here comes the next ice age

[yossarian22c]

What am I missing?

Per capita emissions of the countries in question.

[Seriati]

Where can I find those commitments?   From what I can see they aren't targeting/agreeing to per capita changes.

[Seriati]

By the way, just read the Weather Channel article on "What happens if the U.S. Backs out of the Paris Climate Accord?"  You know what was missing?  What happens.  They literally didn't tell you what happened.

They didn't touch on the fact that the US already has strong environmental laws (that aren't going away), that many US states have even stronger laws, or that even if we pull out we are still likely to meet our own internal targets.

In fact, they didn't put forward any claim about the change in pollution would entail.  Instead we get quotes like this:

Still, scientists overwhelmingly agree the planet would warm up even faster than it is already should the U.S. pull out of the agreement signed by nearly 200 countries to reduce emissions.

Pulling out of the agreement doesn't do that. 

The US reducing its carbon generation, while China picks up the resulting industrial slack is a literal net loser for the environment per unit of production.

[yossarian22c]

Where can I find those commitments?   From what I can see they aren't targeting/agreeing to per capita changes.

http://www.gapminder.org/tools/#_locale_id=en;&state_time_value=2013;&marker_axis/_x_which=population/_total&domainMin:null&domainMax:null&zoomedMin:null&zoomedMax:null&scaleType=linear;&axis/_y_which=co2/_emissions/_tonnes/_per/_person&domainMin:null&domainMax:null&zoomedMin:null&zoomedMax:null&scaleType=genericLog;;;&chart-type=bubbles


The per capita emissions inform the targets for each country.  For example, India has per capita emissions of about 1/10 the USA.

[Seriati]

yoss, that isn't really responsive.  The targets for some countries, like both China and India don't actually result in a reduction of their production of carbon.  That means the next time you see that chart their very very large circles will be higher on that chart.  The US is a agreeing, apparently, to an absolute decrease, which with its increasing population means it will be lower on that chart.  End result = Way more carbon.

Per capita is kind of a silly measure.  We ought to be looking at carbon used per unit of production and maximizing production in the regions that do it most efficiently.  The pollution the US generates to produce a million cars for instance is well below what they create to produce a million cars in China.  If the US cuts its absolute carbon production it may have to cut out 2 million cars to reduce x carbon, meanwhile China picks up the industrial slack and makes those 2 million cars for 3.5-5x carbon.  How is this a good result?

Instead, have the US make 6 millions cars and put the Chinese Factories out of business.  US per capita goes up.  US pollution is 3 times greater (ie 3x) and you save 10.5 to 15x from closing the Chinese factories.  Net gain is a reduction in global Carbon of 7.5-12x the current US production on those cars.

Per capita is a third world argument premised on the idea that western factories are using more than their fair share.  If you're really for the environment (rather than social justice) you should WANT that result.

[Pete at Home]

Where can I find those commitments?   From what I can see they aren't targeting/agreeing to per capita changes.

http://www.gapminder.org/tools/#_locale_id=en;&state_time_value=2013;&marker_axis/_x_which=population/_total&domainMin:null&domainMax:null&zoomedMin:null&zoomedMax:null&scaleType=linear;&axis/_y_which=co2/_emissions/_tonnes/_per/_person&domainMin:null&domainMax:null&zoomedMin:null&zoomedMax:null&scaleType=genericLog;;;&chart-type=bubbles


The per capita emissions inform the targets for each country.  For example, India has per capita emissions of about 1/10 the USA.

We reward third world aristocracies for keeping a massive impoverished underclass?

[Pete at Home]

By the way, just read the Weather Channel article on "What happens if the U.S. Backs out of the Paris Climate Accord?"  You know what was missing?  What happens.  They literally didn't tell you what happened.

They didn't touch on the fact that the US already has strong environmental laws (that aren't going away), that many US states have even stronger laws, or that even if we pull out we are still likely to meet our own internal targets.

In fact, they didn't put forward any claim about the change in pollution would entail.  Instead we get quotes like this:

Still, scientists overwhelmingly agree the planet would warm up even faster than it is already should the U.S. pull out of the agreement signed by nearly 200 countries to reduce emissions.

Pulling out of the agreement doesn't do that. 

The US reducing its carbon generation, while China picks up the resulting industrial slack is a literal net loser for the environment per unit of production.

While I'm not promoting Kyoto as an effective agreement, I think the assumption here is the USA is basically Mr. International.  Home of the UN, and founder.  The idea is that other countries are less likely to join in the agreement or to honor it if the US isn't involved.  But given that the USA was still setting the example of clear-cutting its old growth forests to sell to China under Obama (same as Indonesia, Africa, and Brazil are doing, I'm not sure what damage that is.

I'm really hoping that in order to attack Kyoto, that this admin will take the Old Growth argument forward, because it's less economically hurtful and also more ecologically helpful than attacking emissions.   Appreciate the conservatives here at least hearing me out on that.

[yossarian22c]

I'm really hoping that in order to attack Kyoto, that this admin will take the Old Growth argument forward, because it's less economically hurtful and also more ecologically helpful than attacking emissions.   Appreciate the conservatives here at least hearing me out on that.

I agree Pete and so does the Paris agreement.

nt national circumstances.
Article 5
1. Parties should take action to conserve and enhance, as appropriate, sinks and reservoirs of greenhouse gases as
referred to in Article 4, paragraph 1(d), of the Convention, including forests.
2. Parties are encouraged to take action to implement and support, including through results-based payments, the
existing framework as set out in related guidance and decisions already agreed under the Convention for: policy
approaches and positive incentives for activities relating to reducing emissions from deforestation and forest
degradation, and the role of conservation, sustainable management of forests and enhancement of forest carbon
stocks in developing countries; and alternative policy approaches, such as joint mitigation and adaptation
approaches for the integral and sustainable management of forests, while reaffirming the importance of
incentivizing, as appropriate, non-carbon benefits associated with such approaches.

Emissions get the headlines but the people negotiating also talk about conservation.  Although I agree with you that it doesn't get enough attention.  But let's face it there is money to be made (and jobs to be had) in converting current infrastructure to be more efficient and there isn't anyone to make a buck off of paying Brazil to not cut down huge sections of rain-forest every year.

[yossarian22c]

yoss, that isn't really responsive.  The targets for some countries, like both China and India don't actually result in a reduction of their production of carbon.  That means the next time you see that chart their very very large circles will be higher on that chart.  The US is a agreeing, apparently, to an absolute decrease, which with its increasing population means it will be lower on that chart.  End result = Way more carbon.

India and China aren't going to sign onto an agreement that requires hundreds of millions of their citizens to live without electricity.  Everyone in the us already has electricity in their homes and work, therefore it is easier for us to adopt technologies that allow for maintained (or improved) standards of living while cutting energy use. LED's are a good example, higher upfront cost but they save money over their lifetime by reduced energy use and less frequent replacement. Installing LEDs in rural India increases their energy use because they don't currently have any indoor lighting. You can't really expect other people to agree to continue living in mud huts without running water and electricity just so you don't have to invest an extra $100 bucks today to save $150 in energy costs over 20 years.

Per capita is kind of a silly measure.  We ought to be looking at carbon used per unit of production and maximizing production in the regions that do it most efficiently.  The pollution the US generates to produce a million cars for instance is well below what they create to produce a million cars in China.  If the US cuts its absolute carbon production it may have to cut out 2 million cars to reduce x carbon, meanwhile China picks up the industrial slack and makes those 2 million cars for 3.5-5x carbon.  How is this a good result?

Instead, have the US make 6 millions cars and put the Chinese Factories out of business.  US per capita goes up.  US pollution is 3 times greater (ie 3x) and you save 10.5 to 15x from closing the Chinese factories.  Net gain is a reduction in global Carbon of 7.5-12x the current US production on those cars.

Per capita is a good consideration to take into account because it is a rough estimate for current levels of development. It isn't the only thing that matters, as you mentioned efficiency is also important. But it is much easier to make efficiency improvements starting from a higher baseline.

Your scenario is a complete strawman, there is nothing in the paris agreement that would lead to anything like that occurring. If China could improve their standard of living with fewer emissions by importing goods then they can meet their goals by doing that. Also industry only accounts for about 1/5 of US emissions so it isn't like cutting carbon is all about closing down "dirty" industries. I think the US could meet the emissions goals of the Paris agreement through mostly economical beneficial efficiency gains and conversion from the dirtiest energy sources to cleaner ones.

Per capita is a third world argument premised on the idea that western factories are using more than their fair share.  If you're really for the environment (rather than social justice) you should WANT that result.

Not western factories, western societies. Let's face it we use lots of energy in America, nothing in the Paris agreement says we are going to use less, just use a few different sources and build more efficient homes, buildings, and cars. Do you really expect nations to sign up for permanent mud hut status while we get to live like kings in America?

The whole idea of Paris is that the developed world develops more efficient technologies and then aids the developing world in skipping over the dirtiest part of increasing their standards of living.

[yossarian22c]

There is a big difference between regional effects and global.  That there are regional effects does not make measurable, significant, global effects a certainty.  The argument that "it must do something" is a very misleading one.  Take, for example, CO2.  We've added an estimated 12 ppm to the atmosphere. Does it have some effect?  Sure.  What is the net effect once you account for the other 388 ppm from natural sources?   Due to the strongly logarithmic nature of CO2, the effect is marginal at best.  That's just the mathematics of the situation. 

Accounting for the rest of the atmospheric greenhouse gas effects - Water Vapor 95%, CO2 3.6%, Methane 0.36%,  Nitrous Oxide 0.95% and then even more trace gases like CFC's account for about 0.07% we find that, all together, total human greenhouse gas contributions add up to about 0.28% of the greenhouse effect with natural sources accounting for the other 99.72% of the effect.  In other words, if we had the technology to somehow remove ALL greenhouse gases from human sources, every molecule of it, you'd reduce the greenhouse effect by less than 3 tenths of 1 percent.

So is it a stretch that there is some effect? No.  It is, however, a massive stretch (past the breaking point actually) to claim that the 0.28% of greenhouse gas effects coming from human sources are the ones that are driving a planetary apocalypse.  The math simply does not support it.

First that human activity only accounts for 12 ppm of the 400 ppm in the atmosphere seems extraordinarily low.  I have no idea looking at the CO2 data how any claim that low can be taken seriously.

However accepting your claim that we have increased the impact of the greenhouse effect by .28% I get the following rough calculation:

Code: [Select]

W/(m^2 day) M^2 (trillion) W (trillion/day)  % Delta W/day J (trillion/s) J/C Mass Atm deg/s      deg C/year
160                510     81600 0.0028     228.48   2644444444 1 5.148*10^18 5.1368*10^-10 0.0161995338

Which is a really, really rough estimate since I didn't include anything that wasn't air in the mass and specific heat computation.  But even using your numbers you end up predicting a rise in global temps of about 1.6 degrees C over the next 100 years (assuming the system was in equilibrium before humans gave it a nudge).

Just curious is 2+2 still 4? Or are there some other environmental factors (a term you scoffed at earlier) you want to throw in there? That is a pretty simple thermodynamics calculation that takes from your (IMO low estimate of current human impact) that shows with no further increase we would expect a 1.6 degree C increase over the next 100 years.

[TheDeamon]

Most of the goals are for reductions per unit of GDP, which means they are efficiency goals not pollution reductions.  In fact,the page says that carbon emissions increased 24% from 1990 to 2010.  If the countries involved meet their targets the increase from 2010 to 2030 would be 11-23%!  It also looks like the US might be agreeing to cut carbon, while others are only agreeing to be more efficient in making pollution.

What am I missing?

According to:

https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-us-greenhouse-gas-emissions

We "peaked" our carbon footprint in 2007, and the trend has been a slow decline from there. But also, looking at that chart, US carbon emission had been mostly flat since 2004, and prior to that 1999 to 2004 had been a very slow (almost glacial) increase in emissions. During the evil environmentally irresponsible Bush Admin years no less. In perhaps the biggest irony of all, by that chart, if my eyeball is right, just about any 2 years of the Bill Clinton administration saw a larger increase in CO2 Emissions that happened over the course of the entire "W" Bush admin.  (yeah yeah, "Clinton laid the groundwork")

The US seems to be "decarbonizing" already so our stating the intent to cut our emissions further is pretty much saying we intend to continue with what we've been doing?

[Seriati]

So now I have seen dozens of "articles" on Trump's decision, including several versions claiming they are "everything you need to know," and not one of them has accurately stated the deal itself.  Anything that predicts a "consequence" from the US "pulling out" of a non-binding voluntary agreement starts as a blatant overreaction.  But even worse, most seem to assume that a pull out means we will not continue to follow our own laws and patterns and reduce carbon independently (which we have been doing for years), but instead "renege" on one hundred percent of the target.  The US is one of the few countries that actually seeks to meet self imposed carbon reduction and pollution control goals, and that doesn't change whether or not we are in this agreement.

It's amazing too how they can all point out that 194 countries signed on, yet fail to point out that for most of them there is absolutely no teeth (and for most a net gain).  If you have 200 people in a room and 199 sign an agreement where they get $100 books and person 200 refuses to sign the agreement to pay out $19,900 to make it happen its kind of silly to act like they are the one killing a "great" deal.

I'd be interested to see even one article with an honest evaluation of the carbon impact this agreement has for the countries not named the United States.  It actually looks to me like the end result of their Agreement is for an increase in carbon production by those 194 countries, and it'll look worse now because they were banking on US negative carbon production to "offset" their increases.  This is literally the rest of the world paying lip service to carbon reduction and asking the US to once again bear the global cost.

Or how about a single honest article explaining why closing US factories to open new ones in China and India is in the environments best interest?  There's literally no environmental case for that.

[TheDeamon]

Or how about a single honest article explaining why closing US factories to open new ones in China and India is in the environments best interest?  There's literally no environmental case for that.

But what about "Environmental (Economic) Justice?" Clearly you need to make room for that! How are all those poor impoverished people in foreign lands supposed to lift themselves out of poverty if we're not providing perverse incentives for companies to offshore work to them?

[Pete at Home]

So now I have seen dozens of "articles" on Trump's decision, including several versions claiming they are "everything you need to know," and not one of them has accurately stated the deal itself.  Anything that predicts a "consequence" from the US "pulling out" of a non-binding voluntary agreement starts as a blatant overreaction.  But even worse, most seem to assume that a pull out means we will not continue to follow our own laws and patterns and reduce carbon independently (which we have been doing for years), but instead "renege" on one hundred percent of the target.  The US is one of the few countries that actually seeks to meet self imposed carbon reduction and pollution control goals, and that doesn't change whether or not we are in this agreement.

It's amazing too how they can all point out that 194 countries signed on, yet fail to point out that for most of them there is absolutely no teeth (and for most a net gain).  If you have 200 people in a room and 199 sign an agreement where they get $100 books and person 200 refuses to sign the agreement to pay out $19,900 to make it happen its kind of silly to act like they are the one killing a "great" deal.

I'd be interested to see even one article with an honest evaluation of the carbon impact this agreement has for the countries not named the United States.  It actually looks to me like the end result of their Agreement is for an increase in carbon production by those 194 countries, and it'll look worse now because they were banking on US negative carbon production to "offset" their increases.  This is literally the rest of the world paying lip service to carbon reduction and asking the US to once again bear the global cost.

Or how about a single honest article explaining why closing US factories to open new ones in China and India is in the environments best interest?  There's literally no environmental case for that.

Can you source that, Seriati?  What do you say to this: http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2017/06/us-rear-carbon-emissions

[TheDeamon]

Can you source that, Seriati?  What do you say to this: http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2017/06/us-rear-carbon-emissions

Where is Canada in that list?

Ok, I can buy that those nations have a lower "Carbon intensity" and a few other things. But they also have mostly urbanized populations, with closely grouped urban population centers. Much of Carbon Emissions happening in the US occur as a result of transportation of people, goods, and services. Because you know, the United States is a very large country, and while it's "urban population" as a % of the whole is increasing over time, those urban centers tend to be widely dispersed across a very large nation. (It also ignores the matter that many parts of the US also experience more extreme weather conditions than most of Europe, on both ends of the spectrum, which also results in more energy use)

It's kind of like proclaiming citizens of the state of Montana are destroying the environment because their per capita CO2 emissions are so much higher than a comparable citizen in NYC who doesn't own a car and uses mass transit to get around. The citizens of Missoula are just such neanderthals that they cannot begin to fathom the merits of establishing a comprehensive light rail or subway system in their fine town. 

[Fenring]

My thought on supposed global warming and the human factor has, for years, been that the most likely outcome is that technological innovation would inevitably make scare-mongering about the end of the world irrelevant. I more or less have thought that the natural market would take care of reducing pollution and eventually even cleaning up what we've already done to the environment, and I still think so. Maybe this was wishful Star Trek thinking on my part, and admittedly having grown up on TOS and TNG I do believe in those kinds of outcomes.

So far my optimism seems to have been born out because we are already seeing natural innovation paving the way for clean energy production without any need for strong-arming the economy through enforced treaties. Some European nations have already made great headway switching over almost entirely to renewable energy (including Germany, so not just 'crap countries', as Ali G called them), and likewise I think the availability and convenience of those methods will soon become ubiquitous and standard in developed nations. As Seriati points out, the trick will be to try to switch over less developed nations to the new system if possible. But the more nations that switch over to renewable energy and clean production, the less urgent it will be to swiftly switch over the undeveloped nations. It will be a good long-term goal, but not highly time sensitive. For some time various oligarchs and cartels have squashed attempts at innovation into clean energy (see: "Who Killed the Electric Car" and other such documentaries), however by this time innovation is too far along for it to realistically be stopped by fiat, so they will have to roll over soon and try to cash in on the change rather than oppose it.

I can't say I'm that informed about the details of the Paris deal, but based on the rhetoric and outcry that followed the U.S. withdrawal from Kyoto (which I thought was a bad deal at the time) I'm automatically skeptical about the outcry that's following Trump's decision on this one. Hey, maybe Trump is making a mistake, or maybe Seriati is right and the thing is a boondoggle. But I do know that the outcry would be the same regardless of whether it's a boondoggle or a miracle plan. The reaction itself says nothing about the quality of Trump's decision.

[Seriati]

Can you source that, Seriati?  What do you say to this: http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2017/06/us-rear-carbon-emissions

That's a bit of a compilation, which part do you want a source for?

I'd say the MotherJones piece has carefully selected the charts it's showing you.  Why do you think that is?  Why does each country put it's emissions target in a different measure under the Paris accord?  Take a look at a single measure for all of them, like net gain or loss in total carbon.  Look at everyone for absolute carbon production per unit of production.  Forget per capita entirely, that's a measure that has no real merit other than for social justice "fairness" comparisons.

There are plenty of resources for looking at the raw data.  Heck there is a wiki for carbon emissions by gdp (which is a limited indicator of efficiency, US in the middle, China fifth from the bottom).  Or total Carbon, China was closing in on double the US in 2011, where do you think they are now?

China's increases in carbon production, alone, will offset any and all reductions the US chooses to make.  Add in other countries that are still on the upramp, like India, Russia, most of the oil rich Middle East and South American "super powers" and this Agreement doesn't deliver anything it promises.  Why don't they want you to be able to see that in clear terms?

[Seriati]

Here's another question for you guys, why does the reconciliation process, require a budget neutral bill to avoid a filibuster, in other words you can not spend more than you save without getting 60 Senators and a majority of the House, yet apparently a President can sign onto an International accord (like say the Paris accord) which potentially has an economic impact of $3 trillion in GDP without any Senate approval?  The three trillion number comes from right wing oil tycoon T. Boone Pickens so almost certainly on the high end of the estimates, but there is no estimate where there are not substantial costs to the US.

What happened to the power of the purse?

Okay, I cheated a little there, cause there a NO COSTS to the Paris accord cause it's not binding and has no penalty or enforcement mechanisms.  The only costs would come from the subsequent legislation (no chance) or regulations (virtually certainty with a Dem President that the unelected bureaucratic masters would have implemented costly regulations).

[Pete at Home]

Thank you.  That pretty much backs my earlier statement that Kyoto is just an alternate form of climate denial.  I don't understand why you waste time with the denial arguments when there's such a more powerful argument to be made that Kyoto is a fraud even according to mainstream climate science.

[Seriati]

Not sure I've ever stated an opinion on warming or denied it.  My primary beef on this topic is with those treating Science as a religion (making black box arguments from the conclusions without any real understanding of the problems and limitations built into the conclusions).

[Wayward Son]

One of the more interesting things about Trump declaring his pullout from the Paris Accords is the international political implications.

Sure, Republicans in this country have convinced themselves that climate change is a hoax, not happening, is natural, and/or is insignificant, but apparently not the rest of the world.  And they aren't too happy about it.

Hours later German Chancellor Angela Merkel summoned reporters for an impromptu statement in which she called Trump’s decision “extremely regrettable, and that’s putting it very mildly...”

[T]he leaders of France, Germany and Italy said in a joint statement Thursday that the agreement cannot be renegotiated, “since it is a vital instrument for our planet, societies and economics...”

South Africa called the U.S. pullout “an abdication of global responsibility...”

Japan’s environment minister, Koichi Yamamoto, said in Tokyo: “I’m not just disappointed, but also feel anger.”

Former Mexican President Vicente Fox also criticized Trump’s move, saying on Twitter: “He’s declaring war on the planet itself.”

So the rest of the world (except for Syria, which refused to sign the agreement) will look to China and Europe for direction on how to address limiting our carbon output.  We just ceded leadership in this to China.

Great going, Trump. 

And it's not like we are going to be able to ignore this.  Since this is a world-wide problem, the world is going to insist that we do our fair share, whether we like it or not.

Kemp expects China and the European Union to take over from the U.S. as the prime movers on climate negotiations and to pursue deals that aren’t predicated on American participation. And that could have big economic consequences for the U.S. That’s because trade penalties are one of the primary mechanisms that international treaties, including environmental agreements, use to prevent countries that don’t participate from freeloading off the work of others. For example, the Montreal Protocol, a 1989 deal to reduce emissions of ozone-depleting chemicals, forbade its signatories from trading in those chemicals with countries that weren’t part of the agreement. In a climate agreement, a similar penalty might require the U.S. to pay carbon-based taxes on any goods we sold to member countries. In other words, the U.S. can free itself from international agreements, but not from international power.

Since the Paris Agreement allowed each country to set their own targets on decreasing greenhouse gases, we traded leadership in an issue that the rest of the world believes is important, and subjected ourselves to international sanctions without our input (regardless of Trump grandiose promises of "renegotiating a better deal"), so that we can ignore targets that we decided upon and are working toward anyway.

What a deal! 

[Pete at Home]

Former Mexican President Vicente Fox also criticized Trump’s move, saying on Twitter: “He’s declaring war on the planet itself.”

Strong words for a guy whose administration required tetraethyllead in gasoline.

I'm hard-pressed to see how Trump signing an agreement that he had no hand in negotiating, and that he knows that the Senate will not ratify, would constitute US "leadership."

Americans' dislike for Kyoto (right or wrong) was one of the causes for Trump's election.

Since Methamphetamine precursor methylamine is technically a Greenhouse gas, I'd be tickled pink if China stopped selling methylamine to us and to Mexico.

There's nothing that prevents later administrations from signing in.

[TheDeamon]

Can you source that, Seriati?  What do you say to this: http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2017/06/us-rear-carbon-emissions

One other thing I find particularly funny as I think about that graph they provided of Energy related CO2 Emissions. They comment on CO2 releases tracking with economic activity so when it decreases(such as during a recession) CO2 also falls.... Except, I recall the Democrats lauding Obama for the amazingly stable economy during his tenure as President, where the economy chugged along at a fairly consistant ~2% of GPD growth for much of his presidency.

So what do we have on the Mother Jones Chart? Emissions bottom out in 2009, which corresponds to the end of the Recession Obama entered office under.

Emissions increase, for 1 year peaking in 2010 after increasing by 200 million metric tons over 2009's total.
Then in 2011 CO2 drops by about 100 million metric tons, wait I though the economy grew under Obama?
In 2012 CO2 drops by about 300 million metric tons, wait, wasn't the economy supposed to be growing that year?
in 2013 CO2 does increase by less than 200 million metric tons, I'm going to call it at 175 for this. So obviously growth was happening.
2014 saw CO2 barely increase, maybe 25 million additional metric tons that year? Strange, these numbers don't seem to be tracking with a ~2% annual increase.
Remember, we're +200 (Y2010), -100 (Y2011), -300(Y2012), +175 (Y2013), +25(Y2014)

Last I checked, 200 -100 - 300 +175 + 25 = 0 and by their chart, my numbers seem a bit off as 2014 looks to have a slightly lower emissions total than 2009 did. But didn't the economy grow between 2009 and 2014?

And for completeness, I'm not cherry picking here either. 2014 was where I stopped in this example as it was the last year on the chart with an increase in emissions.

2015 saw emissions drop to just a bit higher than 2012 levels. (Remember, the claim is Obama presided over the longest period of sustained economic growth in history)

2016 saw further emission reductions about on par with emissions growth in 2014. But of note on their own chart, in 2012 saw fewer CO2 Emissions than 2009. While 2016 saw lower emissions that 2012.

So I guess Mother Jones is now claiming that Obama presided over multiple recessions?

[Crunch]

Pictures that tell the story.

Last year there were at least 60 peer-reviewed papers published in scientific journals demonstrating that Today’s Warming Isn’t Global, Unprecedented, Or Remarkable.
 
Just within the last 5 months, 58 more papers and 80 new graphs have been published that continue to undermine the popularized conception of a slowly cooling Earth temperature history followed by a dramatic hockey-stick-shaped uptick, or an especially unusual global-scale warming during modern times.

As real science is being done, the truth is coming out.

[yossarian22c]

So I guess Mother Jones is now claiming that Obama presided over multiple recessions?

The article was written by an idiot who couldn't read their own graphs. The only marginal value was that they showed some graphs but based on the quality of the writing unless someone else produced their graphs there are probably errors in them.  It was basically a political reporter trying to write a science article (blugh).

That being said emissions do decline during recessions but more recently they have been declining for other reasons, the move from coal to natural gas, increased solar and wind power, and more efficient cars to name a few.

So our political reporter missed the biggest story in their own data, we don't have to tank our economy to cut emissions. (we really need a face-palm emoji)

[yossarian22c]

Pictures that tell the story.

Last year there were at least 60 peer-reviewed papers published in scientific journals demonstrating that Today’s Warming Isn’t Global, Unprecedented, Or Remarkable.
 
Just within the last 5 months, 58 more papers and 80 new graphs have been published that continue to undermine the popularized conception of a slowly cooling Earth temperature history followed by a dramatic hockey-stick-shaped uptick, or an especially unusual global-scale warming during modern times.

As real science is being done, the truth is coming out.

Could you pick one of those papers that makes a claim about global temperature averages. Most of the graphs looked to be regional. I don't have time to read them all but I seriously doubt the authors of the papers support the claims made by brietbart et al about the papers.

Would you be convinced if I went and found 89 graphs that showed warming in recent years in regions of my choosing?

Gcrunch before I take the time to look too deeply into your breitbart claims about climate science I'm just curious:
1) What data sets do you find reliable?
2) Do you believe in thermodynamics? (just curious if you believe that the previous .28% greenhouse gas impact caused by humans predicts 1.6 degree warming over the next 100 years)

[Crunch]

It's very strange you keep mentioning Breitbart. The link does not go to Breitbart.  Before you comment on a link or its content, I suggest you actually click the link and see it.

I find the data I linked reliable, you should too.  Asking if I "believe in thermodynamics" is a strange framing of the question, more appropriate to a discussion on religion rather than science.  I think that's telling.

Here's an example of the problem with science as a belief system, in 2014 we were to see the end of snow.  Three years later, we have the "endless winter":

It's an endless winter in the West.

Snow from the barrage of storms that pounded the western mountains over the winter is still on the ground. Many mountains in the Rockies, Sierra and Cascades are packed with at least 8 feet of snow, the National Weather Service said, creating a dream summer for skiers and snowboarders.

The Mammoth Mountain ski area in Mammoth Lakes, Calif., is seeing its "best spring conditions in decades ... and will be operating DAILY into August for one of our longest seasons in history," the resort said on its website. "When will this endless winter end? We don’t have that answer yet, but we do know that the skiing and riding is all-time right now."

The snowpack throughout the Sierra rivals, and in places exceeds, records set during the massive winter of 1982-83. As of June 6, the amount of snow on the ground in the central Sierra region was twice as much as usual, marking its biggest June snowpack in decades, the California Department of Water Resources said.

I believe in the scientific method, a theory's predictions should be validated. When evidence contradicts the theory, I believe we should question the accuracy of the theory instead if refusing to consider the evidence or fabricating evidence to support the theory.  Wouldn't you agree?

[Wayward Son]

The problem with the site is not the papers themselves, but the conclusion that the site comes to, specifically:

Succinctly, then, scientists publishing in peer-reviewed journals have increasingly affirmed that there is nothing historically unprecedented or remarkable about today’s climate when viewed in the context of long-term natural variability.

Consider the paper by Li et al:

“Contrary to the often-documented warming trend over the past few centuries, but consistent with temperature record from the northern Tibetan Plateau, our data show a gradual decreasing trend of 0.3 °C in mean annual air temperature from 1750 to 1970 CE. This result suggests a gradual cooling trend in some high altitude regions over this interval, which could provide a new explanation for the observed decreasing Asian summer monsoon. In addition, our data indicate an abruptly increased interannual-to decadal-scale temperature variations of 0.8 – 2.2 °C after 1970 CE, in terms of both magnitude and frequency, indicating that the climate system in high altitude regions would become more unstable under current global warming.”

How does a "gradual decreasing trend of 0.3 °C in mean annual air temperature from 1750 to 1970 CE" and "an abruptly increased interannual-to decadal-scale temperature variations of 0.8 – 2.2 °C after 1970 CE" support the claim that "there is nothing historically unprecedented or remarkable about today’s climate when viewed in the context of long-term natural variability?"  Seems to say the exact opposite to me.  So why did they include it?

There is a trick, used by Creationists, to take snippets from scientific papers and use them, out of context, to "prove" that there is serious questioning of basic evolutionary concepts.  I suspect that this site is using the same technique for AGW.

[ScottF]

Or, you provide what you feel is the compelling snippet and then link directly to the papers for more full analysis, as that link does. I'm pretty sure that "trick" is common practice, but trying to associate any contradictory studies to Briebart and creationists is, as crunch states, odd and quite revealing.

[Wayward Son]

Or, you provide what you feel is the compelling snippet and then link directly to the papers for more full analysis, as that link does. I'm pretty sure that "trick" is common practice, but trying to associate any contradictory studies to Briebart and creationists is, as crunch states, odd and quite revealing.

But the snippet does not support what the site is contending.  So there is no "or."  If that is the best snippet the authors of the site could find, then there is no "there" there, because that would mean that there was no suitable summary of what the paper showed.  That would be like writing a paper that shows the sky is actually green and never stating "this indicates the sky is green."  Kinda defeats the purpose, ya know?

It's not so odd, since there are quite a few similarities between creationists and AGW deniers (rather than skeptics).  Both types of deniers use common tricks to fool the readers into thinking they have proved something they have not.  If you have looked into this subject at all, I'm sure you've come across such tricks.

[TheDrake]

Breitbart, Creationists, and AGW

Now that would be an interesting Ven diagram, but kind of spurious and doesn't seem to add value to any discussion, it is a vulgar venting of "I'm better than those people" that is somewhat contrary to the values Ornery struggles to uphold.
 
The vast number of people quoting snippets of papers, speeches, and other materials without fully understanding the source material approaches equivalence to the set of all literate humans, so picking one or two of those subsets is a meta-level cherry picking snippet.

[Seriati]

2) Do you believe in thermodynamics? (just curious if you believe that the previous .28% greenhouse gas impact caused by humans predicts 1.6 degree warming over the next 100 years)

That must be the little known fourth law of Thermodynamics. Lol.

Your logic is flawed, as accepting the laws of Thermodynamics does not necessitate accepting a conclusion based on many other factors in conjunction with those laws, nor about what is potentially an open rather than a closed system.  If you want to close the system, I'm curious how you're obtaining your global temperature measurements from 3 miles below the Earth's surface?  500 feet about the ground?  And every where else within the closed volume.

[Fenring]

picking one or two of those subsets is a meta-level cherry picking snippet.

lol

[Wayward Son]

The bottom line remains: do those 80 graphs in 58 new papers support their contention, or did they just list them to make their list look impressive.

The one summary I chose appears not to.  In fact, it appears to contradict their contention.

[Crunch]

The bottom line remains: do those 80 graphs in 58 new papers support their contention, or did they just list them to make their list look impressive.

The one summary I chose appears not to.  In fact, it appears to contradict their contention.

Let's assume you understood the one summary you chose and that, very hypothetically, you are correct (I say 'very' because the fact you don't understand it does not mean it's wrong).  At this point, the best we can say of your analysis is that it's a fallacy of composition.  That's not much to work with.

[TheDeamon]

The bottom line remains: do those 80 graphs in 58 new papers support their contention, or did they just list them to make their list look impressive.

The one summary I chose appears not to.  In fact, it appears to contradict their contention.

Let's assume you understood the one summary you chose and that, very hypothetically, you are correct (I say 'very' because the fact you don't understand it does not mean it's wrong).  At this point, the best we can say of your analysis is that it's a fallacy of composition.  That's not much to work with.

Also that study may have been included within the context of yet another study they linked to that looked at paleo-climate in order to assert its "nothing historically unprecedented" claim. If there is a paleo-climate example of  temperature change happening that was faster than what the other report indicates is currently happening, then it helps support their position, rather than debunk it. (And IIRC, there are paleo-climate examples of such things happening, several degree (C) shifts happening over the course of a century or less)

Nothing says each individual study on its own has to support their position when taken on their own.

[TheDrake]

The obvious answer is.... These graphs and analyses are stupid. You'd have to correct for a bunch of other factors to try to explain the behaviour of such a complex system. It's like the President vs. GDP graphs, which might as well be Number of Miley Cyrus albums sold vs highway deaths. Although....

Thermodynamics, by the way, gratefully assures us that such pontifications will dissolve under the relentless increase of entropy.

[Seriati]

The bottom line remains: do those 80 graphs in 58 new papers support their contention, or did they just list them to make their list look impressive.

Lists are not meta-analysis.  I would always assume they suffer from cherry picking and bias in selection.  That said, they can still raise interesting questions.

[yossarian22c]

2) Do you believe in thermodynamics? (just curious if you believe that the previous .28% greenhouse gas impact caused by humans predicts 1.6 degree warming over the next 100 years)

That must be the little known fourth law of Thermodynamics. Lol.

Fair point, the more accurate statement would be that the .28% increase in the greenhouse effect would result in the Earth retaining enough additional energy to heat the atmosphere by 1.6 degrees. The distribution of that heat in the Earth is not addressed.

Your logic is flawed, as accepting the laws of Thermodynamics does not necessitate accepting a conclusion based on many other factors in conjunction with those laws, nor about what is potentially an open rather than a closed system.  If you want to close the system, I'm curious how you're obtaining your global temperature measurements from 3 miles below the Earth's surface?  500 feet about the ground?  And every where else within the closed volume.

I was really just looking at input/output of the Earth system. I did apply all of the additional heat to the atmosphere which I just admitted is a likely error (but one I acknowledged in the original post). 

The computation was really to shine a light on the point that even if the human contribution to green house gas emissions is just .28% (as claimed by Gcrunch) that still is a massive amount of heat over 100 years. So a .28% increase can very plausibly cause warming at least in the 1-2 degree C per century.  It really isn't a good substitute for a real climate model but is a simple and reasonable enough calculation to show that effects on the scale predicted are plausible.

[yossarian22c]

It's very strange you keep mentioning Breitbart. The link does not go to Breitbart.  Before you comment on a link or its content, I suggest you actually click the link and see it.

And I did enough to know that Breitbart was pushing this particular piece of propaganda.

I find the data I linked reliable, you should too.  Asking if I "believe in thermodynamics" is a strange framing of the question, more appropriate to a discussion on religion rather than science.  I think that's telling.

Your correct thermodynamics doesn't give a **** if you believe in it or not.  The better question is do you find arguments using thermodynamics persuasive.

[paraphrase, lots of stuff about snow pack and winter]
Wouldn't you agree?

I don't really care about what about a journalist writing a report based on one possible scenario wrote. If you go back to the original scientific paper (if there was one) you probably will see a large number of scenarios put forth with varying degrees of uncertainty. So that impacts my conclusions about actual science very little.

But yes I do agree that science should put forth hypothesis, measure data, create a model, refine and repeat. I just don't reject out of hand any study/data that shows a conclusion I don't like.

In terms of data sets, how do you feel about the GISS data set?

[Seriati]

Fair point, the more accurate statement would be that the .28% increase in the greenhouse effect would result in the Earth retaining enough additional energy to heat the atmosphere by 1.6 degrees. The distribution of that heat in the Earth is not addressed.

You still need a couple qualifiers, "all other things being equal," and "assuming the Earth's climate is sufficiently like a closed system for the analysis to have merit," neither of which is self evidently true, though the latter strikes me as more likely than the former.

The computation was really to shine a light on the point that even if the human contribution to green house gas emissions is just .28% (as claimed by Gcrunch) that still is a massive amount of heat over 100 years. So a .28% increase can very plausibly cause warming at least in the 1-2 degree C per century.  It really isn't a good substitute for a real climate model but is a simple and reasonable enough calculation to show that effects on the scale predicted are plausible.

Unless I misunderstand him, his point is that the 0.28% is the aggregate, not the incremental.  Your argument is more like a 0.005% change that has a lower impact at this point on the curve (and is approaching essentially a zero additional impact point).

I'm also troubled by the idea that for instance the Paris Accord would result in an aggregate decrease in the first place.  Per it's terms it far more likely that the 0.28 is going to 0.31 than to 0.27.

[yossarian22c]

I'm also troubled by the idea that for instance the Paris Accord would result in an aggregate decrease in the first place.  Per it's terms it far more likely that the 0.28 is going to 0.31 than to 0.27.

I don't think the initial goals set forth in Paris would result in an aggregate decrease (and I can't remember reading any claims it would). I'm guessing it would be more like .28 goes to .3 instead of .32. I think the stated goal was to limit warming to less than either 2 or 3 degrees C, not to completely stop warming.

[yossarian22c]

Unless I misunderstand him, his point is that the 0.28% is the aggregate, not the incremental. 

I understood it to mean that .28% was small and insignificant. I read it as humans only had a .28% impact on greenhouse warming and something that small doesn't matter. My point was that .28% while a small number can still impact climate.

[yossarian22c]

I'm also troubled by the idea that for instance the Paris Accord would result in an aggregate decrease in the first place.  Per it's terms it far more likely that the 0.28 is going to 0.31 than to 0.27.

I don't think the initial goals set forth in Paris would result in an aggregate decrease (and I can't remember reading any claims it would). I'm guessing it would be more like .28 goes to .3 instead of .32. I think the stated goal was to limit warming to less than either 2 or 3 degrees C, not to completely stop warming.

Those numbers should probably be more on the scale of .28 goes to .35 +- .05 instead of .45 +- .1.

[Wayward Son]

Except you don't get to 3 degrees centigrade just from carbon emissions you have to have a runaway feedback loop to get there.

Sorry, but you are wrong.  These are the estimates without a "runaway feedback loop." Here is a chart from a class on climate change that I took*:

CO2 (ppm)       Average Temp Increase (Equilibrium)
340 (320-380)                 1 degree C
540 (440-760)                 3 degree C
840 (620-1490)               5 degree C

No runaway feedback loop.

Lol.  If you have a chart that lays it out for you like that, at best it was written for grade school consumers, and is more propaganda than science.  Why don't you go back and find the source and then we can discuss it.

Sorry to take so long, Seriati, but I finally found my copy of the presentation.

The chart was derived from the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (AR4), Synthesis Report, paragraph 5.4.  The temperature increases are the "best estimates" at the time of the report.  Also note that they are the "equilibrium" temperatures.  The full effects of CO2 in the atmosphere do not appear for about a decade after the concentration is reached.  It takes a few years for the temperature changes to reach equilibrium.

Not quite for "grade school consumers," unless you went to a much better grade school than I did.

[Seriati]

Those numbers should probably be more on the scale of .28 goes to .35 +- .05 instead of .45 +- .1.

But that's ignoring the point.  If we're at a point of diminishing returns .45 may not even possible to hit, it would certainly require a multiple of current carbon that is greater than a 10x increase.

[yossarian22c]

Those numbers should probably be more on the scale of .28 goes to .35 +- .05 instead of .45 +- .1.

But that's ignoring the point.  If we're at a point of diminishing returns .45 may not even possible to hit, it would certainly require a multiple of current carbon that is greater than a 10x increase.

Seriously logarithmic does not mean almost zero. The approximately 50% increase in carbon lead to a .28 increase in the greenhouse effect. To get another .28 increase takes another 50% increase from today's levels.  So the .45 would be approximately 600ppm of CO2.  600ppm is in the "we do nothing" range for projections of carbon levels in the future so while certainly a rough approximation it is reasonable.

[ScottF]

I found this very interesting. Apparently the global average surface temperature (GAST) calculations have been routinely adjusted/manipulated based on models (i.e people) that actually remove previously existing cyclical temperature patterns from the data.

This peer reviewed study seems to cast a lot of doubt as to the validity of the GAST data. Of course if the GAST baselines are questionable, it clearly calls into question findings from GAST reliant studies from NOAA, NASA and HADLEY (who all use the same GAST baselines).

"The conclusive findings of this research are that the three GAST data sets are not a valid representation of reality. In fact, the magnitude of their historical data adjustments, that removed their cyclical temperature patterns, are totally inconsistent with published and credible U.S. and other temperature data. Thus, it is impossible to conclude from the three published GAST data sets that recent years have been the warmest ever –despite current claims of record setting warming."

https://thsresearch.files.wordpress.com/2017/05/ef-gast-data-research-report-062717.pdf

[Crunch]

Those numbers should probably be more on the scale of .28 goes to .35 +- .05 instead of .45 +- .1.

But that's ignoring the point.  If we're at a point of diminishing returns .45 may not even possible to hit, it would certainly require a multiple of current carbon that is greater than a 10x increase.

Seriously logarithmic does not mean almost zero. The approximately 50% increase in carbon lead to a .28 increase in the greenhouse effect. To get another .28 increase takes another 50% increase from today's levels.  So the .45 would be approximately 600ppm of CO2.  600ppm is in the "we do nothing" range for projections of carbon levels in the future so while certainly a rough approximation it is reasonable.

Youre not analyzing this correctly. It is actually mathematically impossible to get where youre talking about going. Over 87% of all possible effect ftom CO2 has already occurred.  If we went to 600ppm, or even 1200ppm, we would see a marginal increase and the effect at both levels would be effectively the same. CO2 is strongly logarithmic, over 50% of its effect is realized in going from 0 to 20 ppm (thats twenty). Its effect degrades quickly after that .

[Crunch]

The conclusive findings of this research are that the three GAST data sets are not a valid representation of reality. In fact, the magnitude of their historical data adjustments, that removed their cyclical temperature patterns, are totally inconsistent with published and credible U.S. and other temperature data. Thus, it is impossible to conclude from the three published GAST data sets that recent years have been the warmest ever –despite current claims of record setting warming."

I've come to believe that a great many of the conclusions from warming theory have a similar background.