here comes the next ice age

[TheDeamon]

Of those 5 options, they only cover one of them. As per their own disclaimer they even say "nearly half" of the warming seen in their models comes from how they're modeling water vapor. But don't worry, while their confidence on modeling "micro-scale" water vapor is poor, they are quite confident in their macro-scale models.

[DonaldD]

Yes, and based on their analysis, the current expectation is that the effects will not be significant.  I know that analysis doesn't mesh with your beliefs, but it's certainly not evidence of dishonesty.

[Fenring]

On the topic of public awareness of facts, I just came across a cute thread about the original of the 1980's game Where in the World Is Carmen Sandiego, which PBS claimed was created as a result of surveys showing that average Americans had a distinct lack of knowledge of geography. Then I quickly skimmed a 2006 National Geographic survey of geographic literacy among Americans, which you can find here:

http://www.geography.unt.edu/~rice/geog3100/3100handouts/nationalgeographicpoll.pdf

Pinpointing North America on a Map Is a Breeze

Nearly all (94%) young Americans can find the United States on the world map, and Canada
(92%) and Mexico (88%) are nearly as familiar. Wide majorities can find bordering bodies of
water including the Pacific Ocean (79%) and the Gulf of Mexico (75%). Trends from 2002
suggest that more young adults can pick out Canada and Mexico (with few signs of change for
other countries). However, it is concerning that one in ten of those with up to a high school
education cannot identify the U.S., and one in five cannot find the Pacific Ocean.

Places Beyond North America are Less Often Identified

Moving further abroad, three-quarters of young Americans can spot the distinctive landmass of
Australia (74%), and over half (56%) identify Brazil, the largest country by far in South America.
However, majorities cannot find the U.S.ís closest ally, the United Kingdom (36% correct, 65%
incorrect), nor can they find Egypt (30% vs. 70%) or Indonesia (25% vs. 75%).

You read that correctly: 6% could not identify the U.S. on a map, while 21% could not locate the Pacific Ocean on a map. I'm not saying this to be insulting to anyhow, but realistically if this is the literacy rate regarding the location of one of the two oceans bookending the U.S. then what is really the purpose of asking the general public what their 'opinion' on AGW is? The answer is that most people will have no real knowledge about it, and so any opinions will be based on something other than knowledge. But in case it sounds like I'm saying that therefore these people should acknowledge their betters and trust what the scientists say, why would they even have the knowledge to do that (assuming they should)?

To take a parallel example from an earlier message of mine, imagine putting to the public the notion of general relativity and requiring them to make a decision about whether there is empirical evidence supporting Einstein's theory. Or even worse, imagine putting to the public that they need to acknowledge the Copenhagen Interpretation of QM in order to justify a policy shift towards funding for theoretical research. People are going to provide all sorts of answers about what they "think" about the non-locality of point particles and wave-function collapse, and I think there would be no point in chastising them for 'disagreeing' with experts if the answer they give back isn't the mainstream physics view. That's what you get for polling them about that in the first place! Many of these are the same people who can't find the U.S. on a map. So like I said earlier, it strikes me as being a bizarre phenomenon that AGW has become a publicly debated topic when, by and large, it's not a topic the public can actually be informed about in a meaningful way. I've read many articles about it and you know what? I would still count my comprehension of planetary climate as approximately zero.

The closest example historically that I can think of where what should have been a laboratory subject became a public one was the case of the theory of evolution. And that's for obvious reasons: it had implications regarding one's entire worldview, the place of humanity in nature, how religious narratives squared with reality, and many other things of interest on a daily basis. Now, most people still probably can't say much about evolution to this day - and it's a theory 150 years old - but at least it's mostly been accepted as reasonable, if not proven exactly. Although much resistance to evolution wasn't based on reasoned objection, much of it was, and it likely would have been unfair for even a scientist in the 1920's to be called out for not embracing it wholesale, no less the general public. But given how long it took popular culture to accept it in America, it strikes me that AGW has been accepted by roughly half the country remarkably quickly.

This was all to just reiterate that overall it's quite unusual for the public to be polled about something scientific and to be held to task for their answers. In general these matters should never be put before them in the first place in the form of a question. I can see the appeal of that here, mind you: if special interests try to squash research results for monetary reasons, someone needs to form a coalition to oppose their opposition. But then doesn't the answer come back as obvious: the way to combat this money lobby isn't by throwing facts at them, but by eliminating lobbyists as being relevant. Because you may beat them down eventually in climate science but then they'll oppose the next research area that harms their business, whatever that is. The general goal of eliminating money interests from politics still seems to me to be of utmost priority and the failure to address it hurts so many areas it's ridiculous. If liberals want to see the AGW matter cleared up then they should push for their party to divest themselves of special interests immediately. Cleanup starts at home.

[LetterRip]

Always be skeptical of polls where there is no incentive to answer honestly or put effort in.  "Mischevious Responders" (deliberately wrong answers) are quite common - and likely exceed the 6% threshold, as do kids who could do something but don't out of laziness ("Insufficient Effort Responders").

[Fenring]

Always be skeptical of polls where there is no incentive to answer honestly or put effort in.  "Mischevious Responders" (deliberately wrong answers) are quite common - and likely exceed the 6% threshold, as do kids who could do something but don't out of laziness ("Insufficient Effort Responders").

I believe that. But then again if you check out Reddit threads about "something crazy I believed until I was an adult" it might make a believer out of you at how bad someone's information can be.

[TheDrake]

Don't look at me. I don't trust the general population to answer anything correctly. Whether you study risk aversion, anchor bias, behavioral economics, eyewitness accounts, or dozens of other topics you come to realize that the average person should not be trusted with anything important.

Crap, that's why scientists figured out they had to utilize double blind experiments because they couldn't even trust themselves not to subconsciously fudge the numbers. If I were to pick one problem with climate science, it would be that unavoidable reinforcement that they have the ability to alter their model during the experiments - or at least in subsequent experiments. Even without an ulterior motive of sweet sweet grant money, which I find ridiculous, they are going to be biased by their own hypothesis. Of course that goes triple for the climate deniers, who never really run their own experiments, they just hunt down uncertainty in the other guy's work based on their bias that there isn't any significant climate change happening.

Didn't get the distribution you wanted from 10 iterations? p-hack it and keep running 10 more until it goes your way. Again, many deniers are way worse about this, cherry picking years to demonstrate how flat temperature was. Or throwing out some data sets and focusing on just one.

That's why my push for environmental reform would focus on immediate pollution. We have plenty of localized geographic data to show the effect of various energy production on asthma, for example. Take a drive through, say, Salt Lake City or Beijing and try to deny the impact of air pollutants.

[LetterRip]

TheDrake,

If I were to pick one problem with climate science, it would be that unavoidable reinforcement that they have the ability to alter their model during the experiments - or at least in subsequent experiments.

models are essentially thermodynamics simulations constrained by observations.  The primary usage (and motivation for development) of the models are for weather predictions and short term climate - long term climate predictions are a nice side benefit - we would spend essentially the exact same money and do the same research even if we had zero interest in long term climate prediction because a few hours earlier hurricane warning, or knowing rain and wind and temperature forecasts a few days earliers is worth hundereds of billions of dollars.  So the absurd belief that it is for the 'sweet grant money' - is just bizarre.  The people who think you can try and bias the simulations have zero understanding of what is going on - there are a few important constants that have some slight wiggle room - everything else is convection, conduction, radiation, evaporation, and condensation.  For longer term simulations there is also assumptions about population changes, energy usage, and land use changes.

[TheDrake]

So the absurd belief that it is for the 'sweet grant money' - is just bizarre.

Yes, me too. "Even without an ulterior motive of sweet sweet grant money, which I find ridiculous"


I'm not delving into a 3 year quest to fully understand the models or pick away at the assertion that all the models are derived from proven physics. I know my own limitations. I'm just saying that there are always theoretical thumb on scale considerations to always be mindful of. Even Einstein cooked up the cosmological constant out of thin air to make the universe fit his expectation.

[yossarian22c]

So the Northwest passage is now open for commercial shipping.

https://www.npr.org/2018/08/22/640679831/worlds-largest-shipping-company-heads-into-arctic-as-global-warming-opens-the-wa

Can we take this as evidence the arctic is warming?

[rightleft22]

is the debate about the question of global warming or the question as to if human activity is a factor in warming?

[DonaldD]

Global warming itself is not happening.  But even if it is, it's less than claimed and not caused by humans.  But even if it is caused by humans, warming is actually a good thing, so we need more of it.

Seriously, there are camps claiming all of those things, with small numbers migrating from the left to the right.

[Fenring]

Global warming itself is not happening.  But even if it is, it's less than claimed and not caused by humans.  But even if it is caused by humans, warming is actually a good thing, so we need more of it.

Seriously, there are camps claiming all of those things, with small numbers migrating from the left to the right.

Don't forget the "it's being caused by humans and is bad, but there's no feasible way to make it stop" group, which I think is probably the most reasonable objection of them all. Once there is a definite plan that will certainly work on the table, and it's rejected anyhow, I think that will be the point where you can call it case closed on people wanting the planet to suffer.

[DonaldD]

Them too.  Of course, there is a huge difference between those saying "there is no feasible way to make it stop" and those saying "I am unaware of any feasible way to make it stop".  The former group often uses that unfounded certainty as an argument against everything, including research, unfortunately.

[rightleft22]

And the group "I am unaware of any feasible way to make it stop" and refuse to contemplate any economic sacrifice 

[Wayward Son]

The irony, of course, is that there is one obvious "feasible" way of stopping global warming, and it is the default method if we do nothing.

Reduce the human population until we are not significantly adding CO2 to the atmosphere.

In about 100 years or so, we will have reduced our CO2 output to about what the natural systems can absorb.  The only question is whether we are going to do it deliberately, while trying to maintain our standard of living, or by the chaotic reduction in our standard of living and total population by the natural processes of war, famine and pestilence.

The only choice we have is how we want to do it.

[Fenring]

In about 100 years or so, we will have reduced our CO2 output to about what the natural systems can absorb.  The only question is whether we are going to do it deliberately, while trying to maintain our standard of living, or by the chaotic reduction in our standard of living and total population by the natural processes of war, famine and pestilence.

The only choice we have is how we want to do it.

Our ability to predict what technology in 20, 50, or 100 years will be like is pitiful. It could range anywhere from 'somewhat like now but with better computers' to flying saucers, cold fusion, and quantum teleportation communications. In 20 years Skynet might be in charge and the matter would be out of our hands anyhow. My personal guess is that technological means will present themselves to help deal with the issue without the need for economic austerity programs. Switching over the clean energy sounds like it will happen in not too long, and I'm also hopeful about artificial means of withdrawing carbon from the atmosphere.

[TheDrake]

And the "why should we stop it if other countries are worse and we'll lose business to them?"

I also think that on the other side, the "no turning back" arguments are unfounded. Everything from algae to atmospheric scrubbers to nuclear winter could reverse the trend.

[TheDeamon]

On the topic of public awareness of facts, I just came across a cute thread about the original of the 1980's game Where in the World Is Carmen Sandiego, which PBS claimed was created as a result of surveys showing that average Americans had a distinct lack of knowledge of geography.

A few things to consider in this era of "specialization" and a bazillion different things that can clutter your attention outside of the "Traditional knowledge tests" or centuries past.

Don't confuse lack of "general knowledge" about something with "lack of intelligence." That said, a lot of that information is disheartening all the same.

But when you also consider a sizeable portion of the American population(I'd bet it is more than 6%) has never traveled much further than 60 miles from where they live right now, it puts that lack of Geographical knowledge into a bit of perspective. It isn't relevant to their life, so they don't bother with it, which means even if they DID know it at some point, that information has since been allowed to erode and disappear over time.

Arguably, it probably could be said for that particular subset, given it almost takes effort to NOT travel more than ~100 miles from your place of birth in this day and age(and there is probably another subset that only traveled further than that because they were "forced" to due to School/work/parents, but never on their own initiative). They probably just simply never were that interested in travel to begin with, and as such their interest in things beyond their immediate vicinity has always been rather low from the start, so geography probably wasn't one of their favored subjects.

Which likewise is a VERY common manifestation of issue present in politics. Most Americans are disenfranchised, they may still vote, but don't really think their vote matters. As such, they may have opinions, but at the same time, a lot of comes back to that Geography example: Most political issues aren't relevant to their daily life, so they largely ignore it as background noise aside from the occasional, often anecdotal, event which happens to "stick out" for them personally.

That anecdotal encounter with a media report may later turn out to be have been "bad information." But by then it's too late, they've noticed it, it's been internalized, and they're not paying enough attention to learn differently anyhow.

[TheDeamon]

And the "why should we stop it if other countries are worse and we'll lose business to them?"

I also think that on the other side, the "no turning back" arguments are unfounded. Everything from algae to atmospheric scrubbers to nuclear winter could reverse the trend.

I'm more part of the above mentioned group.

Why take measures to ostensibly "make it less bad" when "less bad" is likely to make a "noise level" change in the outcome, if any at all, according to their own models. And that doesn't even touch on the likelyhood that in the meantime, that "lost economic growth" from increased costs using green energy sources is going to present in the form of "Economic activity moved to third world nations, causing an even larger explosion of economic activity in those areas, and consequently, even more CO2 emissions than were prevented in those '1st world nations' as a consequence of doing so."

This also ignores the boogeyman that they keep bringing up that it is going to take centuries for natural processes to bring CO2 levels back down to even the level seen in 1900. Or that from already emitted CO2, their models predict increasing levels of warming over the next century. And that's under the "Human CO2 emissions reach 0 tons/year starting tomorrow" scenario.

Which then begs the question, if we're going to still be warming, and the climates going to keep changing, how are we going to pay for all the things that'll need to be done to adjust to those changing conditions? We're going to need strong economies to make that work without leaving a LOT of people destitute in the process that didn't need to otherwise.

Basically, I'm okay with researching more efficient and cleaner power sources. I'm okay with investing in their deployment. I'm not okay with mandating their use if doing so is likely to result in somebody deciding to shift more production capacity to India or Kenya where they'll just build more (non-CCS) Coal Fired Power Plants to meet the increasing demand for power.

That's just shooting yourself in the foot.

[TheDrake]

So you'd be willing to accept Beijing levels of air quality as long as it meant we could compete better with them for manufacturing? Or the environmental damage caused to extract ever more fossil fuels? Apart from any climate change there are tons of reasons to ditch burning things for power.

And don't look now, but one of the biggest polluting and manufacturing countries, China, is targeting 20% clean energy by 2030. The US is currently at 10%, and I don't believe we have any target. They are building a 100 square mile floating solar farm. Suckers.

[TheDeamon]

And don't look now, but one of the biggest polluting and manufacturing countries, China, is targeting 20% clean energy by 2030. The US is currently at 10%, and I don't believe we have any target. They are building a 100 square mile floating solar farm. Suckers.

Clarification needed: Define "Clean Energy" in this context? Do you mean non-CO2 emitting, or do you mean "renewable" instead? Because I'm pretty sure that Nuclear IS on the table for China's goal of 20% "Clean Energy" by 2030.

And if Nuclear Reactors are on the table, 20% of the power grid being "Clean" is almost insultingly easy. In fact, if you include Nuclear in the "Clean energy" category, the US already exceeds that goal, as it still comprises about 20% of our electrical power generation capacity as of 2017. Hydroelectricity also provides another 7% of our power generation. So that 27% "Clean Energy" even before we get into wind, solar, and biofuels.

edit:
https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/index.php?page=electricity_in_the_united_states

17% of US power generation was accomplished by "renewable energy sources" in addition to 20% from Nuclear Power. So depending on how you want to define "Clean Energy" We're arguably at 37% already. 

[DonaldD]

China, is targeting 20% clean energy by 2030

According to Wikipedia, renewables, if you include hydro, and nuclear, already make up 25% of Chin's current electricity generation... maybe that's inclusive of transportation?  I think there's an apples to oranges issue somewhere.

China uses nuclear to generate only about 5% today, so there's plenty of room for growth there. Where they also have room for growth is in per capita use, as US residents each use (on average, including industry) two and a half times the amount of electricity as each resident of China; since China's goal is energy independence, and the country is fossil-fuel poor, it's going to be forced to get creative with renewables.

[TheDrake]

From the original article:

To help reach the 2030 goal, China is betting big on renewable energy. It pledged in January to invest 2.5 trillion yuan ($367 billion) in renewable power generation -- solar, wind, hydro and nuclear -- by 2020.

So nuclear is part of the plan.

There's a question here about total energy versus electricity generation as well. Nuclear is 20% of electricity, but if you include transportation, cooking, and home heating it is obviously less.

Renewable energy resources currently supply about 11% of total U.S. energy consumption.

EIA Total energy

Nuclear is 9%, so yes it seems I did mix some apples with oranges declaring 10%, so thanks for the clarification.

The original point is that China is making huge moves toward non CO2 emitting energy sources. They don't seem very concerned that it will gut their manufacturing, in fact many of their strategic moves are designed to move themselves out of manufacturing and into other economic sectors. They don't want to build stuff, they want to own stuff.

[Wayward Son]

Or that from already emitted CO2, their models predict increasing levels of warming over the next century. And that's under the "Human CO2 emissions reach 0 tons/year starting tomorrow" scenario.

IIRC, it more of a matter of years rather than decades for the released CO2 to cause it's maximum warming.  I think you're exaggerating the effects a bit.

More importantly, though, it means that any CO2 we add to the atmosphere now will increase the amount of warming we expect.  Yes, we are stuck with even more warming than what we are experiencing now from the current level of CO2 in the atmosphere, but putting more CO2 simply means that we are ensuring it will be even warmer than what we have made it so far.

I mean, if we can all agree that hotter summers, melting ice caps, rising sea levels, increased wildfires, increased droughts, increased flooding, ocean acidification and the rest are bad, I would think that we could also agree that making them all worse is even worse, regardless of the reasons.

[TheDrake]

I mean, if we can all agree that hotter summers, melting ice caps, rising sea levels, increased wildfires, increased droughts, increased flooding, ocean acidification and the rest are bad, I would think that we could also agree that making them all worse is even worse, regardless of the reasons.

I think that depends. If your household budget is in deficit and your credit cards are maxed out, you won't be able to solve it by skipping lunches, in fact that may be counterproductive.

I think committing to a partial or even symbolic solution is not very smart. For instance, we could go on a rampage and track down every last incandescent light bulb and replace them immediately with LED. What a good move right? Except that this would make no material difference whatsoever. Plus, you're not spending the money on something more creative or effective. Plus, you're spending CO2 on their manufacture and shipping.

Nobody is making that particular proposal, of course, nobody is that stupid. It is a straw man only to make the point that making something slightly better doesn't do anything, so every proposal must be subject to a cost/benefit analysis.

This is why I'm begging the people trying to make policy for climate change to focus instead on the co-benefits that share similar solutions. This article is a good example of what every single person who wants CO2 reduced should be talking about as the primary drive.

There are large, and immediate, economic co-benefits from reducing CO2 emissions, by far the largest of which is the mitigation of air pollution which is now a major challenge for cities across the world.

Fossil fuel combustion emits both CO2 and particles less than 2.5 microns in size (‘PM2.5’), which is the major contributor to deaths from air pollution. The economic cost associated with mortality from air pollution is large, amounting to several % of GDP for many countries.

In China for example, the economic cost of the 1.23 million air pollution related deaths in 2010 amounted to 9.7-13.2 % of China’s GDP. In the US the cost of 103,027 air pollution deaths was equivalent to 3.2 – 4.6% US GDP.  In the UK 23,036 air pollution deaths cost the equivalent of 4.6-7.1 % of GDP.

Substituting low-carbon energy for fossil fuels would help to mitigate this impact and create large benefits.

The graph below plots the range of benefits from this substitution in 15 large CO2 emitters in 2010 for every tonne of CO2 abated. It shows the range of avoided PM2.5 damages per tonne of CO2 abated in US$ 2010.

article

In other words, climate change could be completely out of our control, not caused by humans, not related to carbon --- and it would still be an economic benefit (not cost) to reduce CO2.

[Wayward Son]

That sounds like David Brin's TWOTDA--Things We Ought To Do Anyway.  That should be the baseline for negotiations on what to do about climate change.

Of course, that is a bridge too far right now for deniers.

The thing is about doing token actions which have no major effect is if we can't agree on the easy, token actions, how will we ever agree on the hard solutions? 

If allowing each country to determine its own goals to reducing CO2 (the Paris Accords) is too onerous, how will we agree on setting the absolute limits we will need to to finally address the problem?

Getting countries to agree to on token actions has the benefit of getting them to agree.  Once that hurdle is overcome, then we can work on the actual steps necessary to make the necessary limits to CO2 emissions.  But if we don't take that first step, then it is that much harder to take the next.

And if we refuse to take even the token steps because they are not effective, then we are empowering those who don't want to take any steps at all.

[Greg Davidson]

One more reference to Tom Schelling, for no reason whatsoever, except I read it last night in the alumni magazine:

He put in his will that his Nobel Prize medal was to be sold and the proceeds donated to the Southern Poverty law Center, which I think is pretty cool.

[Seriati]

Always be skeptical of polls where there is no incentive to answer honestly or put effort in.  "Mischevious Responders" (deliberately wrong answers) are quite common - and likely exceed the 6% threshold, as do kids who could do something but don't out of laziness ("Insufficient Effort Responders").

How about, always be skeptical of consensuses where a wrong answer or inadequately supporting a "consensus" can get you ostracized and your grant money deleted.  Lol.

[Seriati]

Global warming itself is not happening.  But even if it is, it's less than claimed and not caused by humans.  But even if it is caused by humans, warming is actually a good thing, so we need more of it.

Seriously, there are camps claiming all of those things, with small numbers migrating from the left to the right.

Or how about the, it's a settled scientific fact that humans are causing global warming, therefore we need to enter into massive economic redistributions that actually end up harming the environment group.

[DonaldD]

How about, always be skeptical of consensuses where a wrong answer or inadequately supporting a "consensus" can get you ostracized and your grant money deleted

It's not just hard to believe, but is counter-factual, to claim that petroleum companies would stop funding 'research' that disputed the "consensus".

[Seriati]

According to one source I looked at, Exxon as an example had it's scientists publish research fully supporting human caused climate change, but it also provided millions to groups that disputed climate change (estimates vary, but it looks like it was less than $10million a year).  Meanwhile, the US government is spending something like $2.5 billion on research. 

So you have a "little" point here, but for a climate researcher (Exxon's contrarian funding, for example, funds advocacy groups not necessarily research groups) you really can't rely on petro dollars to support  you.  Not to mention, you'd immediately be deemed "discredited" no matter how rational a case you make for going against the consensus.

So it's not counter-factual to say risking funding sources that are multiple orders of magnitude greater is not a real consequence.

[DonaldD]

This is the same US government where Republicans control the legislature and the executive branches, and whose members continue to this day calling climate science a hoax, right?  Why do you simply assume all of that money is earmarked to support one line of investigation only?  Especially since you go to great lengths to rationalize the petro dollars, even going so far as to ignore that they hid their research that supported AGW for decades...

[Seriati]

DonaldD, why don't you point out the major university or major government grant recipient that is publishing research that opposes AGW.  There's no reason the US government could not do so, but it's really not doing so, which again largely moots the point you are making.

[DonaldD]

Actually, there is another interpretation of the reasons why, but I'll leave it as an exercise for the class.

[Wayward Son]

Always be skeptical of polls where there is no incentive to answer honestly or put effort in.  "Mischevious Responders" (deliberately wrong answers) are quite common - and likely exceed the 6% threshold, as do kids who could do something but don't out of laziness ("Insufficient Effort Responders").

How about, always be skeptical of consensuses where a wrong answer or inadequately supporting a "consensus" can get you ostracized and your grant money deleted.  Lol.

And yet it still gets hotter...

You have to wonder why the climate is so darned concerned with that grant money.

[yossarian22c]

https://www.npr.org/2018/12/16/676913451/deep-seagrass-bed-could-stall-climate-change-if-climate-change-doesnt-kill-it-fi

For Pete. Addressing the legitimate concern that conservation efforts don't get enough attention in the climate change debate.

[Seriati]

Some interesting links for those interested in reducing carbon, and the impact of the Paris treaty.  Unfortunately the first link, doesn't track the EU as a whole.  Early reports are that their carbon emissions are up this year, though they are still down from 1990 (the US is close to even to 1990, but down from it's mark in 2000.

http://edgar.jrc.ec.europa.eu/overview.php?v=CO2andGHG1970-2016&sort=des8

Interesting to me that China appears flat the last couple years, when the Paris accord and the international reports seem to think it would still be going up.  Worth checking out (especially, if there's any self reporting involved by the Chinese).  Chinese pollution has more than swallowed all gains from first world reductions.  And even if the US did a 10% reduction from 1990 levels, that would be completely swallowed by a 5% increase in China.

Here's a light analysis saying China's emissions were really growing in 2018.  It also reminded us that the Chinese "commitment" in Paris was to try to hit peak emissions in 2030, which means substantially more carbon in the world.

https://thehill.com/opinion/energy-environment/390741-chinas-rising-emissions-prove-trump-right-on-paris-agreement

Here's a link that demonstrates why I don't trust Politifact.

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2018/jun/18/environmental-protection-agency/are-greenhouse-emissions-down-under-donald-trump-e/

While there's little about the analysis that I find troubling, the top line rating is "half true" on this statement:

Are greenhouse emissions down under Donald Trump, as EPA says?

Yet, here's their "money" quote on the analysis:

In other words, emissions declined under Trump, but the rate of decline slowed compared to the late Obama era.

So "in other words" they concluded the statement was actually true but could not seem to limit themselves to the facts.  They could just as easily have said, True, but rate is declining.  They also ignored that the economy and manufacturing both picked up in the Trump era, which means those slight declines are against a back drop of more productivity (which almost certainly means an improvement in the rate of pollution versus production - something that should be celebrated not derided).

I rate Politifact's decision to manipulate the context as intentionally misleading.

[rightleft22]

I like how the Concrete companies are working on finding better way to make Concrete and use Carbon. I’m also encouraged by what I’m hearing about break through's in battery design and energy storage. I think that is going to be the key.

The economy of the future is not going to be driven by Oil. We can fear that however its going to happen. I don’t even think its about being Green or climate change but that it makes economic sense to invest in doing things better when we know better. In the short-term innovation may be experienced as costing us however in the long term it could be a win win for the economy and environment.

I wonder if the fear of change is due to the fear of employment and that the future is going to require everyone to be adaptable.  My job already does. I could be angry and demand to bring back the good old days of type writers and land line phones, but I’d be out of work… and bitter.

[DonaldD]

Speaking of context:

2016 - CO2 emissions - metric tonnes per capita
China 7.45
US 15.56

So, every person in China could effectively double their CO2 emissions and still have less of an effect on global climate than the average resident of the USA.

[yossarian22c]

The economy of the future is not going to be driven by Oil. We can fear that however its going to happen. I don’t even think its about being Green or climate change but that it makes economic sense to invest in doing things better when we know better. In the short-term innovation may be experienced as costing us however in the long term it could be a win win for the economy and environment.

I agree, I just wish we didn't have such a large subset of the population who wants to cling to it for as long as possible. It only enriches Saudi Arabia, Russia, Venezuela, and Iran. Probably the single largest thing we could do to undermine those countries internationally would be to poor billions of dollars into batteries, electric cars, smart grids, and alternative energy sources. Remove the high demand for oil and several of those economies would basically collapse without the need for sanctions.

[Fenring]

Speaking of context:

2016 - CO2 emissions - metric tonnes per capita
China 7.45
US 15.56

So, every person in China could effectively double their CO2 emissions and still have less of an effect on global climate than the average resident of the USA.

This doesn't seem like a reasonable comparison to me, considering that the USA is completely industrialized, whereas I suspect a huge percentage of China isn't. I just read that something like 575 million or so of the Chinese population lives in "rural" areas, versus 813 million in "industrial areas". I don't know this offhand, but I'd ask how many of the rural residents are significant consumers or producers of anything that creates CO2 emissions. We're not talking about 'rural Americans', who are on the power grid with plumbing, buying stuff from Walmart and eating meat; we're talking about the people who still haven't upgraded from how things in China were before, like when not everyone in the family even had clothes. So these numbers don't appear very telling to me. A better metric would be how much CO2 China produces compared to the population that would fall under a standard curve of American industrialized well-being. This could be anywhere from filthy rich down to poor people (by our standards), but very likely shouldn't include anyone we could call so destitute that American economic labels for them are meaningless. Maybe the USA would still come out ahead of China even if you took this into account, but then I'd ask about what percentage of each population appears where on the poverty graph. The more the wealth is concentrated in few hands the less the national population number matters.

[Seriati]

Speaking of context:

2016 - CO2 emissions - metric tonnes per capita
China 7.45
US 15.56

So, every person in China could effectively double their CO2 emissions and still have less of an effect on global climate than the average resident of the USA.

I think if you go back in this thread, though it could be another, you can see the debate on using the misleading per capita statistic.  The best measure is pollution per unit of production, that encourages maximum efficiency and would help to move production to the cleanest producers.

As I've said before, replacing 100 units of US production that generates 200 units of carbon, with 100 units in China that generates 600 units of carbon, is a complete loss for the world.  The fact that they have "per capita" capacity is a bizarre claim to make.  If you're really interested in cutting global carbon, which is the only measure that would be helpful for climate change you can not simultaneously argue for statistics that would mask massive increases in carbon for less overall efficiency.

[TheDrake]

Seriati, don't you also have to take into account that China should be allowed to raise their standard of living, which means that they are going to consume more energy. This includes growing numbers of private automobiles.

I don't see where we ought to take the approach that because they are late to the party, they have to work out of a different index.

If you want to avoid shifting to dirty manufacturers, whether in a different country or the same one, well that's why there are many people who support a carbon tax to build that factor into product cost. I don't want to break down any one proposal, just that it conceptually does that job.

[Seriati]

Well TheDrake, I can respect the economics argument, but if someone is one here telling us that there will be irreversible damage if carbon is not cut, the idea that the Chinese can blow up the savings of the rest of the world has to be addressed.  The Chinese economy is not in need of being propped up, and if you buy the argument that they are entitled to destroy the planet to get to some target per capita level, then what do you do when, India, Indonesia, South America, Africa and the rest of Asia all make the same claim?  If carbon is critical can we afford to let it go to 10 or 20 times more to let them catch up?

Fact is, there's no reason to encourage dirty factories being built today.  Redistribution should not be the purpose of an environmental policy.  Save the planet, put the true polluters out of business.

[TheDrake]

Haven't we already blown up the savings of the word - meaning the most industrial nations and historic polluters - and therefore owe something to Indonesia? I feel like any "fair" look has to account for a number line that starts in the late 19th century. If the roles were reversed, wouldn't you be demanding that levels shouldn't just get frozen where they are? Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

In a crisis, doesn't everyone have to do what they can without a concern about who is "winning"? Stores might give away water during a natural disaster, I guess you could look at that as redistributing wealth. Personally, I'm still in favor of a Manhattan Project level of action on clean tech with the US government in charge and the patents released to the public domain. Then everybody in the world can have us to thank for averting disaster. As it is, China is outspending us 3:1 on clean tech.

[Seriati]

But what is the "crisis" in your example?  If 'everyone has do something' to save the environment, China can't be allowed to do what it's doing.

If, however, the "crisis" is the economic difference then yes punishing the west to prop up the third world makes sense.

But using the environment to justify an economic policy that hurts the environment is too much for me.

[TheDrake]

Are you "punishing" the guy who carries the most sandbags in a flood? You have to do what you can to get the best agreement possible. If you tell China that they have to hold the line and not add any more output, why would you think they should do so? The only other choice is economic force, and it is a real laugh to think of the US leading an environmental coalition with teeth.

There is some precedent for that, like some of Europe's material laws (like getting rid of lead-based solder). China joined the EU along with California. The rest of the US, not so much. I would imagine that even if China went all-in and stopped their emission climb entirely, US policy would just point to other countries, and so until each and every other country stops going up, I guess we do nothing? The last person to grab a sandbag in the face of rising water.

[DonaldD]

Seriati, I think you will see that going back in any thread, not using per capita information is simply dishonest. There, see how easy that was?

[Crunch]

According to the 2017 BP Statistical Review of World Energy, since 2005 annual U.S. carbon dioxide emissions have declined by 758 million metric tons. That is by far the largest decline of any country in the world over that timespan and is nearly as large as the 770 million metric ton decline for the entire European Union.

By comparison, the second largest decline during that period was registered by the United Kingdom, which reported a 170 million metric ton decline. At the same time, China's carbon dioxide emissions grew by 3 billion metric tons, and India's grew by 1 billion metric tons.

You’re right, it’s so easy:

According to World Bank data, U.S. per capita carbon dioxide emissions rank 11th among countries. So, we are not the largest per capita emitter, but we do emit 2.2 times as much on a per capita basis as China. But, China has 4.3 times as many people, and that matters from an overall emissions perspective. China's lower per capita carbon dioxide emissions are more than offset by its greater population, so China emits over 70% more carbon dioxide annually than the U.S.

[Crunch]

is the debate about the question of global warming or the question as to if human activity is a factor in warming?

The debate is how much to punish America.

The climate is changing, as it always has. Global warmists push this idea that it’s always been roughly the temperature of the late 1800’s but the fact is it’s almost always been warmer (we are currently in an ice age). That the planet warms coming out of an ice age should surprise nobody and, in fact, should be hoped for since we don’t want this interglacial period to go back into a glacial period.

CO2 level historically average several times the current level, rising above 4,400 ppm at times in the past. It should surprise nobody that we would trend from historically record low CO2 levels back to the normal averages.

Everything is happening normally, regardless of human activity, which actually is just background noise in the overall climate.