Global Warming/Climate Change Super Thread

[Haletown]

As a practical example of climate change adaptation risk-management planning, and notwithstanding the dispute over the rate of sea level rise in Vancouver harbour noted earlier, if I was responsible for port operations, I would want to know

Not much of a dispute over the actual data about sea level change  . . .  the numbers are the numbers.  What is up for debate is the accuracy of the forecasts.  We now have decades of forecasts based on  the General Circulation Models and not a single one of them has ever produced a forecast that came anywhere close to being accurate.  Even the  IPCC admits their models have failed to predict what has really happened.

I live within spitting distance of the Vancouver harbour so I have skin in this game.  I have have some contacts in City Hall engineering and they are appalled at the decisions being made by the environmentalist clique hired in by Mayor Robertson -  Vancouver has a well staffed and funded Climate Change Department now.  The engineers have no voice and the Climate Change office at City Hall treats the model based forecasts as 100% factual.  Public Policy has been hijacked by people who ignore data, but believe eco doomsday is just around the corner.  By the way, if you get to visit Vancouver and walk the False Creek seawall you will notice all these blue bands painted on lamp poles and the Cambie St bridge supports that are supposed to show us where sea level will be in 100 years - they go up 5m  above current datum.  A city worker told me it is an "art installation" and cost $700k.  Can't confirm that number but it would not surprise me.  It is well within the capability of Mayor Moonbeam and the rest of the Vision Party that currently occupies City Hall.

So we can use forecasts driven by  failed models that have proven to be simply wrong to drive a public policy that would divert very large amounts of public funds into activities that are not required, or we can apply some common sense, monitor the actual data and  make plans based on reality rather than scary stories based on the output of failed GCMs about what might, maybe, could possibly happen somewhere in the future.

But if society decides to buy into the need to act now, the fun will begin when society realizes the mitigation efforts will be extremely expensive and we have to pay for them.  Because there is no bucket of money in some government office ready to be shoveled off the truck. The money will come from current allocations. 

And you can be damned sure there will be screams and howls to take DND's budget to pay for stuff deemed necessary by environmentalists.

 

[Haletown]

Why is it, so many people here on this web site think global climate disruption is an "imaginary boogyman"?

The IPCC does not concur.  Our current climate and weather is happening well within normal and historical bounds, in fact we are in a fairly calm period of time when it comes to weather extremes.

http://ipcc-wg2.gov/SREX/images/uploads/SREX-SPMbrochure_FINAL.pdf

What we have is extreme media coverage of pretty much normal normal weather.

3 puffs of wind in the eastern Atlantic and CNN goes into hurricane watch.

Tornado coverage is so extensive most people believe the numbers and intensity of tornadoes  is increasing.  In fact we are at historic lows.

http://www.spc.noaa.gov/wcm/torngraph-big.png

Same for tropical cyclones, especially in the Atlantic.

Watch the news today and you will think forest fires are massive and record setting  . . . but the actual data, the official record shows the opposite  in 2013.

http://www.nifc.gov/fireInfo/nfn.htm


Superstorm Sandy was not a hurricane and not a super storm . . . just a good old fashioned  Nor'easter  that hit at the wrong time (high tide) and stalled over a coastal flood zone.  Nothing to do with any perceived climate change or CO2 in the atmosphere.  Happened many times before, it will happen again, despite what the IPCC says.


If it is on TV or in newspapers it is likely wrong.  The mass media needs scary stories, breathlessly reported to keep the eyeballs on page and the clicks happening.  Doesn't mean it is true or what is actually happening.

 

[OldTanker]

This is an excellent summary. But its important to read it all, in detail.

http://ipcc-wg2.gov/SREX/images/uploads/SREX-SPMbrochure_FINAL.pdf

 

[Haletown]

Commone sense, meet breath if fresh air.



Replies of Professor Roger Pielke, Jr. to Questions from Senate EPW
21 August 2013


Questions from Senator Sheldon Whitehouse:

1) In your written testimony, you stated:

“It is misleading, and just plain incorrect, to claim that disasters associated with hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, or droughts have increased on climate timescales either in the United States or globally. It is further incorrect to associate the increasing costs of disasters with the emission of greenhouse gases.”

In your opinion as a science-policy expert, is it also misleading, and just plain incorrect, to claim that man-made global warming is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people?
PIELKE REPLY: Yes. Both such claims are misleading and incorrect.
2) Who funds your research currently? Please supply a full list for the record.
PIELKE REPLY: I currently have one active grant. It is a small grant from the Nathan Cummings Foundation for a project looking at the role of philanthropy in policy and politics (it has nothing to do with climate or extreme events), drawing on an engagement model I proposed in my book, The Honest Broker (Cambridge University Press, 2007). Also, at the University of Colorado, I am a Fellow of CIRES (Cooperative Institute for Research in the Environmental Sciences) which is a NOAA Joint Institute.
Questions from Senator David Vitter


1) Dr. Pielke, as I read Mr. Nutter’s testimony, he appeared to be trying to tell us that businesses face a disaster that is happening now. But according to a recent Lloyd’s of London survey of almost 600 corporate executives about the risks faced by their business, they ranked climate change #32 behind “piracy” but ahead of “space weather.” High taxation was ranked #1. Regulation was ranked #5. Why do you think they placed climate change at #32?
PIELKE REPLY: Human-caused climate change likely ranks low in the Lloyd’s 2013 Risk Index because the vast majority of impacts associated with such changes that would be of direct concern to global businesses in 2013 are presently small or even undetectable at present in the context of historical climate variability, as discussed in my testimony.
2) Dr. Pielke, do you agree with comments made during the hearing that the weather here in the U.S. has fundamentally changed as is evidenced by an increase in hurricanes, droughts, floods, and tornadoes? Do you agree there is “strong evidence” that extreme weather events in the U.S. have become more frequent and intense?
PIELKE REPLY: A range of evidence summarized in my prepared testimony indicates that, on climate time scales in the US or globally, there has not been an increase in hurricanes, droughts, floods or tornadoes. The evidence for this claim is strong and is well-supported in the peer-reviewed literature, data collected by the U.S. government’s research agencies and the recent report on extreme events by Intergovermental Panel on Climate Change.
3) Dr. Pielke, to reiterate your points debunking claims that weather events in the United States are “extreme” in that they are increasing and more intense I would like to ask you a series of questions and provide you the opportunity to answer each.

a) Have United States landfalling hurricanes increased in frequency or intensity since 1900? Have they increased globally? Has damage, adjusted for more people and property, increased in the US or elsewhere?
PIELKE REPLY: As presented in my testimony, the US has not seen an increase in hurricane landfall frequency or intensity since at least 1900, nor in measures of damage, normalized for societal change. In fact, the US is presently in the longest stretch without a Category 3+ hurricane landfall since at least 1900.
b) Has United States flooding increased on climate timescales? Globally? Have United States tornadoes increased? Has United States drought overall increased?
PIELKE REPLY: As presented in my testimony, the US has not seen an overall increase in flooding, nor has such an increase been documented globally. The same holds also for tornadoes and drought.
c) Has the cost of disasters increased globally as a fraction of GDP?
PIELKE REPLY: As presented in my testimony, the cost of disasters as a fraction of global GDP has actually decreased since 1990.
4) Has anyone taken you up on your June 27th twitter invitation to defend President Obama’s claim? (“Open invitation: Does anyone wish to defend the Obama claim that worse extreme weather is increasing disaster costs?”)
PIELKE REPLY: No one took up the challenge."


http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.ca/2013/08/follow-up-q-from-senate-epw.html

 

[Haletown]

Look, over there, that pig is flying!


"Dorking 'green' group in favour of fracking"



http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-23794663

 

[Haletown]

From the "people who will not be getting Christmas cards from Al Gore or David Suzuki"  file.

"The Earth’s climate, he said, is a dynamic and continually-changing system. “Human societies have lived and thriven under every conceivable climate, and modern technology makes adaptation to changing weather conditions entirely routine.”

The increasing fraction of CO2 in the air could be expected to result in some warming, but it had been accepted that “the benefits of food production and the relief of starvation overwhelm concerns about the potential climate changes induced by land-surface modification.” He said the panel thought it essential to ask whether similar reasoning applied to global fossil-energy production."


So sayeth the World Federation of Scientists.


http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/28/global-warming-is-no-longer-a-planetary-emergency/#more-92552

 

[GAP]

North West Passage blocked with ice - yachts caught
http://www.sail-world.com/Canada/North-West-Passage-blocked-with-ice%E2%80%94yachts-caught/113788

The Northwest Passage after decades of so-called global warming has a dramatic 60% more Arctic ice this year than at the same time last year. The future dreams of dozens of adventurous sailors are now threatened. A scattering of yachts attempting the legendary Passage are caught by the ice, which has now become blocked at both ends and the transit season may be ending early. Douglas Pohl tells the story:

The Passage has become blocked with 5/10 concentrated drifting sea ice at both the eastern and at the western ends of Canada’s Arctic Archipelago. At least 22 yachts and other vessels are in the Arctic at the moment. Some who were less advanced have retreated and others have abandoned their vessels along the way. Still others are caught in the ice in an unfolding, unresolved drama.

The real question is if and when the Canadian Coast Guard(CCG) decides to take early action to help the yachts exit the Arctic before freeze-up... or will they wait until it becomes an emergency rescue operation?

The first blockage area is at Prince Regent Inlet in position 73.7880535N, -89.2529297W which became blocked on 27th August with 5/10 ice concentration with 7/10 ice pushing.

This effectively closes the 2013 Northwest Passage without Canadian Coast Guard icebreaker escorts for transit. The alternative is a very technical and risky southern navigation through Fury & Hecla Strait mostly blocked with sea ice.

Currently there is a commercial cruise ship on a west to east passage which will reach Prince Regent Inlet in another day. It is unknown if there is a CCG icebreaker in the area to provide assistance since government ships do not provide Automatic Identification Service (AIS) to public AIS websites.

Since one of the Canadian Coast Guard’s prime missions is to provide icebreaking for commercial shipping it will be interesting to see if Canada Prime Minister Stephen Harper's Government views this as an opportunity for good public relations to help recreational yachts transiting the Northwest Passage.

Another choke-point stopping marine traffic is on the western Canadian Arctic at Cape Bathurst in position 70.6672443N, -128.2763672W which became blocked on 26th August with 2/10 ice concentration and quickly filled with 5/10 ice on 27th August and today has 8/10 ice pushing towards Cape Bathurst. Latest word is the ice is retreating at an agonizing 1 nautical mile per day northward.
more on link

 

[FJAG]

Interesting article on the problems with the current state of the Wind and Solar industry in Germany.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/high-costs-and-errors-of-german-transition-to-renewable-energy-a-920288.html

:cheers:

 

[Haletown]

The Germans are slowly waking up to the great subsidized electricity scam.

"For society as a whole, the costs have reached levels comparable only to the euro-zone bailouts. This year, German consumers will be forced to pay €20 billion ($26 billion) for electricity from solar, wind and biogas plants -- electricity with a market price of just over €3 billion. Even the figure of €20 billion is disputable if you include all the unintended costs and collateral damage associated with the project. Solar panels and wind turbines at times generate huge amounts of electricity, and sometimes none at all. Depending on the weather and the time of day, the country can face absurd states of energy surplus or deficit."

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/high-costs-and-errors-of-german-transition-to-renewable-energy-a-920288.html

Substitute "Ontario" for "Germany"  and the scam is the same.


And in the USA, some speaking truth to power

http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=f4ace657-9490-4f4c-86f3-25d367e2085c

 

[Kilo_302]

http://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/climatechange

The World Bank is now considering climate change and it's effects to be the biggest economic threat of the 21st century. These guys aren't leftists, they're economists who support many policies that we could consider broadly to be "right" (austerity, structural adjustment and so on). The idea that some big green conspiracy has unduly influenced them is laughable. The money in renewables is nothing compared to the money in the fossil fuels industry, and I would add that the fossil fuel industry has shaped the policy of many countries for decades, while "green" energy is a new a comer.

Below is a link to a great interview that explains why the "debate" on climate change is somehow still a debate.

http://billmoyers.com/episode/full-show-ending-the-silence-on-climate-change/

You really have to think about what you are suggesting when you say climate change is natural, or it's not happening. You are suggesting there's a cabal of wind turbine manufactuers or something similar that now have more influence in politics than the petroleum industry. You are suggesting that 97% of the world's serious scientists are wrong, have been paid off or are acting in the interests of their own career. You are suggesting our satellites are all wrong, or we are reading the data incorrectly. Ort you're suggesting that the political left has invented a global crisis to enact socialist economic policies or something of the like.

Sorry, it just doesn't make any sense unless you are ideologically driven to point of putting blinders on. Is it because action on climate change would require collaborative global efforts? Do you just love the internal combustion engine that much? It's tragic that this is somehow a political issue. I am no scientist, but I understand politics and economics and if politicians, scientists and economists the world over (and across the political spectrum for the most part) are sounding the warning, I believe them. I just don't believe the MOTIVATION for creating such a conspiracy exists. And unless you have access to data that no one else seems to have, or you yourself are a climate scientist, it doesn't make sense to think otherwise.

Here's a handy link that shoots down all the main arguments against anthropomorphic climate change. I would encourage all you deniers to find the rebuttals to the arguments you might have.

http://grist.org/series/skeptics/

 

[Journeyman]

OK, not one of you people wringing your hands or gnashing your teeth over global warming were with me on a motorcycle on the 401 last night.

It's only the beginning of September, but it was fucking COLD!   


So you can all bite me; bring on the global warming!  The polar bears will adapt.

 

[a_majoor]

Sigh

Kilo, if Norse settlers could croft farm in 1100 AD in Greenland (as frarms exposed by retreating glaciers tell us), but it is too cold to do any sort of farming in Greenland today, then what does that tell you about climate change?

If George Washington could cross the frozen rivers with armies towing heavy wagons of supplies and cannon to defeat the British in the 1700's, but George Mead faced ice free rivers in the 1860's, so had to use boats and bridges if he wanted to cross, what does that tell you about climate change?

If spacecraft orbiting the planet Mars track long term temperature changes similar to those of Earth, what does that suggest about the origin of climate change?

An extraordinary amount of money has been spent promoting the idea of climate change, with the potential of even vaster amounts of money being spent to "fight" climate change. Human beings flock to incentives (in this case to get the money), and that, my friend, is the true source of climate change "consensus": the lure of "free" money, power and privilage.

 

[Kilo_302]

All good points, in that they make immediate sense. But they are all directly and specifically addressed, and easily countered with properly referenced data in the last link I posted.

I agree that humans flock to incentives and money, power and privilege. But does this not explain the oil industry's vested interest clouding the debate surrounding climate change in order to protect its status? An extraordinary amount of money ALREADY exists in the fossil fuels industry, and they are spending it to counter real science. If we agree that people are opportunistic, I would say the easy opportunity lies in protecting ones own interests, not inventing a worldwide scientific hoax (if this were even possible) to create a whole industry. That makes absolutely no sense.

I find conspiracy theories surrounding global warming are quite similar to those surrounding 9/11. Just as there's no way the US government planned the attacks and somehow kept the hundreds of people who would have been involved quiet for 12 years, there's NO way 97% of the world's scientists are part of some sort of crazed economic "get rich quick" scheme, knowingly or unknowingly. Just perform a simple cost benefit analysis and it's obvious who the winners and losers are in this debate. The simplest answer is usually the right one.

 

[ModlrMike]

All good points, in that they make immediate sense. But they are all directly and specifically addressed, and easily countered with properly referenced data in the last link I posted.

I agree that humans flock to incentives and money, power and privilege. But does this not explain the oil industry's vested interest clouding the debate surrounding climate change in order to protect its status? An extraordinary amount of money ALREADY exists in the fossil fuels industry, and they are spending it to counter real science. If we agree that people are opportunistic, I would say the easy opportunity lies in protecting ones own interests, not inventing a worldwide scientific hoax (if this were even possible) to create a whole industry. That makes absolutely no sense.

I find conspiracy theories surrounding global warming are quite similar to those surrounding 9/11. Just as there's no way the US government planned the attacks and somehow kept the hundreds of people who would have been involved quiet for 12 years, there's NO way 97% of the world's scientists are part of some sort of crazed economic "get rich quick" scheme, knowingly or unknowingly. Just perform a simple cost benefit analysis and it's obvious who the winners and losers are in this debate. The simplest answer is usually the right one.

It was only 97% of those asked. If you don't seek out opposing views, you're not going to find them.

 

[Kilo_302]

It was only 97% of those asked. If you don't seek out opposing views, you're not going to find them.

That redoubt of leftist conspiracies, NASA has some info:

http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus

This seems like a pretty comprehensive list no? Who is missing?

http://opr.ca.gov/s_listoforganizations.php

This seems like a pretty comprehensive list no? Who is missing?

 

[Haletown]

It was only 97% of those asked. If you don't seek out opposing views, you're not going to find them.

It was actually a much slicker con than that.


"Recent reports that 97% of published scientific papers support the so-called consensus on man-made global warming are based on a paper by John Cook et al.

Precisely what consensus is allegedly being supported in these papers cannot be discerned from the text of the paper.

An analysis of the methodology used by Cook et al. shows that the consensus referred to is trivial:
• that carbon dioxide (CO2) is a greenhouse gas
• that human activities have warmed the planet to some unspecified extent.

Almost everybody involved in the climate debate, including the majority of sceptics, accepts these propositions, so little can be learned from the Cook et al. paper.

The extent to which the warming in the last two decades of the twentieth century was man-made and the likely extent of any future warming remain highly contentious scientific issues.


http://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2013/09/Montford-Consensus.pdf


Remember Cook is a cartoonist by profession, he has no science credentials.

 

[Kilo_302]

And here is a direct and scientific refutation of Montford's book. Look at the credentials of the authors on this site compared to Montford's.


http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/07/the-montford-delusion/

 

[Haletown]

And here is a direct and scientific refutation of Montford's book. Look at the credentials of the authors on this site compared to Montford's.


http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/07/the-montford-delusion/

Do you have an opinion on why 100% of the climate models have failed to predict what is actually happening in the atmosphere?

Do you think we should continue to make public policies about and direct billions of public dollars into CO2 reduction schemes based on models that have 100% failure rate?

 

[ArmyRick]

Not all CO2 reduction schemes have a 100 percent failure rate. I know some work. Others I
I do not have enough knowledge about to make an informed opinion.

Not all green options are a good idea. Wind turbines are a good idea with unintended negative consequences.

 

[Haletown]

Not all CO2 reduction schemes have a 100 percent failure rate. I know some work. Others I
I do not have enough knowledge about to make an informed opinion.

Not all green options are a good idea. Wind turbines are a good idea with unintended negative consequences.

What has a 100% failure rate are the computer models used to justify CO2 reduction schemes.  The models are used justify a theory that does not hold water.  Public policy has been changed based on the forecasted results that have not come to pass.

Agreed there are many ways to reduce CO2.  The question is  - why do we want to take public funds, funds that  could pay for schools, hospitals, roads and infrastructure and spend it recu one CO2 when CO2 is  is a very, very minor  greenhouse gas and is not the thermostat for the planet?

Just look at what is happening in Ontario right now - $billions are beng diverted in wind turbines and solar panels that are not saving the planet and are neither effective or efficient.  That money would buy a lot of health care, pay for a lot of teachers, pave a lot of potholed roads and repair crumbling overpasses, repair leaking sewer systems.

Because there is always an opportunity cost.