattern of intense warming on ice-free land combined with stability or cooling in the oceans would be necessary to avoid a link between temperature increases (hence CO2 increases) and sea level rise.
You say that the data we have on sea level rise do not indicate a disaster. Similarly, the data the train engineer has on the track behind him, and the data his eyes give him on the half mile of track ahead of him, do not indicate a disaster. Is he therefore unjustified in assuming that the dispatchers are telling him the truth? After all, they could be joking, paid off by big science to fuck with him, closet socialists who don't want commerce to be efficient for whatever reason, confused about which track he is on, or the communication channel may have been compromised. Even if they are telling the truth, there is a chance (much akin to the chance you seem so confident in) that the obstacle will be cleared before the train reaches them.
Evidence of the equilibrium climate sensitivity to changes in CO2 concentration is in fact much stronger than the already strong evidence for dynamic responses on decadal time scales, since the equilibrium response is heavily constrained by the paleoclimate record and does not require attribution studies as detailed or complicated. Similarly, there is a good deal of evidence constraining the equilibrium sea level response to temperature changes arising from geologic reconstructions of sea level changes during the last few glacial/interglacial cycles.
reply tonight
'The link between CO2 and global temperature increases is indisputable.'
We know that greenhouse gas concentrations did not increase in the early 1100's or the early 1300's, yet the temperatures spiked upward. Then as the world slipped into the LIA there is no indication that CO2 levels dropped.
Northern Arizona's bristlecone pine trees are a font of knowledge.
Warren, you write about
"...the assumption that there is a demonstrable link betwwen CO2 levels and sea-level rise.No such link has been demonstated."
This is not correct. The link has in fact been established, and it's really a simple two-step process:
1. increasing CO2 is increasing temperatures, especially in the polar regions.
2. Increasing temperatures cause water to expand and ice to melt, causing sea level rise.
And in fact the best estimates of anticipated sea level rise are now in the range of one or two meters by the end of the century. You note that sea level rise in the last century has been tiny. That's true; our concern is with the future, not the past. To argue that there has not been a problem in the past, and therefore there is no need to worry about the future, is rather myopic.
El Gordo, you write:
We know that greenhouse gas concentrations did not increase in the early 1100's or the early 1300's, yet the temperatures spiked upward. Then as the world slipped into the LIA there is no indication that CO2 levels dropped.
The physical record clearly shows that forest fires have been a common natural phenomenon in the West since long before the arrival of human beings. Can we therefore conclude that we do not need to put out campfires?
el gordo,
I also know several smokers who died of something other than cancer. Your point is?
The extra CO2 has had a very healthy effect on those bristlecone pines, but nothing to do with rising temperatures.
el bullsh!tto:
The world was already slipping into the LIA in 1200AD as any up-to-date reconstruction shows. "spiked upward" is a shameless lie.
Now Mark Siddall, from the Earth Sciences Department at England's University of Bristol, has formally retracted the study. "One mistake was a miscalculation; the other was not to allow fully for temperature change over the past 2,000 years," he said.
I think he is being more realistic than most here.
That's what this entire post is about Drongo.
You're a frickin' genius.
The sea levels are not rising - the sky is falling..... chicken littles !!!
U.S. Data Since 1895 Fail To Show Warming Trend
http://www.tinyurl.com.au/2nw
And.................
In his interview Jones seemed to be chucking overboard one key prop of warmest faith after another, as he admitted that the world might have been hotter during the Medieval Warm Period 1,000 years ago than it is today, that before any rise in CO2 levels temperatures rose faster between 1860 and 1880 than they have done in the past 30 years, and that in the past decade their trend has been falling rather than rising.
http://www.tinyurl.com.au/2o9
CON
We are talking about bristlecone pines in Northern Arizona, the situation was obviously different elsewhere.
The raw data hasn't been adjusted.
"That's what this entire post is about"
Is that a fact, then why haven't you quoted his opinion which is obviously admitting excessive error.
And if you are genuinely interested I could tell you where yesterday's tsunami on top of the very high tide came to at my 47 yo benchmark.
The LIA came to Arizona later.
'The climate of the past 2,000 years includes several notable global events including the Medieval Warm Period from 1000 to 1350 A.D. and the Little Ice Age from about 1450 to 1850 A.D. Both are implicated in the mystery of the Anasazi collapse at the close of the thirteenth century. In the Southwest, higher average summer temperature and precipitation persisted from 950â1130 A.D. and prolonged summer droughts occurred from 1130â1180 A.D.'
sunspot, try to keep up with the denialist daily talking points. They have to be replaced as people start laughing at them, and yours are well past their due by date.
Go back to dowsing Drongo. And try reading the actual blog post (and any attached links) before you go and stick your foot in it again.
el bullsh!tto:
Bristlecone pines are not necessary, shameless liar.
Ready to answer some questions are you John?
Drongo I was trolling a long time before you. I clearly recognise the clumsy way you are trying to lure me into some kind of trap. It is the weak man who answers a question with a question, and then goes off in a self righteous huff.
I, on the other hand, just want to know whether you believe in dowsing. Simple. You made a statement which I took to mean you do believe in dowsing, and I wish you to confirm that so I can mock you until my throat is hoarse and sore.
No. It will take thousands of years to see the equilibrium sea level response. This is clear from the data.
It could easily be 10 meters, without any further warming.
Leave the comedy to me.
@el gordo: You're mistaken. The CO2 concentration was higher in 1000 AD than in the 1600s and 1700s. So was the CH4 concentration. It just so happens there was more solar irradiance as well.
We don't have high resolution CO2 data prior to 1000 AD, AFAIK.
Dear sunspot,
Please keep your tabloid newspaper spam under control. Unlike your good self, not everyone believes what they read in the newspapers e.g.
is shameless bullsh!t.
Sunspot presents us with a good example of quote mining. He presents one quote but does not present this paragraph from the same article:
Dr. Kirby Hanson, the meteorologist who led the study, said in a telephone interview that the findings concerning the United States do not necessarily ''cast doubt'' on previous findings of a worldwide trend toward warmer temperatures, nor do they have a bearing one way or another on the theory that a buildup of pollutants is acting like a greenhouse and causing global warming. He said that the United States occupies only a small percentage of Earth's surface and that the new findings may be the result of regional variations.
The second quote is from an opinion piece, not a genuine news story, and it contains a special trick. Note how it says that "Jones seemed to be chucking overboard one key prop..." Sure, it seemed that way to an editorialist who falls prey to strong confirmation bias, but it sure didn't seem that way to me. For that matter, I'm sure that, given the right attitude, Mr. Jones could have seemed to say just about anything anybody wants. Rather than worrying about what people seemed to say, why not just present the facts and the actual quote?
Joseph @82,
I appreciate the correction, thanks.
Thank you Martin Vermeer for the information and pointer.
It's always such a pleasure to have a scientist add something here.
If only "killfile" had a "nonscientist" option (sigh).
Hmmm .... I wonder ....
Joseph
If CO2 was irrelevant during the MWP and LIA, then we will have to assume it will have nil impact now.
http://www.co2science.org/articles/V12/N10/EDIT.php
El Gordo writes:
If CO2 was irrelevant during the MWP and LIA, then we will have to assume it will have nil impact now.
This is a horrible logical error, but rather than explain the error, I'll offer a simple example:
"If Joe had a beer and drove safely home, we'll have to assume that drinking a quart of vodka won't have any impact on his driving now."
@el gordo: The graph in that page is at odds with the vast majority of climate reconstructions of the last 2K years. Where does it come from?
It does look similar to a Greenland reconstruction, but see, Greenland and the North-Atlantic are not the world.
Erasmussimo,
Wow what a hard, cruel, cold-hearted person I must be!
Well actually no. I think it makes far more sense to take measures to reduce poverty and thereby improve the infrastructure, health and life chances etc of people in the developing world. Do this and they will be able to deal with SLR.
But, perhaps like Al Gore, you are more concerned about your expensive property on the SF bay waterfront?
>@el gordo: The graph in that page is at odds with the vast majority of climate reconstructions of the last 2K years. Where does it come from?
It comes from dipping into the credible science (PNAS) where it fits and resorting to E&E were you can't find a credible publication to support your wishes.
>References
>Loehle, C. and McCulloch, J.H. 2008. Correction to: A 2000-year global temperature reconstruction based on non-tree ring proxies. Energy & Environment 19: 93-100.
>Solomon, S., Plattner, G.-K., Knutti, R. and Friedlingstein, P. 2009. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 106: 1704-1709.
Dave Andrews:
>I think it makes far more sense to take measures to reduce poverty and thereby improve the infrastructure, health and life chances etc of people in the developing world. Do this and they will be able to deal with SLR.
Provide details please Dave. How would you redress the current inequality where the rich consume so wastefully while the bottom billion bear so much of the burden?
jakerman,
At least Loehle and McCullough posted a hasty correction to their paper when errors were found.
Twelve years on we are still waiting for Mann etc to post a correction to the hockey stick.
jakerman,
We could direct far more resources to relieving poverty around the world instead of, for example, instituting extremely expensive 'cap and trade' policies and wide open to abuse 'carbon trading' policies.
Dave Mann's broad finding have [survived more scrutiny]((http://www.ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/myths/l…) than Loehle's.
The scale of the error in Mann's work are put into perspective by later research. I.e. errors small and [signal supported](http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/pcn/pcn.html).
>We could direct far more resources to relieving poverty around the world instead of, for example, instituting extremely expensive 'cap and trade' policies and wide open to abuse 'carbon trading' policies.
You could direct your resource towards this, why arn't you? Why are you here instead?
Who's resource would you redistribute? How would you take it from those who now control the resources? Details are important.
jakerman,
Don't you think it is puzzling that Al Gore, arch- prophet of climate change and the disasters it may bring, not only fairly recently bought a very expensive SF bay waterfront property but is also heavily into carbon trading?
But maybe he is just the cynical b**d Erasmussimo accused me of being earlier
@95, Mann has nothing to correct, he was right. Take a look at [still-hotter-than-ever](http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=still-hotter-than-ever)
Dave Andrews:
Please try to keep up ignoramus Andrews.
Antoni,
Mann was not correct. He used proxies that biased his results and statistical methods that were wrong.
Dave is that conspiracy theory response in addition or instead of answering [my questions](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/bad_news_sea_level_rise_may_be…)?
Dave Andrews:
Ah, I see it now. Gore has bought a property that will be submerged by rising sea level under current policies and thus has a depressed property value. His plan is to get carbon emissions reduced by hook or by crook and then his property will no longer be threatened by rising sea level, thus allowing him to make a killing on the property market once policies are changed. It's all so obvious now. Dave Andrews is a genius.
Chris O'Neill,
There is no correction to the HS in that paper which relies on using many of the proxies used in MBH98. All Mann does is remove one proxy that promotes an HS shape and say it does not affect the result whilst maintaining other proxies that do promote a HS. He then removes another proxy but reinserts the original HS promoting proxy.
He relies on tree rings throughout even though the NAS Panel said they should not be used for temperature reconstructions. And his statistical methods are still dodgy.
Chris O'Neill,
Sometimes you are witless. Gore obviously sees climate change not so much as a threat but more as an opportunity to make money.
But, perhaps like Al Gore, you are more concerned about your expensive property on the SF bay waterfront?
Oooh, tough guy tries to lay a guilt trip on me. Well, Dave, you missed: I live about 500 miles away from San Francisco and at an altitude of 2000 feet, so I don't have to worry about sea level rise. No hypocrisy here. Try some other smear.
In the meantime, your solution to sea level rise is:
Well actually no. I think it makes far more sense to take measures to reduce poverty and thereby improve the infrastructure, health and life chances etc of people in the developing world. Do this and they will be able to deal with SLR.
So your approach is to invest the money that we would otherwise lose to anti-AGW measures and use the proceeds from that investment to create wealth that will be sufficient to pay for all the economic costs of sea level rise. Let's look more closely at that scenario.
Let's simplify our choices down to just two basic policies:
A. Do Nothing. Concentrate on economic growth and let posterity take care of itself with the extra wealth that we are able to bestow upon it because we didn't cut back on CO2 emissions.
B. Cut back on CO2 emissions, taking an economic hit now, but cutting CO2 emissions sufficiently to keep sea level rise below 50 cms.
Now let's ballpark some estimates for these numbers. The first estimate is, how much would it cost in terms of global GDP to reduce CO2 emissions by the required amount? There are estimates all over the map, but I'm going to run with $200 billion per year, year in and year out, because it's near the middle of the range of estimates I have seen. If you have any better numbers, let's hear them.
OK, so we're going to sacrifice $200 billion globally each year, and we assume that this will keep sea level rise to a level that we can cope with without major infrastructure projects. Now let's calculate what we would do with all that money if we didn't "spend" it on CO2 reductions. In an ideal world, we'd be setting aside all that wealth in a sort of trust fund for posterity, but you and I both know that this is politically impossible. Instead, we'll just keep on consuming stuff, and the only benefit that we provide for future generations is an increasing global GDP.
Over the last 50 years, global GDP growth has dropped from about 5% to about 3%. Let's assume that it holds steady at 3% -- a pretty generous assumption on my part -- and figure the net GDP benefit to the world from that extra $200 billion per year. Actually, we can't just apply the entire $200 billion to GDP growth, because global net investment is nowhere near 100% of net output. Morgan-Stanley estimated net global savings rate in 2006 of 22.8%. Hence we'll estimate the invested portion of the extra $200 billion at 22.8% of $200 billion, or $50 billion per year (I'm rounding up to make your case look stronger).
Now, how much will $50 billion per year, returning 3% growth per year, generate? I don't have a compound interest calculator at hand, so I'll just use the Rule of 72 and estimate a doubling time of 24 years. That means four doublings over the course of the next century -- that $50 billion will end up being $800 billion! Isn't that great!
But wait! There's more! That's the benefit of only a single year's output. We add slightly less for the next year, and slightly less for each succeeding year. I'll just use a linear averaging to get an average of $400 billion per year over 100 years to get the astounding figure of $40 trillion in net GDP growth because of the money we saved letting CO2 emissions run rampant.
Well, $40 trillion should be enough to handle any problems, shouldn't it? Earlier, I estimated total costs for coping with sea level rise at tens to hundreds of trillions of dollars, so in fact, no, it probably wont' be enough. Of course, that was just an estimate on my part and we need to get some realistic numbers. But remember, I was considering only the costs of coping with sea level rise. That's not the only cost we'll be imposing upon posterity by spewing CO2 into the air. At least one scientific study has shown that agricultural output in the American Midwest will be clobbered by rising temperatures. Already we are seeing losses in agricultural output in California's Central Valley due to diminishing water supplies. US agricultural output is now valued at a bit under $100 billion. Let's cut that in half due to water shortages. Whoops! That's fully one quarter of the global savings due to letting CO2 emissions continue unabated. If we add in losses to other agricultural areas, it could well be that total losses in agricultural output exceed total savings to industry. And let's not talk about the destabilizing effects of lowered food supplies and consequent increases in food prices.
These are just a few of the economic costs of AGW. I realize that these numbers are all wild guesses on my part -- and I'm sure that you'll harp on that fact -- but the truth is, THIS IS WHAT WE SHOULD BE ARGUING ABOUT! -- not all this obfuscatory crap from non-scientists about the science. There have been a number of attempts at cost-benefit calculations for AGW and they all show extremely high costs arising from high temperature increases. We need to get a better grip on those costs and benefits. I therefore request that you SHUT UP about the science, about which you know nothing, and start concentrating on the real issue -- the costs and benefits of various policy responses available to us (including taking no action).
There's one last consideration regarding costs and benefits. A British economist was asked some years ago to prepare a careful cost-benefit analysis of AGW policy for the British government. His conclusion zeroed in on the prospect of the "catastrophe scenario", in which AGW turns out to fall at the high end of the spectrum of possibilities. At the high end, the costs of AGW are truly devastating to the world economy. This staid banker-economist therefore recommended strong carbon reduction measures based on the risk of the worst case scenario. He didn't see it as a simple trade-off between current costs and future benefits; he saw it as an insurance policy to insure the survival of the global economy.
Dave Andrews:
No, the proxies he used did not bias the results. You have been sucked in by a lie and all you're doing is propagating a lie. You must be so proud of yourself.
His 12 year old method produced correct results even though the method was not provably correct. Only zombies like Andrews care about this however, because up-to-date methods for producing reconstructions are provably correct.
>*Gore obviously sees climate change not so much as a threat but more as an opportunity to make money.*
Dave Andrews is more interesting is conspiracy theories and less in [addressing poverty](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/bad_news_sea_level_rise_may_be…) or the science.
Dave Andrews:
Great argument Andrews. A personal attack. That proves everything. It's not my fault you make a stupid argument.
It seems to be standard practice to hide data in scientific circles. I didn't know that.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1254660/Climategate-expert-tell…
Dave Andrews:
So why, pray tell, is there all the concern about a 12 year old paper?
Heard it all before with Bristlecone proxies. Bristlecone proxies do not bias the result in MBH98 even though the bias in the proxy itself is not explicitly removed. This is also proved by the fact that removing them does not change the result. All you're doing is goal-post shifting. Once you've already cried wolf you are no longer believable.
The NAS panel was just referring to BRISTLECONE proxies and they only said they "should" be avoided not "must" be avoided in an introductory phrase to another issue. They didn't go into any detail on this issue so their phrase is hardly conclusive. Just because there is a known bias in one proxy does not mean it is impossible to remove that bias, as for example MBH did in MBH99.
Says who? No doubt Steve McIntyre is going to come up with a big expose on Regularized Expectation Maximization any day now, any day....................(cheep, cheep; cheep, cheep).
Who's more guilty of misrepresentation? The Daily Mail with its ridiculous headline, or El Gordo, who just parrots it back out?
Phil Jones was obviously referring to the fact that it's not standard practice to release raw data and source code. It isn't, in any field of science. In fact, climate science is remarkable in the amount of raw data that it makes publicly and easily available. In other fields you struggle to find raw data.
As I said, I didn't know that.
The Royal Society of Chemistry has joined Physics to dump on the unscientific behavior of Jones et al.
Data hoarding is one thing, but now the CRU data set must be close to being discredited. It's impossible for independent scientists to check the veracity of a theory if they are not allowed the data or methods used.
That is completely false.
El Gordo writes:
The Royal Society of Chemistry has joined Physics to dump on the unscientific behavior of Jones et al.
Given past denialist behavior, I am tempted to interpret this to mean that the Royal Society of Chemistry has just honored Mr. Jones in some fashion -- denialists always get things backwards. Still, I'm open-minded. If you will provide a link to your source, I'll look it over, see what it actually says, then provide my own version here -- along with actual quotes, should that be appropriate.
gordo @115:
"Data hoarding is one thing, but now the CRU data set must be close to being discredited. It's impossible for independent scientists to check the veracity of a theory if they are not allowed the data or methods used."
Oh good god, yet again.
The CRU data set and analysis is verified by the GISS, analysis, which uses data that is entirely publicly available, and methods that have been published and now nearly completely verified by the open access programming team, and code that has been made fully publicly available. The CRU data set and analysis are verified during the period of overlap by the satellite data. Independent verification by alternative independent analyses is kinda the keystone of scientific replication - far from discredited, the CRU data and analysis is solidly replicated and verified.
The CRU data are nearly all publicly available - something like 95% - and the remaining 5% or so is available from the same public agencies that the CRU people got it from. All you have to do is pay for it and go get it. The CRU methods are contained in their publications. Go read them, understand them, and go for it, gordo. I'm sure you must be e as competent at data analysis as you are at hurling insults at the people actually doing the work. Right? Otherwise, how can you be so cock-sure of yourself?
So, teh data and the code are available, if you're willing to do the work. But,independent verification does not require that. GISS didn't do it that way. The Satellite teams didn't. Science proceeds by independent replication, not by slavish reanalysis of the exact same data with the exact same code copied errors and all to see if the computer worked properly.
Your jibes and trolling, gordo, have descended way beyond mere foolishness and incompetence in this. You're into the realm now of vile and amoral acts. Go away.
I did the research that I suspect is beyond El Gordo's ken, and here are some results:
The statement by the Royal Society of Chemistry:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/mem…
Nothing in this statement explicitly criticizes CRU. Indeed, the most telling sentence is this:
scientific information should be made available on request as outlined in the Freedom of Information Act.
And what does the Freedom of Information Act say? A portion of that Act can be found here:
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/ukpga_20000036_en_2#pt1-pb1-l1g1
And here are some of the exemptions listed:
Section 1(1) does not oblige a public authority to comply with a request for information if the authority estimates that the cost of complying with the request would exceed the appropriate limit.
Section 1(1) does not oblige a public authority to comply with a request for information if the request is vexatious.
Note that Mr. McIntyre submitted more than a hundred requests for information. The claim that such submission is vexatious certainly seems justifiable here. Moreover, the cost of complying with that request would clearly be quite large (remember, Mr. McIntyre demanded original records, which would amount to thousands of pages of material, most of it long since archived.
Thus, CRU was clearly in compliance with the Freedom of Information Act. If you have any doubts about this, please note that, while an investigation is still underway, no charges have been filed -- which means that none of the investigators have seen any violation of FOIA yet.
And note that, since the Royal Society of Chemistry is asserting that scientific information should be released " as outlined in the Freedom of Information Act.", and CRU did apparently comply with the FOIA, the RSC is in fact endorsing the CRU actions.
But of course El Gordo couldn't be bothered to check his facts -- he was all to quick to leap to unjustified conclusions.
With and w/o tree-rings.
http://laymans-guide.com/images/temperature-reconstructions/mann08-tree…
el ignoramuso:
That doesn't stop him from saying he does know something.
Dave Andrews,
Are you willing to entertain the possibility that Gore knows full well that in the very long term his San Fransisco condo would be imperiled by a 20' (seriously, that is what we are talking about here, see this largely crazy website for [details and a map](http://algorelied.com/?p=1585)) sea level rise, but calculates that its net present value to him is largely determined by its value during his expected lifetime (which is very, very unlikely to be so long that he sees a 20' sea level rise) and less so by its residual value to his estate? And that even its value to his estate is likely to be well preserved over his lifetime? And that it is somewhere between possible and probable that sea level rise over the next century will increase the value of his property as people and businesses on the "waterfront" (as you called it, perhaps because of its lateral proximity to the ocean?) at lower elevations look to relocate to higher ground? Are you willing to acknowledge that this would be an entirely internally consistent position?
And further note that the ICO has released correspondence clarifying that no conclusions of FOIA violations have yet been drawn, and that the FOI requests of concern were for email, not data.
Chris O'Neill,
What 'up to date methods'?
Did he use the Ababneh update of Graybill's series - answer, no.
Did he use the Tiljander lake sediment series upside down - answer yes
Did he relocate a temperature series from Spain to Kenya - answer yes
Erasmussimo,
Stern, the British economist you referred to has, like Gore, made a quite comfortable living for himself out of AGW. There are many environmental economists who express doubts about his work, however, notably Richard Tol.
Dave Andrews, what in the world does Mr. Stern's income have to do with his report? Are you seriously suggesting that he wrote that report (actually, he led a team of economists from the Treasury) in order to make money? That's absurd.
Yes, there are economists who reject the Stern Report, and there are also economists who support it. Mr. Stern himself has noted that information developed since the report was written have shown that he was overly optimistic in his assumptions -- the problem is worse than he assumed.
In any case, my point was not that the Stern Report is correct in its entirety, but that the key point of that report -- the notion that mitigating costs are justifiable as insurance against the worst case scenario -- is an important consideration worthy of our thoughts.
Dave Andrews:
Typical of you to be ignorant of this. I mentioned it earlier but obviously your brain was switched off. Google regularized expectation maximization.
I've heard it all before with Bristlecone proxies. I don't care very much what he says about anything now. Once he's cried wolf the first time, his believability drops to approximately zero.
Chris O'Neill.
"I've heard it all before with Bristlecone proxies. I don't care very much what he says about anything now. Once he's cried wolf the first time, his believability drops to approximately zero."
I agree. You are referring to Mann here of course?
Erasmissimo,
"what in the world does Mr. Stern's income have to do with his report?"
Quite a lot actually. He may have 'written' the original report for the Government but he has been 'dining out' on it for a considerable time.
Moreover, as with Gore, who knows where self aggrandisement becomes more important than the veracity of the message?
Dave Andrews:
Ha ha very funny. I'm hardly going to care about anything McIntyre says about any sort of proxies while he still hasn't withdrawn his bullsh!t claims about Bristlecone proxies. McIntyre isn't just crying wolf again, he's crying wolf while pretending that he wasn't lying the first time he cried wolf.
>*Moreover, as with Gore, who knows where self aggrandisement becomes more important than the veracity of the message?*
Who knows indeed, but we know, from his time devoted to issues, that Dave Andrews is more interested in celebrity gossip and projection than on facing problems such the risk of climate change and the burden faced by the poor.
jakerman,
I'm not at all interested in "celebrity gossip" just your endearing remarks.
Dave, please. Then what of your snide remarks about the utterly irrelevant details of the life of Mr. Gore? In an effort to show your interest in facts over celebrity gossip, will you address yourself to the questions in #122, where your gossip was shown to be fallacious?
>*I'm not at all interested in "celebrity gossip"*
Dave, then step away from it:
>*[With Stern] as with Gore, who knows where self aggrandisement becomes more important than the veracity of the message?*
And answer my question about dealing with the burden of poverty faced by the bottom billion in the face of wasteful consumption by the rich nations.
Yes "climate change" will mean The End Of The World As We Know ItTM. Oh, what's the optimal temperature of the planet again?
[GWiaS](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/bad_news_sea_level_rise_may_be…).
How long is a piece of string?
How long is a piece of string?
94.987982347893298345456465324 cm, approximately. Now, what's the optimal temperature of the planet?
94.987982347893298345456465324 degrees Fahrenheit, approximately.
Depending on which species you are referring to, of course...
>*what's the optimal temperature of the planet again?*
You mean for humans, or large reptiles? Or for human infrastructure close to sea level? Or Dengue fever?
I suggest you need to study the impacts of warming. [Start here](http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/contents.html).
Scam:
I'll tell you once you tell 15 million people in Bangla Desh what the optimal sea level is (click to enlarge).
jakerman,
"And answer my question about dealing with the burden of poverty faced by the bottom billion in the face of wasteful consumption by the rich nations."
You seem to have a simplistic view of this problem There is no 'silver bullet'. Whist I agree that there is much wasteful consumption in the rich world, it is futile to think that you can somehow compel people en masse to change their lifestyles for the 'greater good'.Because it just won't happen.
Changes can only come about incrementally. Here in the UK, for example, it would (after a considerable fight with the military and others) perhaps be possible to cancel the replacement Trident Nuclear submarine programme and divert the resources to International Aid. Similarly, a political decision could be taken as a matter of course to double the aid budget.
Apart from this it is also likely that people in general will tend to become less poor as economic growth continues.
Dave Andrews wrties:
>*You seem to have a simplistic view of this problem* [Dave's assertion without evidence] *There is no 'silver bullet'.* [Dave's strawman]
>*Whist I agree that there is much wasteful consumption in the rich world, it is futile to think that you can somehow compel people en masse to change their lifestyles for the 'greater good'.Because it just won't happen.*
Dave ignores that this (providing incentive for people en masse to change their behavior for the 'greater good) is what many good laws, good regulation, and democratic government is intended to do, and often succeeds in doing. Its what pro-social market-mechanisms do.
>*Changes can only come about incrementally.* [Dave's simplistic assertion that ignores much historical changes that occur together as certain threshold's are attained].
>*Here in the UK, for example, it would (after a considerable fight with the military and others) perhaps be possible to cancel the replacement Trident Nuclear submarine programme and divert the resources to International Aid. Similarly, a political decision could be taken as a matter of course to double the aid budget.*
Perhaps shamps Dave, don't feed your defeatism as an excuse for BAU. If the system broke and won't change, change the system. If you're not going to do so, then get out of the way. Forget morsels of drip fed aid to keep others on your coat tales, level the playing field, address the imbalance of power that is in-built from days of imperialist exploitation, expropriation, and slavery.
>*Apart from this it is also likely that people in general will tend to become less poor as economic growth continues.*
This is Dave's code for the business as usual, which has produced massive imbalance of power, corruption of many government's of poor nations (and undermining of good government), with business alliances between multinationals and said corrupt governments, leading to a fire sale of resources from the the poor to the rich.
Remember the previous discussion we had on 'snowball earth'? It seems the world was encased, even at the tropics, yet small areas remained free of constant ice to allow animal life to evolve.
http://harvardscience.harvard.edu/foundations/articles/scientists-find-…
The authors suggest it may have been large volcanic eruptions which freed the earth from its icy tomb.
I note they infer a snowball earth based on their evidence coupled with climate modelling. No snowball earth for the "climate models aren't science" crowd ;-)
jakerman,
Do you actually live in the real world?
Dave Andrews:
>*jakerman, Do you actually live in the real world?*
This is code for Dave Andrews being utterly empty and unable (when scrutinized) to support his faux concern for people in poverty.
[Here is](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/bad_news_sea_level_rise_may_be…) my critique of Andrews' 'argument' once more.
Jakerman,
OK then, spell ou what your supposed remedies are.
Two minute script to address poverty and global inequality:
1) Read [AR4 WG2]( http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-wg2.htm);
2) Pay attention to [patterns of power]( http://remembersarowiwa.com/) and [drivers of patterns](http://people.su.se/~ekapl/coups.pdf) and [the resilience of patterns]( http://www.zompist.com/latam.html);
3) Address the [democratic deficit]( http://www.clas.ufl.edu/users/kreppel/pos6933/morav.pdf) in its [multiple forms]( http://www.democraticdeficit.com/), including the [media funding models]( http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/22/AR20091…) and [consolidation]( http://www.freepress.net/media_issues/consolidation), in order to reduce various profit complexes; including the military-industrial-congressional complex to slow or deflate the promotion of war
4) [Listen to activist]( http://www.democracynow.org/2009/12/8/nigerian_environmentalist_nnimmo_…) standing up among the poor;
5) Pay reparations for damages;
6) Tax wasteful consumption and use that revenue to pay those most effected and oppressed by the system of injustice and waste.
jakerman,
That is pie in the sky stuff. If you want to achieve change you need to carry ordinary people with you.
Spouting off like you do attacking everyone and everything achieves nothing!
Shorter Dave Andrews or "D":
>Attacking media consolidation, the democratic deficit, corruption and various perverse profit complexes is *"attacking everyone and everything"*.
Another short Dave Andrews:
>You didn't bring everyone along with you in your 2 minute summary therefor it is Pie in the sky â¢
Another shorter Dave Andrews:
>The slavery abolition is just pie in the sky. ANC's strategy is just attacking everyone and everything it achieves nothing. Same with civil rights, the suffrogets, India's independence movement, the labor movement, Athenian democracy.
Dave I'm happy to put my proposals head to head with your script for Business-as-usual.
jakerman,
Did you know that of the top 52 countries with average annual growth in their economies of 4.6% or more over the period 1995-2005 only two, Ireland and Luxenmbourg, were in the developed nations?
Equatorial Guinea at over 26% headed the list.
Now many of these nations are starting from a low base, but obviously their prospects are improving and it is through this improvement that they will be able to develop their infrastructures and their citizens will increase their standards of living and be able to make better choices for their lives.
jakerman,
>"Another shorter Dave Andrews:
>>The slavery abolition is just pie in the sky. ANC's strategy is just attacking everyone and everything it achieves nothing. Same with civil rights, the suffrogets, India's independence movement, the labor movement, Athenian democracy.!
WTF has this to do with anything I have posted?
Dave Andrew writes:
>*Did you know that of the top 52 countries with average annual growth in their economies of 4.6% or more over the period 1995-2005 only two, Ireland and Luxenmbourg, were in the developed nations? Equatorial Guinea at over 26% headed the list.*
Dave the question should be how much of the GDP good sustainable development and how much is the very type fire sale of resource[I described]( http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/bad_news_sea_level_rise_may_be…):
>*[B]business as usual, which has produced massive imbalance of power, corruption of many government's of poor nations (and undermining of good government), with business alliances between multinationals and said corrupt governments, leading to a fire sale of resources from the the poor to the rich.*
Take your example, Equatorial Guinea is an exceptional country in Africa with the 3rd smallest population and exceptional oil resources, [yet:]( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equatorial_Guinea)
>*Equatorial Guinea has been cited as an example of the natural resource curse; its gross domestic product (GDP) per capita ranks 31st in the world[7]; however, most of the country's considerable oil wealth actually lies in the hands of only a few people*
And
>*The discovery of large oil reserves in 1996 and its subsequent exploitation have contributed to a dramatic increase in government revenue. As of 2004, Equatorial Guinea is the third-largest oil producer in Sub-Saharan Africa [â¦] Forestry, farming, and fishing are also major components of GDP. Subsistence farming predominates. The deterioration of the rural economy under successive brutal regimes has diminished any potential for agriculture-led growth.*
>*In July 2004, the United States Senate published an investigation into Riggs Bank, a Washington-based bank into which most of Equatorial Guinea's oil revenues were paid until recently, and which also banked for Chile's Augusto Pinochet. The Senate report, as to Equatorial Guinea, showed that at least $35 million were siphoned off by Obiang, his family and senior officials of his regime. The president has denied any wrongdoing. While Riggs Bank in February 2005 paid $9 million as restitution for its banking for Chile's Augusto Pinochet, no restitution was made with regard to Equatorial Guinea, as reported in detail in an Anti-Money Laundering Report from Inner City Press.*
Dave Andrews writes:
>*WTF has this to do with anything I have posted?*
Just two things Dave:
Firstly Dave, you are the equivalent of the anti-abolitionist today. You are trying to delay action, on mitigation (where climate change is perversely greatest risk in regions being home to the poorest); you are poo-pooing efforts to tax wasteful consumption and use that revenue to pay those most effected and oppressed by the system of injustice and waste. You are the anti-justice activist, armed with empty quips to take pot shots.
Secondly Dave, your empty and typical mantra âpie in the skyâ would have been equally usable (as an empty generic delay tactic) against the goals pursued by: The ANC, civil rights activists, the suffrogets, India's independence movement, the labor movement, etc..
jakerman,
"Dave the question should be how much of the GDP good sustainable development and how much is the very type fire sale of resourceI described:"
Go and tell that to the people of Equatorial Guinea and see what reaction you get.
Secondly 'pie in the sky' is not an empty mantra as far as you are concerned since you don't seem to live on the same planet as most of us.
Shorter Dave Andrews:
>GDP is everything, details mean nothing.
Dave, I'm sure the bulk of the Equatorial Guinea would agree with me over you.
>*most of the country's considerable oil wealth actually lies in the hands of only a few people*
With millions siphoned off with corrupt deals, and resources sold at fire-sale prices.
Dave you are today's anti-abolitionist, I'm glad you think I'm different to you.
jakerman,
I agree that corruption, particularly in Africa, is a major problem for developing countries. But you need to address your objections to the ruling elites in those countries and not to the inhabitants of the West.
That said an improvement of GDP will, over time, still be of benefit to people and will also lead to local measures to tackle the corruption.
>*That said an improvement of GDP will, over time, still be of benefit to people and will also lead to local measures to tackle the corruption.*
Dave your ability to ignore the manifold points in my posts on this issue is not surprising, given your denial in other issues.
It is what the GDP produces that counts, not the GDP itself.
I take it you've not read most of the contents on these posts, just your typical knee jerk response.
Typical and empty Dave Andrews, you never cease to remake this point.
jakerman,
So are you denying that a growth in GDP is of general benefit to the population of the country? Look at the standard of living in the West, India, China, Australasia and many parts of South East Asia and contrast it with what it was even 60 years ago.
Incomparably better!
>*So are you denying that a growth in GDP is of general benefit to the population of the country?*
Typically Dave Andrews knowingly and willfully ignores the manifold points I have made on this issue. Dave GDP is a very dubious meausre of progress, particularly so where there is great inequality and abuse of power. As I said Dave:
>*most of the country's considerable oil wealth actually lies in the hands of only a few people. With millions siphoned off with corrupt deals, and resources sold at fire-sale prices.*
Dave Andrews continues:
>*Look at the standard of living in the West, India, China, Australasia and many parts of South East Asia and contrast it with what it was even 60 years ago.*
Vague allusion Dave, and claims corrupted with confounding varibales, the devil is in the detial. There is massive inequality hiden behind your measure of progress. Your Equitorial Guinea example showed this.
If you weren't a fraud Dave, you'd better spend your time by setting up Corporation Audit, to police and expose corrupt deals, where corporation corrupt governments and support corrupt leaders to maintian fire-sale price on resrouce extraction. Robbing the local of their fair share, and enabling the [robbing them of their democracy](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/bad_news_sea_level_rise_may_be…) and self government.
Now think of the indian farmers suiciding with pesticide by the hundreds, and those is slums pushed out of their communities rather that lifted up by progress. It could have been done better.
Tax the wasteful execess, deflate perverse demand, reward sustanable progress.
What's more Dave your highly flawed appraoch to measuring progress not only ingore the real impacts on the poorest, it completely ignores the issue of sustanabiliy.
What is your advice to Solomon Islanders who have cleared their forests for a breif paper rise in GDP. Or those forced to keep clearing the Amazon to make a living in a corrupt system.
Where does your reliance on GDP leave you when the last X number of years growth has been dominated by an allusary Ponzi scheme, with a debt that will never be payable?
Dave, **Tax the wasteful execess, deflate perverse demand, reward sustanable progress.**
jakerman,
Think of all the Indian farmers in villages around their big cities, especially Delhi, who have suddenly become extremely rich because of the land they own and the huge demand for housing generated by the growth of those cities.
As societies become richer they tend, by and large, to pay more attention to the plight of the less fortunate. This has been demonstrated time and time again and there is no reason to think that development in India and elsewhere will be any different.
>*Think of all the Indian farmers in villages around their big cities, especially Delhi, who have suddenly become extremely rich because of the land they own and the huge demand for housing generated by the growth of those cities*\
Dave, there are winners and losers in corrupt systems, in your preferred Business-as-usual model the [poorest get pushed out](http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/asiapcf/01/14/india.slums/index.html) not paid out. You've been too long in cozy-land.
I also see you are a GDP fundamentalist, regardless of the [problems pointed out](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/bad_news_sea_level_rise_may_be…) that result from relying on GDP without following the detail.
Dave Andrews continues:
>*As societies become richer they tend, by and large, to pay more attention to the plight of the less fortunate. This has been demonstrated time and time again and there is no reason to think that development in India and elsewhere will be any different.*
Fundamentalist reliance on GDP as The Key performance indicator is part of the Business-as-Usual problem. You are in denial of the inequality and un-sustainability that your perverse system entrenches and nurtures.
Tax the wasteful execess, deflate perverse demand, reward sustanable progress. Development could be much better, we should learn from mistakes, not reinforce them.
Dave Andrews:
>*Think of all the Indian farmers in villages around their big cities, especially Delhi, who have suddenly become extremely rich because of the land they own and the huge demand for housing generated by the growth of those cities*
Dave I'm not aware of the winners you look at, [here are some](http://infochangeindia.org/200301066368/Other/Features/-The-poor-do-not…) more Indian farmers whose plight you ignore.
jakerman,
I don't ignore the plight of those farmers. But as India gets richer their plight will lessen, perhaps not as quickly as you would like it to, but nevertheless it will lessen.
Obviously additional measures can and should be taken in the meantime to help, but these depend on the resources available. Your empty slogans are of no use at all.
Dave, you do ignore the [plight of the worst affected](http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/asiapcf/01/14/india.slums/index.html) with your perverse faith in GDP as a single measure and goal to gain progress.
I keep coming back to my preferred measured to guide development: Tax the wasteful excess, deflate perverse demand, reward sustanable progress.
You can call this an empty slogan, but that itself is an empty critique, in your rhetoric you avoid addressing the detail.
This is part of the detail I urge you to address: *How would taxing wasteful excess affect the poorest, particularly when combined with mechanism to reward sustainable development. Especially if that mechanism has redistributed power and resources closer to grass roots, rather than via corrupt deals with disproportionately powerful profit driven corporate complexes.*
jakerman,
I use GDP as an example, but would be interested if you could show a situation where a decline in GDP has led to an improved standard of living for people.
You also keep banging on about "taxing wasteful excess" a totally vacuous slogan which I doubt you could define in any meaningful way.
Dave you keep offering GDP as your only solution. I simply put it in its place it can be used and abused, a rise in GDP can be good or bad, depending on what it is associated with. I've illustrated this point several times, you just ignore the detail re the most vulnerable who suffer with perverse corruption of their government, destruction of their resources, and corporate annexing of their resources via corruption. I further more pointed out the sustainability problems.
>*Where does your reliance on GDP leave you when the last X number of years growth has been dominated by an allusary Ponzi scheme, with a debt that will never be payable?*
You keep making vacuous claims about what you say to be vacuous. Taxing wasteful excess is a workable pragmatic solution. There are multiple models such as the tax-and-dividend proposed for carbon.
That you purposely ignore these plans really says a lot about your disingenuous approach.
Dave your approach in this discussion reveal that don't really care for the poor, you twist like a snake to try and prop up the business as usual approach. Typical Dave Andrews, ignoring the detail and opting for GDP fundamentalism.
jakerman,
I guess you are firmly in the 'FitzRoy and Papyrakis' camp. Briefly, total acceptance of AGW as a hook on which to project their particular brand of economic outlook, all the while from in the confines of their ivory towers insulated from the real world.
I am not a GDP fundamentalist as you put it, as I said I used it as an example. And certainly there are changes that have to be made. Your talk of tax-and -dividend for carbon, however, is unrealistic. Witness the considerable problems that are already occurring with the EU ETS scheme and recent revelations re WWF and carbon trading schemes in the Amazon.
You need to get real about this - there is no magic formula or silver bullet. It will be a long hard slog.
>*I am not a GDP fundamentalist as you put it, as I said I used it as an example.*
Dave Business As Usual GDP growth was your one and only solution offered to address the terrible poverty induced and a corrupted system of resource allocation.
Your vacuous claims of what you judge to be unrealistic have been demonstrated to be the empty rhetoric that they are, so I'm not surprised to see you revert to empty strawman defense "there is no silver bullet". You have nothing and you can't seem to accept that we all see things with your empty mind.
Dave Andrews belongs in the 18 century resisting the Abolitionist attempts to end slavery, which was also "unrealistic" ⢠and waged by do-gooder Abolitionists their "Ivory Tower" â¢.
You are uglier and uglier Dave.
jakerman,
I note you don't respond to my question about the FitzRoy and Papyrakis camp, or the failings of the EC ETS scheme or the developing scandal over carbon trading schemes in the Amazon.
You merely resort to further abusive comments - which perhaps says a lot about you, don't you think?
DaveAndrewsLogic:
There is a booming heroin trade in Sydney
...therefore...
The Tasmanian opium poppy industry should be shut down.
>*I note you don't respond to my question about the FitzRoy and Papyrakis camp, or the failings of the EC ETS scheme or the developing scandal over carbon trading schemes in the Amazon.*
Dave Andrews, I note that you are now lying about what question you have asked. Did you wished you'd asked some such questions when you realized that all you had was GDP fundamentalism? (BTW, what do you think it says about your argument, that you resort to lying about what you have and haven't asked?)
If you have questions, then put them to me. Perhaps you could even ask about the tax-and-dividend that I am advocating instead of an ETS that I am not.
Dave also want's to reduce this critique (below), and tries to dodge it by labeling it abuse:
>*Dave Andrews belongs in the 18 century resisting the Abolitionist attempts to end slavery, which was also "unrealistic" ⢠and waged by do-gooder Abolitionists their "Ivory Tower" â¢.*
Dave I stand by it, go back and re read the points of made through this thread to contextualize your (non-arguments) cliché defense of the status quo. It is the equivalent of the anti-abolitionist tactic. You are sooo resistant to taxing excess and waste, and resistant to intervention in a perverse and corrupt system that entrenches inequality and a system that produces such an unfair distribution of resources.
It is very apparent and very ugly Dave.
jakerman,
You don't half spout rubbish!
Dave [is that](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/bad_news_sea_level_rise_may_be…) code for: Dave has been caught lying and has no credible excuse?
jakerman,
The elephant in your room of 'sustainability' is population.
What is a 'sustainable' population for the earth? The Optimum Population Trust (OPT) suggest a range of scenarios from 5.1 billion down to 2.7 billion. Here in the UK they talk about a range from 27 million to 17 million.
http://www.optimumpopulation.org/opt.optimum.html
Slight problem is that the world's population is already 6.8 billion and growing, whilst the UK's population is over 60 million. So what are you going to do with all these excess people?
You express concern with poverty and we all agree that means need to be found to deal as much as possible with this problem. It is often stated that over 2 billion people live in poverty (less than $2 a day) and that this is more than the population of the earth was one hundred years ago. One way to deal with this is through economic growth which over the last century has provided the means for over 4 billion people
to significantly enhance their wellbeing and life chances.
Dave I note you have tried to ignore [your recent untruths](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/bad_news_sea_level_rise_may_be…) that are part of this discussion. Hoping for a memory-hole Dave?
The corrupt BAU system that your are trying to promote is concentrating wealth and power, thus corrupting democracies, it is perversely unsustainable, and preys on the vulnerable. Your BAU system entrenches inequality and unfair allocation of resources. Mentioning the population problem does nothing to address it. And addressing the population problem is necessary but not sufficient for sustainability.
We require intervention in that system to address those problems. You continue to try and deny this.
Sustainable progress, fairness, and development requires more than a nod to the population problem and more than GDP fundamentalism.
jakerman,
Ever noticed that life expectancy in every region of the world, including Africa, has increased since 1950?
Perhaps there is something to be said for economic growth after all.
I certainly don't deny that there are serious issues that need to be addressed about the distribution of wealth in all countries, but your sloganising about 'sustainability; and 'taxing wasteful excess' are not going to solve the problem.
Dave Andrews, following from his [dishonest argument](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/bad_news_sea_level_rise_may_be…), decided to add more dishonesty:
>*Perhaps there is something to be said for economic growth after all.*
Disingenuous Dave, you ignore my argument and pretend that I'm arguing against economic development.
My argument that the case that you try to resist (to the extent of ignoring) is that we
>We require intervention in that system to address [those problems](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/bad_news_sea_level_rise_may_be…). [...] Sustainable progress, fairness, and development requires more than a nod to the population problem and more than GDP fundamentalism.
The rate of child mortality is ten times higher (68 per 1000) in poor countries, and the life expectancy gap (30-40 year) is almost as high has the life expectancy in these impoverished and over exploited nations. This is the unfair result that requires intervention.
I've sketched out some of the detail of [how and why this occurs and various responses required](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/bad_news_sea_level_rise_may_be…).
>*Dave your ability to ignore the manifold points in my posts on this issue is not surprising, given your denial in other issues. It is what the GDP produces that counts, not the GDP itself.*
Dave continues to make the same debunked claim, my last response to Dave Andrews empty tired rhetoric is still fitting:
>You keep making vacuous claims about what you say to be vacuous. Taxing wasteful excess is a workable pragmatic solution. There are multiple models such as the tax-and-dividend proposed for carbon.
That you purposely ignore these plans really says a lot about your disingenuous approach.
Dave your approach in this discussion reveal that don't really care for the poor, you twist like a snake to try and prop up the business as usual approach. Typical Dave Andrews, ignoring the detail and opting for GDP fundamentalism.
You depend on misrepresenting my arguments and evidence.
Dave I don't like your dishonesty. I think you are dishonorable in matter of great importance to billions of people. I don't think you'll approach the right answer employing your current dishonest arguments.
jakerman,
Nobody is denying that there are serious problems of poverty, inequality, hardship etc. So let's throw resources into that - no reasonable person could object and we all try to do our bit.
But this is a blog about climate change which is in favour of diverting massive amounts of resources, that could be used to address some of the problems you mention, to mitigating a problem which we don't know is real!
So inevitably we are drawn back to the fact that we have to decide priorities - this is inescapable, we cannot do everything at once. We certainly can't do it by pretending that their are magic bullet solutions.
no reasonable person could object
They could, and do, if they have vested interests in current allocations.
diverting massive amounts of resources
From what?
that could be used to address some of the problems you mention
Could, but aren't. The same folks who oppose the former generally oppose the latter. So, where are those massive amounts of resources going now?
a problem which we don't know is real!
Given a strict enough epistemology, we don't know anything. But given a rational one, we do know that the problem is real. In any case, certainty is not required; 90-99% confidence is enough to demand action.
Dave Andrews writes:
>*But this is a blog about climate change which is in favour of diverting massive amounts of resources, that could be used to address some of the problems you mention, to mitigating a problem which we don't know is real!*
Dave, the reason we have the problems that I described is because we're [already](http://www.worldmapper.org/display.php?selected=295) diverting [massive](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b3/World_map_of_countri…) amounts of [resources away](http://www.worldmapper.org/display.php?selected=108) from the poor.
Further more Dave I direct you to IPCC WG2:
>*âAfrica is likely to be the continent most vulnerable to climate change. Among the risks the continent faces are reductions in food security and agricultural productivity, [â¦] increased water stress [â¦] and, as a result of these and the potential for increased exposure to disease and other health risks [â¦]*
>*Approximately 1 billion people in South, South-East, and East Asia would face increased risks from reduced water supplies [â¦] decreased agricultural productivity [â¦] and increased risks of floods, droughts and cholera [â¦]
Tens of millions to over a hundred million people in Latin America would face increased risk of water stress [â¦]*
>*Low-lying, densely populated coastal areas are very likely to face risks from sea-level rise and more intense extreme events.â*
- (IPCC 2007, WG2 chapter 19 pg. 791).
Dave you point out you don't know if climate change is real I put it to you that there is overwhelming evidence that it is real. Further more there is no doubt that risk of damage from climate change is real and significant.
Approximately 5% of patients diagnosed with stage 4 Melanoma survive more than 12 months. Researchers don't know why these survive that period. That is comparable to the odds that unknown, unfactored forcing is responsible to the current climate change.
[Again](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/bad_news_sea_level_rise_may_be…) I ask:
>How would taxing wasteful excess affect the poorest, particularly when combined with mechanism to reward sustainable development. Especially if that mechanism has redistributed power and resources closer to grass roots, rather than via corrupt deals with disproportionately powerful profit driven corporate complexes.
jakerman,
"How would taxing wasteful excess affect the poorest, particularly when combined with mechanism to reward sustainable development. Especially if that mechanism has redistributed power and resources closer to grass roots, rather than via corrupt deals with disproportionately powerful profit driven corporate complexes."
Sorry, but this is just empty rhetoric which does not in any way reflect the real world. It is something many of us could subscribe to, as idealistic environmentalists in the developed nations, but it cuts little ice in the real world situation.
Sorry Dave you provide nothing but empty rhetoric and use it as an apparent attempt to distract from the evidence I provide to supprot my argment.
Dave your dishonest time wasting is all too typical of those endulging in denialism.
Dave rather than let you continuing sweeping evidence under the carpet, I'm going to begin reminding you of the bits you try to ignore:
Dave Andrews writes:
>*But this is a blog about climate change which is in favour of diverting massive amounts of resources, that could be used to address some of the problems you mention, to mitigating a problem which we don't know is real!*
Dave, the reason we have the problems that I described is because we're [already](http://www.worldmapper.org/display.php?selected=295) diverting [massive](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b3/World_map_of_countri…) amounts of [resources](http://www.worldmapper.org/display.php?selected=108) away from the poor.
Further more Dave I direct you to IPCC WG2:
>âAfrica is likely to be the continent most vulnerable to climate change. Among the risks the continent faces are reductions in food security and agricultural productivity, [â¦] increased water stress [â¦] and, as a result of these and the potential for increased exposure to disease and other health risks [â¦]
>Approximately 1 billion people in South, South-East, and East Asia would face increased risks from reduced water supplies [â¦] decreased agricultural productivity [â¦] and increased risks of floods, droughts and cholera [â¦] Tens of millions to over a hundred million people in Latin America would face increased risk of water stress [â¦]
>Low-lying, densely populated coastal areas are very likely to face risks from sea-level rise and more intense extreme events.â - (IPCC 2007, WG2 chapter 19 pg. 791).
Dave you say that you don't know if climate change is real I put it to you that there is overwhelming evidence that it is real. Further more there is no doubt that risks of damage from climate change are real and significant.
jakerman,
Read what you just quoted from the IPCC. It is all about there is a "risk" that things could happen. Of course there is this 'risk' but it is by no means certain.
As for climate change, the climate is constantly changing. Whether the current rate of change is of any real significance or not is a different matter.
Even if it is important it makes far more sense to help people adapt rather than to attempt futile efforts at mitigation.
The risks are extreme Dave, calling them risks doesn't disappear them.
I also note Dave that you avoided my question on this topic in the [other thread](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/03/well_now_we_know_why.php#commen…).
>How much temperature rise do you say we can adapt to Dave, before things get very nasty? How much should we allow versus mitigate?
You really flail about with rhetoric Dave, you give us: "futile efforts at mitigation" with zero evidence of the futility. You also give us: "climate is constantly changing" without quantifying the timing of "constantly" nor the implication of that change.
For example the climate has been remarkably constant for 8,000 years, the same period that human's developed agrarian civilization and population jumped from a few million to 6.7 billion.
You response is all too typical of what you have demonstrated as your norm Dave.
jakerman,
The futility of mitigation is this. If the UK ceased all its CO2 emissions tomorrow it would only be a few months before those emissions were replaced by the growing emissions from China and India.
Mitigation as a strategy cannot work. I makes much more sense to put resources into adaptation.
That's a bankrupt argument Dave, if you didn't pay your taxes it would make no difference to the government revenue, yet the law say you will pay your taxes.
The world develops and enforces treaties that are in the interest of the whole.
If UK, US, Au and all rich nations reduced per capita emissions to that of China's level we would be well on the way to the cuts required. If we all emitted at India's level we'd be close to acceptable risk management levels.
[Dave Andrews' comment](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/bad_news_sea_level_rise_may_be…) is not just logically bankrupt, [jakerman](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/bad_news_sea_level_rise_may_be…), it's also morally bamkrupt.
It's also scientifically irrational, because without concurrent (and significant) mitigation climate change will overshoot humanity's capacity for effective adaptation. If Dave Andrews learned a bit of ecology (Jeff Harvey has tried to drum the basics into Andrews' head repeatedly - I pretty much gave up long ago), and if he crunched some numbers, he'd understand the disjunct between the present bioclimatic trajectory and the options that humans have for 'safe' adaptation.
jakerman,
The futility of mitigation part 2.
There is absolutely no possibility that worldwide emissions will be reduced to the per capita level of China or India and you are totally naive to even entertain the idea. Therefore, the only option is adaptation.
Bernard J,
So ,then, tell us when the ants (and I know ants are very important) are going to be overwhelmed by AGW.
Dave Andrews,
You are simply pushing his own unsupported opinion. Dave you have failed in your supposed to attempt to respond to a [challenge for evidence](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/bad_news_sea_level_rise_may_be…) Dave.
And shorter Dave Andrews:
*We should not mitigate until AGW threatens to overwhelm the ants, though I'm too lazy and self centered to bother researching what the implications of this means.*
jakerman,
The question to Bernard J was serious. To papraphrase E O Wilson 'the earth can get by without humans but not without ants'
Dave Andrews, are you seriously argiing that it's ok if AGW devastates humans, because the ants will get by ok?
>*To papraphrase E O Wilson 'the earth can get by without humans but not without ants'*
Nice one Dave, at least you are up front exposing your hopelessly weak goal. From such a weak base position, there is little wonder you can perform the intellectual slight of mind required to support the current corrupt, unjust BAU.
Since you now have switch from debating what is best for humanity, how many species of ants need be decimated to mark a failure in your plan to deny mitigation? How much ant destruction is too much for you? What level of destruction would you need to see before you throw you hands up and wished time travel was possible so you could go back and push a more moral and low risk option?
jakerman,
I think you should be addressing those questions to Bernard J or Jeff Harvey.
Lee,
Not at all, particularly as I don't think AGW is the problem that most here do.
jakerman,
You are so literal. I have not switched from 'humans to ants'. My question to BJ was based upon his post about ecology.
It changes not a jot my earlier posts about the futility of mitigation.
Shorter Dave Andrews:
the earth can get by without humans but not without ants
There was an earth, and an earthly ecology, before there were ants, so this is a stupid statement whether it accurately reflects EO Wilson or not.
I have not switched from 'humans to ants'. My question to BJ was based upon his post about ecology.
His post was about human options, not those of ants, so you're a liar, a fool, or both.
Dave Andrew:
>*I think you should be addressing those questions to Bernard J or Jeff Harvey.*
You wisely defer to ecologists on the question of impact of climate change. Pity that doesn't stop your unsupported rhetoric about, and failure to quantify: what mitigation is futile and what essential for a low risk, moral approach high risk current BAU.
Dave Andrews writes:
>*You are so literal. I have not switched from 'humans to ants'. My question to BJ was based upon his post about ecology. It changes not a jot my earlier posts about the futility of mitigation.*
Dave, Truth Machine has rightly called you on this:
>*[Bernard's] post was about human options, not those of ants, so you're a liar, a fool, or both.*
Lets take Dave Andrews back to where he last even tried to base his comments on the consequences of climate risks to humans. Here is the challenge where you got stuck (from where you diverted to state your hopelessly new low goal):
>You are simply pushing [your] own unsupported opinion. Dave you have failed in your supposed to attempt to respond to a [challenge for evidence](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/bad_news_sea_level_rise_may_be…).
This is a fallacious argument for delay (i.e. no one can significantly impact the numbers via unilateral action except a couple of big players, and they allegedly won't do so, therefore everyone else should do nothing - and we just won't speak of the possibility of political or multi-lateral achievements that ultimately have a significant impact on the numbers and/or pressure the big players into doing something tangible.)
It relies on presumeing that China & India simply won't participate in emissions reduction schemes. And yet (as one example) China have indicated they are interested in doing so, even as they do a smart end-run around the rest of the "delaying action" world by busily developing green industries and technologies.
I believe India has signalled interest too, but I don't have a reference at hand.
Mitigation is clearly not futile. Pricing carbon is achievable and will have demonstrable mitigation consequences. The longstanding difference in [fuel prices and environmental taxes](http://comparativetaxation.treasury.gov.au/content/report/html/10_Chapt…) in Europe and the US/Can/Au have shown the impact higher energy prices in driving efficiency. The price effect in Europe has lead to [greater energy efficicny for comparable economic activity](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Energy_consumption_versus_GDP.png).
>*Driving one mile in the United States currently requires 37 percent more fuel on average than in Europe, due to both the larger average size of vehicles and to less efficient engine technology.* [McKinsey Inst, 2007](http://www.compete.org/images/uploads/File/ESIS%20Progressive%20Downloa…)
The pricing of carbon should be implemented with counter regressive measures to ensure that the burden doesn't disproportionately affect the poor. The counter regressive measures can even be used to over compensate the poor if there is sufficient political will.
In the UK VAT is 17.5%. Why not tax the 'unsustainable' more than the sustainable? Remove the VAT (or GST, or sales tax, etc.) and reapply it on the highest carbon emitting activities to promote adaptive mitigation, drive and reward sustainable development.
3) Government need to require the WTO to develop a multilateral carbon treaties (treaties sensitive to the needs of poor);
2) Until then, nations need specific trade agreements to prevent 'off-shoring' of emissions to China etc.;
1) In the absence of trade agreements, governments need to apply [âborder adjustmentsâ]( http://www.garnautreview.org.au/chp10.htm#10_6 ) a carbon tariff to imports from non-complying nations, and remove carbon taxes from exports to non-complying nations.
Lotharsson,
Yes China and India will probably eventually embrace emissions reduction schemes, but at present their major concern is development and improving the well being of their large populations. (Nothing wrong with that) So, therefore, their emissions are on an exceedingly upward trajectory and in a few short years the two, between them, will be responsible for the majority of the earth's CO2 emissions.
Other developing countries are quite likely to follow the example of China and India. This is why I say mitigation is futile and we should be concentrating resources upon adaptation.
Jakerman,
You obviously missed, as I mentioned earlier, that the EC emissions trading scheme (ETS) has been a complete fiasco.
Most of these schemes result in companies and 'chancers' making a lot of money on the back of ordinary taxpayers.
Your belief in some kind of fairy godmother who will introduce and oversee the measures you mention is touching but naive.
Dave, you demonstrate a strong preference towards rebutting strawmen?
You obvious missed, as I mentioned earlier that I support a price via a direct tax on carbon. Which I showed has been associated with significantly higher energy efficiency.
Any potential future emissions trading scheme would need to be wrapped up in a new economic/political paradigm, not our current paradigm that is so resistant to regulation and so resistant to the reforms which are still waiting and want post the GFC. Further more getting a universal global ETS would be a major feat requiring many rounds and possibly a decade of negotiations.
If we can't count on an ETS, the potential good parts of an ETS (where you can make money from sequestering carbon) can be constructed via other national and multinational agreements, ie via contribution to a pool for grant allocation (funded via carbon tax). With a similar range of funding models to current NGO service providers and government departments.
Dave Andrews: "Most of these schemes result in companies and 'chancers' making a lot of money on the back of ordinary taxpayers."
Gosh - that's awful. I bet you'll be addressing Dick Cheney's massive taxpayer-rip-offs over the years next.
Or maybe you won't.
Shorter Dave Andrews - China is lying because I say so.
Dave, do you think the Chinese leadership considers food supply security a key part of the "wellbeing of their large population"? What impact has mass industrialisation in China already had on agriculture, with particular reference to water supplies, industrial use of prime agricultural land and rapidly increasing levels of meat consumption?
Given all of that, what further impact might climate change have on food supply security?
Vince Whirlwind,
Didn't Obama get rid of Cheney then?
Lotharsson,
Of course the Chinese leadership, as all other leaderships, factor many things into their deliberations. But it is clear that economic growth is their major priority and they very largely base that economic growth on energy supplied by coal. That is simple fact and you can't wish it away.
jakerman,
"would need to be wrapped up in a new economic/political paradigm,"
On an idealistic level I would not disagree with you, but practically this is not going to come to pass in the near or even medium term. So we have to adopt realistic solutions and promote measures for adaptation.
>>"would need to be wrapped up in a new economic/political paradigm,"
>*On an idealistic level I would not disagree with you, but practically this is not going to come to pass in the near or even medium term. So we have to adopt realistic solutions and promote measures for adaptation.*
Which is exactly why I laid out a pragmatic tax with demonstrable positive results. We adapt our economy to mitigation processes.
Shorter Dave Andrews: emissions reduction schemes that China would participate in are stupid because China won't participate.
No Dave, Cheney is still stealing Oxygen, somewhere.
Speaking of the merits of reductions regardless of whether China signs up...
McKinsey - hardly part of any pinko commie anti-business leftie de-industrialisation conspiracy - reported some time ago that the US could meet the 2020 reductions targets in the Waxman-Markey bill AND SAVE HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS OF DOLLARS at the very same time. And that's WITHOUT going for any emissions reductions in the transport sector.
Seems like a win-win with a possible extra win (more pressure on China and India to reduce their emissions), hence the US would be stupid NOT to do it.
Updated McKinsey report. Summary:
Lotharsson,
McKinsey have been employed to look at the UK NHS a number of times. Their reports are generally totally unrealistic about what can actually be achieved. Not surprising actually as their consultants tend to know little of the way the NHS operates nor the realities on the ground.
Of course they could be sooo much better on GHG reduction in China!
Dave, I'd say that having been paid £1,270,000,000.00 (approx.) to analyse the NHS, McKinsey know more about the NHS than the NHS does itself.
Having worked across the several dozen sites of one of the largest NHS Trusts, I would say it is entirely credible for McKinsey to suggest that the NHS could lose a bit of Real Estate along with some of their large army of non-productive non-clinical staff and to cut back on some of the unnecessary care provided, such as the fact that a very significant minority of Maternity healthcare provided by the NHS is provided to non-european citizens visiting the UK on spurious tourist or student visas for the purpose of obtaining free healthcare.
Shorter Dave Andrews: any comment (or report) explicitly disregarding China is to be presumed to apply to China.
Dave Andrews rather than your vague generalised Ad Hom attack on McKinsey, why not just produce your evidence to support your claim of where/how McKinsey are wrong on GHG reductions?
Vince Whirlwind,
Wow you open up a veritable hornets nest with that last post about the NHS, which I'm sure Tim will not want to digress into.
Suffice it to say that your assertions about 'non productive clinical staff' are rubbish and your comment about provision of maternity services is bordering on racist.
Hand waving and distraction Dave.
Dave Andrews obviously declines to support his claims regarding GHGs and mitigation.
jakerman,
I was responding directly to VW's post. How can that be
"Hand waving and distraction"?
Andrews, it is ibvious that you are now responding to everything EXCEPT stuff that is on topic for this thread.
Jakerman,
Ok, I missed out a 'non' from VWs !non productive non-clinical staff' but I guess he knew what I meant.
Still nothing to do with handwaving distraction, however.
More hand waving Dave. As I said,
>*rather than your vague generalised Ad Hom attack on McKinsey, why not just produce your evidence to support your claim of where/how McKinsey are wrong on GHG reductions?*
Lee,
I didn't raise Mckinsey, that was Lotharsson. I did respond with observations on McKinsey based upon my knowledge of their work in the NHS. Vince W then came back with disparaging, and worse, remarks about NHS workers and policies.
Sorry it was OT and not to your liking but it followed a logical trend in the posts.
jakerman,
Imagine, you call in a firm to advise you on how to improve the working of your enterprise. Their advice costs a lot (and I mean a lot) of money but their advice proves to be of little use.
Would you then call on the same people to advise you about other things?
Dave Andrews, still waiting for "your evidence to support your claim of where/how McKinsey are wrong on GHG reductions". Can you please try and focus a bit ? You must have done some analysis which backs up the dribbling flatulence you produced above ... surely ?
More hand waving Dave, a tactic for avoidace. Is that a white flag in that hand you are waving?
jakerman,
Let's take a look at McKinsey's report 'China's green revolution'
As one expects from consultants it contains a lot of weasel words - could, might, possible etc - plus the inevitable 'recognition' that more research is needed.
But in relation to the nitty-gritty it says China would need to spend up to 150 - 200 billion euros on average each year over the next 20 years to achieve the abatement target. (p11). By my reckoning this is roughly equal to 4-6% of China's current GDP.
No society can immediately find that kind of money to begin a new investment track and as the report acknowledges ' just a 5 year delay in starting to implement the abatement technologies would result in a loss of as much as one third of the total abatement potential by 2030.' A ten year delay 'could lose up to 60% of the ---potential' (p13)
But these are not the total costs China will face, they represent only the'capital, operating and maintenance costs' (p5) They exclude all social costs, administrative costs, transaction costs of switching to new technologies, and communication costs (p5)
So, in the real world, Mckinsey are actually saying that their abatement scenario is unrealistic
But even if China achieved the abatement targets it would still be consuming 4.4 billion tons of coal and 900million tons of oil in 2030. (p9) This is a 61% increase in coal use over China's 2.7 billion tons in 2007.
Other factors that will be required to achieve the abatement scenario are a huge expansion of nuclear power ( up to 182GW by 2030) and an even greater expansion of large-scale hydro-electric power From 80GW to 350GW) both of which are not only very costly in their own terms but also perhaps controversial.
Mckinsey, themselves, even acknowledge that the report is unrealistic. "We do not intend our findings to serve in any way as a forecast or target for GHG emissions abatement"(p6)
Dave - in what way does that analysis of yours show that McKinsey are wrong about anything?
It understand as little about McKinsey as you do about the NHS.
Presumably because they can't predict what actions China will take, or how much abatement will be considered sufficient.
Which rather undercuts the reason you provided this quote.
>*Mckinsey, themselves, even acknowledge that the report is unrealistic.*
Dave this is an untruth on your part, even the quote you select does not substantiate your claim. How about some honesty Dave? Talk about weasels!
4% of GDP is the average over the next twenty years. Of course it can start lower and built to make the average.
And the figure not unrealistic in the slightest given their GDP is growing at 9% pa.
More untruths from Dave Andrews:
>*But even if China achieved the abatement targets it would still be consuming 4.4 billion tons of coal and 900million tons of oil in 2030. (p9) This is a 61% increase in coal use over China's 2.7 billion tons in 2007.*
No Dave you quote the baseline scenario. For the abatement beyond the baseline you had to look on the next couple of pages: See a 40% drop in coal and ~30% drop in oil. Reducing the proportion of coal in the overall power mix to 34% by 2030.
Whopsy! What else did Dave leave out in his urge to make his case:
Of the 150-200 billion Euros per year cost of abatement (average over 20 years) 1/3 will have positive economic returns, 1/3 will have slight to moderate costs, and 1/3 high cost. (p. 11)
So that hardly sounds unrealistic, especially given the risks of inaction. It should also help by picking the low hanging fruit early in the ramp up stage.
Dave, so many errors on your part and I'm only at page 11.
Dave writes:
>*No society can immediately find that kind of money to begin a new investment track and as the report acknowledges ' just a 5 year delay in starting to implement the abatement technologies would result in a loss of as much as one third of the total abatement potential by 2030.' A ten year delay 'could lose up to 60% of the ---potential' (p13)*
Big not sequitur on your part here Dave: The reason fort the urgency is the projected expansion in housing. Getting the housing right at the start will maximize efficiency.
Yet your bogus argument is that *"[n]o society can immediately find that kind of money to begin a new investment"*
Yes they can Dave, the new investment is set to go, it only needs efficiency standards, which will have a positive economic return as well.
Gosh you are so dishonest Dave.
Vince Whirlwind,
In way way does the Mckinsey report actually show they are ever right about anything? They are dealing, as always in 'what if scenarios'.Such scenarios rarely come to pass. Trouble is no one ever goes back and looks at how bad their prognostications actually were in the first place.
As regards the NHS I have long experience of working in it as do other members of my family and I know a great deal about it.
Shorter Dave Andrews:
There's nothing in the McKinsey report which indicates they're right, therefore I'm free to misrepresent its contents.
jakerman,
Still in cloud cuckoo land, I see. Two thirds of the 150 -200 billion euros investment each year will have no economic return - why would China want to follow such a strategy?
You are also wrong on the reason for urgency being the projected expansion of housing. It is much wider than this including rapid expansion of China's 'commercial and residential buildings', 'industrial capacity', and construction of 'new power plants'.
China's priority is economic growth and improving the lot of its people, many of whom are living in considerable poverty. Not long ago you were arguing that reducing poverty should be a priority. China seems to want to do this.
Shorter Dave Andrews:
There's nothing in the McKinsey report which indicates they're right, therefore I'm free to misrepresent its contents.
In addition, most businesses tend to fail, therefore one should never try to start a business. Therefore, global warming is a hoax.
Lotharsson,
"Presumably because they can't predict what actions China will take, or how much abatement will be considered sufficient."
You misunderstand what consultants do. They deal in scenarios very few of which, if any, actally come to pass. They make a lot of money doing this and the sad thing is governments, especially, continue to shell out millions to them every year.
>*Two thirds of the 150 -200 billion euros investment each year will have no economic return - why would China want to follow such a strategy?*
The answer is straight forward Dave, but what ever lead you to (dishonestly) misrepresent the McKinsey report, is an obvious barrier for you seeing the answer.
The costs of mitigation are appropriate insurance against the extreme risk (including extreme costs) of climate change.
Of course - and they must!.
What else do you expect them to do for exogenous parameters, i.e. parameters that can be varied at will (e.g. by government policy) - as contrasted with metrics that respond in relatively deterministic fashion to known parameters?
The IPCC also deals in what-if global emissions scenarios. For exactly the same reasons.
jakerman,
"The costs of mitigation are appropriate insurance against the extreme risk (including extreme costs) of climate change."
Is this a quote from the Mckinsey report? I don't remember seeing it.
Lotharsson,
Yes there is a great deal of similarity between the IPCC and Consultants. The mystery is why you think the former should be any better at forecasting the future than the latter.
"Whooooooooooooosh" - the sound of my point going straight over your head.
>"The costs of mitigation are appropriate insurance against the extreme risk (including extreme costs) of climate change."
>*Is this a quote from the Mckinsey report? I don't remember seeing it.*
This a pattern isn't it Dave, you become obtuse when once again you are exposed for being blinded by your own bias.
In case this is anything but faux obtuseness, a guide to the answer to your question is in may previous post, the answer is obvious for all to see, that is if they are not affected in the way you demonstrate:
>*The answer is straight forward Dave, but what ever lead you to (dishonestly) misrepresent the McKinsey report, is an obvious barrier for you seeing the answer.*
You need only have looked at the WG2 assessment on impacts that I cited earlier in this thread to see at hint of devastation that is likely with BAU (approach).
If you wanted to look past the cost in human terms you look look at the number from assessments like Stern's. Though Stern should be criticized for being [too conservative](http://www.sei-us.org/WorkingPapers/WorkingPaperUS08-02.pdf). Even so, Stern still comes out with the cost of BAU being as high as [20% or more](http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/d/Summary_of_Conclusions.pdf) of global GDP.
But I choose not to look past the [human cost](http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/11/091123152224.htm), across [the planet](http://www.wbgu.de/wbgu_jg2007_kurz_engl.html).
jakerman,
Wow, the WBGU!. Naturally all eminent people but hardly unbiased in their outlook. Still we should just trust them, shouldn't we?
Trust? No look at the evidence?
All eminent people? In a appeal to authority you lose big time.
Crank.
Empty and typical Dave Andrews.