Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Jimmy Kimmel vs. Sarah Palin on climate change: my take

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Late-night TV host Jimmy Kimmel has attacked former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin for questioning the existence of a scientific consensus on global warming and for promoting a documentary called Climate Hustle, whose aim is to expose the myths about global warming. Climatologist Judith Curry has written a review of the film, which she found to be “pretty entertaining and even interesting, especially the narratives developed around silly alarmist statements made by scientists and politicians.” Dr. Curry vouched that “there were no goofy or incredible statements about the science” in the movie, but she went on to add: “The perspective in Climate Hustle is arguably a minority perspective, at least in terms of world governments and a select group of scientists.”

Jimmy Kimmel has not watched the movie, but he quotes NASA to support his claim that there’s a 97 percent consensus among climate scientists who are active in the field, that human activities are responsible for global warming over the past century. Kimmel has even put together a 7-minute video explaining why we should trust scientists’ warnings about its potentially dire consequences.

The 97% figure has been severely critiqued on the Internet, for reasons which are summarized in a 2014 article on Popular Technology.net, titled, 97 Articles Refuting The “97% Consensus”. However, the latest research (see also here and here) appears to establish beyond reasonable doubt that 90 to 100% of climate experts do, in fact, agree that the global warming in recent years is man-made – although I should point out that the exact definition of “recent” varies from survey to survey. Additionally, the greater the level of climate expertise among the various kinds of scientists surveyed, the higher their level of agreement that global warming is indeed caused by human beings. So I think we can award one point to Jimmy Kimmel, and against Sarah Palin, regarding the existence of a scientific consensus on climate change.

On the other hand, the consensus that Kimmel appeals to is a relatively modest one: most of the warming we have experienced in recent years (especially since the mid-20th century) is man-made. And that’s all. Currently, there’s no scientific consensus that global warming is likely to be catastrophic. And if it’s not going to be catastrophic, then Kimmel’s worries about the dangers of global warming are misplaced.

Let’s be clear what we’re talking about here. While it’s reasonably certain that the rise in global temperatures since the late 1970s has been largely man-made, what’s not certain is how much temperatures will eventually rise in the future, as a result of further greenhouse gas emissions – in other words, the equilibrium climate sensitivity (or ECS), which is defined as the equilibrium change in global mean air temperatures near the Earth’s surface that would result from a sustained doubling of the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide. The scientific disagreement on this subject relates not to the effects of carbon dioxide but to the feedback effects of water vapor, which the IPCC claims will magnify the effects of carbon dioxide increases by a factor of two, three or four, or perhaps even six. The IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) states that “there is high confidence that ECS is extremely unlikely [to be] less than 1°C and medium confidence that the ECS is likely between 1.5°C and 4.5°C and very unlikely [to be] greater than 6°C.” That’s quite a range of uncertainty.

I might add that Jimmy Kimmel’s assertion that “we’ve had 15 of the 16 hottest years ever since 2001” was a bad slip: in fact, during the previous interglacial period, 125,000 years ago, temperatures were 1 or 2°C hotter than they are now, due to changes in the Earth’s orbit. What Kimmel should have said was that according to NASA, 15 of the 16 warmest years on record have occurred since 2001. (To be fair, he did say earlier on in the video that you can know that global warming is real when the hottest year “on record” is the current year.) And as climatologist and former NASA scientist Dr. Roy Spencer points out, “even if 2015 is the warmest on record, and NOAA has exactly the right answer, it is still well below the average forecast of the IPCC’s climate models, and something very close to that average forms the basis for global warming policy. In other words, even if every successive year is a new record, it matters quite a lot just how much warming we are talking about.” Dr. Spencer has also queried NASA’s figures, which rely heavily on land and sea measurements of temperature and are prone to distortion from bad datasets, urban heat island effects and El Nino. Satellite measurements, which are more rigorous and which generally agree with (1) radiosondes and (2) most global reanalysis datasets, paint a less alarming picture than the NASA figures.

Perhaps Jimmy Kimmel will respond by appealing to the Precautionary Principle: if there’s a small but significant likelihood that global warming will prove to be catastrophic, then we should do something about it. Better safe than sorry. What this reasoning overlooks, however, is that combating global warming will be very, very costly: $44 trillion on a very optimistic estimate (which will more than double if technology for capturing and storing carbon dioxide can’t be deployed), and $100 trillion on a more detailed and realistic estimate, making it 1,000 times more expensive than the Apollo program, in today’s dollars.

When a project costs that much, we need to ask ourselves three questions: can we afford it, is there any way we can do it a lot more cheaply, and finally, if we decided to financially commit ourselves to the project, what other important projects would we have to give up?

Let’s take affordability first. Media claims that fighting global warming will have a negligible impact on GDP growth are based on economically flawed reasoning, and reports claiming that combating global warming will actually save us money have been criticized for their over-optimistic assumptions. One oft-cited IPCC estimate that fighting global warming will shave a mere 0.06% off GDP growth turns out to be pure poppycock. As David Roberts convincingly argues over at Grist, we do not, and cannot, know how much it will cost to tackle climate change. Roberts cites three academic papers to support his arguments – a 2015 report by Richard Rosen of the Tellus Institute and Edeltraud Guenther of the Technische Universitaet Dresden, an earlier report by Frank Ackerman (Stockholm Environment Institute-US Center, Tufts University) and his colleagues, and a 2013 report by Serban Scrieciu, Terry Barker and Frank Ackerman. In their 2015 report, Rosen and Guenther conclude that “not only do we not know the approximate magnitude of the net benefits or costs of mitigating climate change to any specific level of future global temperature increase over the next 50–100 years, but we also cannot even claim to know the sign of the mitigation impacts on GWP, or national GDPs, or any other economic metric commonly computed.” The authors recommend that “the IPCC and other scientific bodies should no longer report attempts at calculating the net economic impacts of mitigating climate change to the public in their reports.” Some economists have also claimed that replacing fossil fuels with nuclear power and/or renewable energy will actually increase countries’ GDP, but the truth is that we really don’t know. What we do know is that investing in clean energy and related technologies from 2011 to 2050 in order to limit global warming to 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels will cost over $2 trillion a year (which is about 2.7% of the current Gross World Product), if the total cost of fighting global warming comes to $100 trillion. An outlay of that magnitude is a huge financial undertaking. I should add that the detailed $100 trillion plan put forward by Dr. Mark Jacobson (see here and here) for fighting global warming probably won’t work, anyway. Back in 2013, Jacobson announced plans for the full-scale conversion of the state of New York to wind, water and solar [WWS] technology. Jacobson’s plans were widely panned, and a devastating review of them was published in an article titled, Critique of the 100% Renewable Energy for New York Plan (The Energy Collective, November 17, 2013) by energy and technology writer Edward Dodge. To make matters worse, as Professor John Morgan explains in an online article titled, The Catch-22 of Energy Storage, the ratio of energy returned on energy invested (EROEI) for solar and wind power plants is far too low for them to be viable as power sources in Western countries. In short: not only are current plans to fight global warming astronomically expensive, but they may not even work, anyway.

So, is there a way we can fight global warming a lot more cheaply and effectively? That’s a question we need to ask. Bill Gates has candidly acknowledged that it will take “clean-energy miracles” to solve the problem of global warming. “Today’s technologies,” he writes, “are a good start, but not good enough.” He argues that “we need a massive amount of innovation in research and development on clean energy,” and he criticizes the United States for “severely underinvesting in clean-energy R & D”: only 2% of the federal government’s R & D spending goes on energy, while 60% goes on defense. Gates also calls for more investment in next-generation nuclear power, and contends that China is the best place for such research. Gates has personally invested a large amount of money in a company called TerraPower, which is making a “fourth-generation nuclear reactor technology.” According to Gates, there are currently a dozen promising technology paths for clean sources of energy, and he believes that “in the next 15 years we have a high probability of achieving” energy which is “measurably less expensive than hydrocarbons, completely clean and providing the same reliability.”

In a similar vein, environmentalist Bjorn Lomborg, whose work has been praised by Bill Gates, argues that we should invest in future technologies, instead of subsidizing existing technologies, which are uneconomical. To illustrate his case, Lomborg cites the example of Germany, which has spent a massive 100 billion euros (or about $130 billion) on subsidies on solar panels, whose net effect will be to postpone global warming by the end of the century by a mere 23 hours, or less than one day. Gates agrees: developing countries, he writes, “can’t afford today’s expensive clean energy solutions,” and he highly commends two recent videos by Lomborg which highlight the link between energy and poverty, and which call for more research to make clean energy “so cheap that everyone … will want to buy it” – including people in poor countries.

Finally, before we hop on the global warming bandwagon, as Jimmy Kimmel would have us do, we need to ask: are there any other important projects that would be jeopardized if we were devote ourselves to the fight against global warming? Let us bear in mind that we live in a world where 2.4 billion people lack basic sanitation, where 800 million people go hungry, where 6 million children die before their fifth birthday every year, and where only half of all women in developing countries receive adequate maternal care. The world currently spends about $135 billion per annum on overseas aid. That’s a commitment we must continue to keep, no matter how serious the global warming crisis gets. It is therefore absolutely vital that the countries of the world do their utmost to meet the United Nations Millennium Development Goals and the more ambitious post-2015 development agenda. (For more information on the Millennium Development Goals, see here.)

I would contend that even if the direst prognostications of the IPCC forecasters turn out to be correct, it would be morally wrong to withhold money from children who are dying now, in order to save generations of as-yet-unconceived children. Starvation, malnutrition and disease are clear and present dangers which kill millions. Future dangers can never take precedence over these crises. For this reason, I believe that citizens should actively resist proposals to spend tens of trillions of dollars fighting a long-term menace (global warming), at a time when children are dying of malnutrition. The course of action proposed by Kimmel is too hasty: if we are going to fight global warming, we need to fight it intelligently.

In his video, Kimmel claims that sea levels are rising rapidly as a result of global warming – which, he says, is good news only if you want to be swallowed up by water. Kimmel is being melodramatic here. In reality, the latest AR5 IPCC report estimates (Chapter 13, p. 1180) the rise by the end of the 21st century at just 0.40 meters [with a 95% likelihood range of 0.26 to 0.55 meters) on the best future global warming scenario (RCP2.6) and 0.63 meters [with a 95% likelihood range of 0.45 to 0.82 meters] on the worst scenario (RCP8.5), relative to the average global sea level for the 20-year period from 1986–2005. 0.63 meters is about 2 feet. That’s hardly catastrophic.

The cost of building hundreds of kilometers of dykes along the Ganges-Brahmaputra delta region (which will be one of the worst-affected areas) has been estimated at more than 20 billion euros. But that’s a drop in the ocean, when compared to the $100 trillion that it’ll take to combat global warming worldwide, on current estimates.

Kimmel also suggests in his video that former Governor Sarah Palin contests the reality of the greenhouse effect. That claim is simply nonsensical: what Sarah Palin contests is the degree to which man-made increases in CO2 levels amplify the greenhouse effect.

During the last two minutes of his 7-minute video, Jimmy Kimmel asks his viewers to watch a parade of climate scientists promising their audience that they are not “f***ing with you” when it comes to catastrophic climate change. I have to say that for me, this shock tactic proved to be counter-productive: far from enhancing the credibility of Kimmel’s message, it caused me to lose respect for the scientists who would demean themselves by behaving in such an unprofessional manner. And I was even less impressed when a young child dropped F-bombs at the very end of the video. “Who put him up to that?” I wondered.

So here’s my take on Jimmy Kimmel’s attack on Sarah Palin: her understanding of global warming is not as deep as Kimmel’s, but she does appreciate the uncertainties involved in long-range forecasting. But I haven’t seen the movie, Climate Hustle, so I’d very much appreciate comments from anyone who has seen it.

What do readers think?

Comments
Science has never been based on consensus in the first place. Not sure why the consensus argument is even relevant. If the consensus argument was decisive, then we could say that naturalistic evolution is a slam dunk, which pretty much makes this website pointless. As for warming, keep in mind we are in a strong El Nino year, and one year does NOT make a trend (in terms of the end of the warming pause). We need to see how much temps rebound back to what has been a flat line the last few decades.Limbo
May 22, 2016
May
05
May
22
22
2016
02:51 PM
2
02
51
PM
PDT
"Anthony Watts and climatologist Dr. Roy Spencer" Name dropping isn't scientific argumentation. Andrewasauber
May 6, 2016
May
05
May
6
06
2016
09:47 AM
9
09
47
AM
PDT
Hi PaV, Thank you for your comments. Re temperature data being faked, all I will say is that even people like Anthony Watts and climatologist Dr. Roy Spencer admit that global temperatures have been rising for centuries, for various reasons (as you seem to agree), and that much of the increase that has occurred since the late 1970s is man-made. You write: "Over the last 20 years, there has been no appreciable rise in temperature, even though 'man-made' CO2 continues to be belched into the atmosphere." I'd say that the "pause" is well and truly over, judging from the temperature records since February 2016: http://www.drroyspencer.com/2016/05/uah-v6-global-temperature-update-for-april-2016-0-71-deg-c/vjtorley
May 6, 2016
May
05
May
6
06
2016
09:20 AM
9
09
20
AM
PDT
Hi everyone, Here are some reactions to the movie, Climate Hustle, which was screened recently: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sArFWgLWv9Q&feature=youtu.be&utm_source=Climate+Hustle&utm_campaign=8b91bdfae4-Jimmy_Kimmel_s_Hu_ling_us5_4_2016&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_06cd33cf7b-8b91bdfae4-270410177 And here's a video about a recent paper by a respected climate and weather scientist, Professor Ray Bates, who argues that the equilibrium climate sensitivity is likely to be only about 1 degree Celsius, instead of 3 degrees, as most climate scientists currently believe: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c8MJD5y2Kiw Professor Bates' latest Powerpoint presentation is available online if you Google "Ray Bates pptx": it's the fourth entry from the top, and it's titled, "A Defence of Some Low Observational Estimates of Effective Climate Sensitivity." For another point of view on Professor Bates' work, see here: http://www.thinkorswim.ie/challenging-irelands-climate-contrarian-in-chief/ Professor Bates's criticisms of a draft version of the latest IPCC report, and the IPCC's responses, can be found here: https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/drafts/Ch00_WG1AR5FOD_RevCommResponses_Final.pdfvjtorley
May 6, 2016
May
05
May
6
06
2016
09:11 AM
9
09
11
AM
PDT
drc: First of all – “correct modeling”. Lol. Look at the graphs , Second – You mean they’ll be upset by us lowering poverty, promoting economic growth, increasing crop yields, globalizing communications and trade, advancing technology, etc If it comes at a cost to them by increasing the amount of CO2 and the predictions of the long term effects come to pass, yes I expect they will view us as unwilling to sacrifice anything for long term benefit ., etc.? Because we had low-cost energy to fuel all that? Aww, poor future generations. Exactly, low cost to you because of deferred costs to them. Now sure,screw them is a possible answer. Here’s a thought – if we, today, are supposedly capable of converting all our energy usage from fossil fuels to renewables, maybe, just maybe…they will be too? Nuance isn't your thing? Nobody think that we can convert all our fossil fuels but if CC is correct , quit digging the hole so fast seems like a good first step. So again, you are forcing them to do what you are unwilling to do, which you find objectionable Only better and cheaper, with decades of technological improvement? Of course they will have to clean up the mess we left as well as their own Through the natural free market process where supply meets demand? In which case, they’ll have the energy and technology to deal with the fact that the world is maybe a degree or two warmer? Ah, something we come up, no need to worry. Here’s another thought – from 1800 to today, hundreds of millions of Americans MOVED. Without the benefit of our technology. You think future generations will be too stupid and too incompetent to, um, move? because the land is a little different? True, there was a vast continent which was lightly occupied. Once we elimated the occupants, we took over. Just curious, how much land is unclaimed? Do forget those poor and undeveloped you were so concerned with earlier, where do they go? Look at the issue with a Syrian refugees and multiply that by all the coastal inhabitants. Now you may be correct, all climate scientists are scammers, how are you so sure ?velikovskys
May 5, 2016
May
05
May
5
05
2016
01:07 PM
1
01
07
PM
PDT
drc:Sure. If all the arctic ice melts, and the sea levels go up 2m around the world, and hurricanes triple in frequency, and Mrs. O’Leary’s cow dries up, The main concern is land based ice, Greenland and Antarctica. Not sure about the cow and all the fantastically horrific bad things that climate change activists claim will happen, then yes, everyone will feel it All the things don't have to happen for people to feel it. For instance if a component of the cause of the severity of wildfires in Canada is CC, people are feeling it now locally. “Global Warming” due to fossil fuel usage should have been going on for almost a century now – shouldn’t we have some empirical evidence of all these tragedies by now? Good question, what would constitute empirical evidence? Why isn’t Daytona Beach now Daytona Bay? Again – get back to me when a) you have some hard evidence of bad things happening, and b) preachers practice preaching. Why does Miami have flooding issues it has never had before? Why is the extraordinary becoming ordinary? You seem to view effects as isolated and immediate.velikovskys
May 5, 2016
May
05
May
5
05
2016
12:26 PM
12
12
26
PM
PDT
PAv: Over the last 20 years, there has been no appreciable rise in temperature, even thought “man-made” CO2 continues to be belched into the atmosphere. Their climate models have been wrong for 15 years, and become increasingly wrong with each passing year. Only if you cherry pick the starting date and have an idiosyncratic definition for appreciable.velikovskys
May 5, 2016
May
05
May
5
05
2016
10:31 AM
10
10
31
AM
PDT
Andrew: I’m not interested in philosophical discussions about the future. It is your philosophy, for a future generation it will be reality. The people who created superfund sites could say the same thing. We are paying the price of cleaning those up in today's dollars If you have any evidence you’d like to present, please present it. Today we are paying 48 million dollars to resettle the people on Ile de Jean Charlesvelikovskys
May 5, 2016
May
05
May
5
05
2016
10:20 AM
10
10
20
AM
PDT
As it so happens, Lubos Motl has a post on this very subject, involving physicists. He is NOT an "alarmist." And he doesn't suffer fools.PaV
May 5, 2016
May
05
May
5
05
2016
09:24 AM
9
09
24
AM
PDT
This is from a link within your fourth link:
Given that anomalies are determined relative to some long-term baseline, you have to remove any data points that fail quality control, and you need to adjust the temperatures to account for station moves (or for other non-climatic influences, such as time of observation changes). If you look again at the information for this station the trend before adjustments was -1.37oC per century, [You see, vjt, the "raw" data doesn't, in fact, show warming.] after quality control it was -0.89oC per century, and after adjusting for the station moves was +1.36oC per century.
Also, if you consider the same region for the same months, the trend is +1.37oC per century, and for the country for the same months it is +1.28oC per century. So, not only can one justify the adjustments, the result of the adjustments is consistent with what would be expected for that region and for the country.
Really? For some reason they had to "up" the temperature readings by 0.89+1.36=2.25 Degrees? Really? Well, tell us why! But, of course, they don't! And what kinds of "adjustments" have they made for "the country"? And why? Wouldn't it be nice if they told us why they revised up "raw" data by 2.25 degrees. I certainly think it would be nice.PaV
May 5, 2016
May
05
May
5
05
2016
09:19 AM
9
09
19
AM
PDT
PaV, In addition to what you have comment, I'd like to add that historical temperatures are being post facto adjusted by data presenters. In what other scientific areas are numbers permanently changeable? Is this good process? Andrewasauber
May 5, 2016
May
05
May
5
05
2016
09:18 AM
9
09
18
AM
PDT
From your second link:
So you start reading the data, but over time someone buys the property near the field, and builds houses there. Driveways, roads, houses leaking heat … this all affects your thermometer. Perhaps a building is erected that casts a shadow over your location. Whatever: You have to account for all these effects. That’s what scientists do. That’s what scientists did. They examined the data from these thermometers all over the world, and tried to minimize the impact of outside influences. If they didn’t, they wouldn’t be able to trust the data.
Sounds harmless. Sounds scientific. Sounds reasonable. But, just a second. There is much more of a problem with temperatures being on the high side because of urban sprawl and development. In fact, it has been argued that most of the supposed temperature increase is primarily due to this. And, then, this: temperatures are generally taken in the morning. Shading effects should have no effect. Overall, then, the "raw" data should be revised DOWN. But, no, it is across the board revised UP. I went through this argument online this past summer with some fairly learned posters. And that is what I ended up digging up: all the craziness started in, and around, the late 70's, early 80's, as they switched away from human measurements. These sweet-sounding words are not to be trusted. And let me add this: when I posted my observations in the online discussion I had this past summer, I got the distinct impression that they had never even thought about what I was saying. All of this might be due primarily to an undue confidence in their telemetric systems. Is the temperature rising? Probably so. Why? The sun. The core of the earth. Is it cyclical? You bet it is. Can humans "stop" it? Even with some tremendous financial and human cost, the answer is "no."PaV
May 5, 2016
May
05
May
5
05
2016
09:03 AM
9
09
03
AM
PDT
vjt:
I’m sorry, but the accusation that scientists have been faking temperature data is incorrect:
I'm sorry to disagree, but I think you're wrong. Here's, for example, a quote from the very first link you provide:
In reality climate scientists process the raw temperature data for very good reasons. Sometimes temperature monitoring station locations move. Sometimes the time of day at which they’re read changes. Sometimes changes are made to the instruments themselves. In each case, if adjustments aren’t made, then biases will be included in the data that don’t reflect actual changes in temperatures.
This sounds harmless. However, the fact is that if you look at the "raw" temperatures over time, you will find that in the U.S. everything was rather stable, and level, until such time as they switched from human monitoring to their hi-tech gadgets. You will then see a temperature range that is all over the place. A simple look at the graph will tell you that something is wrong. If they tell you that they have to adjust their temperature readings up by 1.5 degrees, then one has to wonder: (1) On what basis do they make this adjustment? (2) What kind of meters have they installed given that they aren't properly registering the temperature? Temperatures began to rise in the early 1800's. That, of course, was not due to "man-made" CO2 production. Over the last 20 years, there has been no appreciable rise in temperature, even thought "man-made" CO2 continues to be belched into the atmosphere. Their climate models have been wrong for 15 years, and become increasingly wrong with each passing year. No, vjt, when they give you nice-sounding reasons for "adjusting" raw temperatures, watch out, anything can happen.PaV
May 5, 2016
May
05
May
5
05
2016
08:51 AM
8
08
51
AM
PDT
"So what we do in the present will effect the future just not in a bad way for future generations?" velikovskys, I'm not interested in philosophical discussions about the future. If you have any evidence you'd like to present, please present it. Andrewasauber
May 5, 2016
May
05
May
5
05
2016
08:28 AM
8
08
28
AM
PDT
Andrew: I didn’t say that So what we do in the present will effect the future just not in a bad way for future generations?velikovskys
May 5, 2016
May
05
May
5
05
2016
08:26 AM
8
08
26
AM
PDT
"Changes will at first be small, but if all the ice melts, the increase in temperature world wide will be dramatic and catastrophic." The Chicken Littles of The Present are Here! Andrewasauber
May 5, 2016
May
05
May
5
05
2016
08:16 AM
8
08
16
AM
PDT
"nothing we do in the present will have any effect on the future." I didn't say that. Andrewasauber
May 5, 2016
May
05
May
5
05
2016
08:15 AM
8
08
15
AM
PDT
Andrew: The Chicken Littles of the Future are already here! True, nothing we do in the present will have any effect on the future. Insurance is just a big scam.velikovskys
May 5, 2016
May
05
May
5
05
2016
08:04 AM
8
08
04
AM
PDT
Anyone who lives near one of the Great Lakes knows that summer cannot get started until all the ice melts. Temperatures away from the lakes are often much warmer in the spring because so much of the heat from the sun is absorbed by the melting ice. Once the ice is gone the temperature increases rapidly and the average temperature is only slightly lower than the surrounding area. The same principle applies to global warming. Changes will at first be small, but if all the ice melts, the increase in temperature world wide will be dramatic and catastrophic. The first and most important sign of this happening will be the melting of nearly all the ice in the Arctic Ocean. If that happens, then warming temperatures in the North Atlantic could lead to the collapse of the Greenland ice sheet, and that would trigger events of Biblical proportions. The sudden shift of weight off Greenland and into the ocean basins would crack loose the earth's plates and produce a level of earthquake and volcanic activity far greater than anything any human being has ever experienced before. The resulting political and economic chaos will be even more devastating. My advice is be careful of what you deny or oppose unless you want to be a scapegoat.Lamont
May 5, 2016
May
05
May
5
05
2016
07:52 AM
7
07
52
AM
PDT
vjtorley: "Germany remains still heavily dependent on imports of fossil fuels, as its domestic resources are largely depleted or extraction too costly" What the report makes clear is that fossil fuels are essential over the short term. However, due to the problem of global warming, there has to be a transition towards a greener future. As that green future is coming, those countries that make the transition will reap the benefits of lower fossil fuel costs, and, in Germany's case, the benefit of exporting technology. vjtorley: By the way, solar panels on roofs, which are currently popular in Germany, are a bad idea. Utility-scale solar power is more efficient and economical: The advantage to rooftop installations is that the space is unused, and provides an immediate benefit to the investor. A mix of solutions appears to be the best solution. vjtorley: I’m simply arguing that the money we’re currently pouring into renewable energy (including solar panels) would be better spent on R & D, which will provide real and affordable solutions to the problem of global warming. The price of solar panels has dropped rapidly due to investment. However, more research and development is also essential. vjtorley: I’m inclined to believe that we have about 70 or 80 years to fix the problem before it gets really serious, whereas most global warming alarmists say that we need to fix the problem by 2050. Most economists believe that the sooner the move away from fossil fuels occurs, the cheaper the long range cost will be. Also, the world will continue to warm for decades, even after humans quit emitting greenhouse gases. And no one expects humans to quit emitting greenhouse gases anytime soon. The hope is to at least stabilize the levels of emissions, which will still mean an increasing greenhouse effect.Zachriel
May 5, 2016
May
05
May
5
05
2016
07:41 AM
7
07
41
AM
PDT
vjtorley, Sorry, linking The Grauniad just means you don't have any evidence. Andrewasauber
May 5, 2016
May
05
May
5
05
2016
05:58 AM
5
05
58
AM
PDT
Fighting AGW is the call to arms. There is a lot of politics going on here and where they cry the loudest. I read an article by a woman who is suffering from anxiety attacks over this. I have some solutions. 1st. Desist with the left wing solutions to AGW. Stop IT!! Whether AGW is true or not, draconian measures and wealth redistribution won't fix a thing as the Poor will always be with us and will suffer the most and the Malthusian policy makers could care less. On top of that trying to ruin people's hope for a better life by taxing them for some "science" that too many disagree about is poor strategy in this country especially as most of us are not willing to give India, how many trillions do they demand? Demand, not ask for. 2nd let's actually look at things that work, like what responsible and sustainable logging does, especially as South America is learning to do, but enviro terrorist shutdown sawmills here by planting fear and big spikes in trees that have killed many people. 3rd creating and restoring carbon sinks in the swamps and bayous that USED to shield large sections of problem areas and cities that used to count on those wetlands. Why don't I hear about that? 4th Stop the alarmism that keeps the weak minded awake at night. It is harmful and scares children when the weather is blown out of proportion. According to the Left Wing media we are on the edge of the end of Humanity. 5th. Who believes this rant over and over again? The list of doubting scientists should give everybody pause and the Seychelles and Marianas Islands being inundated every year with water should work on the other side. I am of the opinion that whether manmade or not solutions of a sensible nature should be the rule of the day. Stop the leftist solutions and put forth solutions that work at every situation it is pointed at and as far as I'm concerned don't EVEN ask me to spend my money on totalitarian schemes, the idea of "climate refugees" from La. is propaganda. Don't fight the "Science", don't fight that at all, let chicken little bawl and cry. Fight the confidence men. Fight their draconian solutions and manipulations first and foremost.jimmontg
May 4, 2016
May
05
May
4
04
2016
10:54 PM
10
10
54
PM
PDT
Doesn't the left embrace change? Why don't they embrace the climate changing?computerist
May 4, 2016
May
05
May
4
04
2016
10:22 PM
10
10
22
PM
PDT
Zachriel extols Germany's renewables push:
The net effect is to reduce Germany’s dependency on foreign energy supplies, while helping develop new technologies that will both fuel Germany’s domestic economy, and their exports of technology and engineering to other countries.
Er, no. Here's an excerpt from a factsheet by Soren Amerlang, titled, Germany's dependence on imported fossil fuels (11 February 2016):
Despite the Energiewende, Germany remains still heavily dependent on imports of fossil fuels, as its domestic resources are largely depleted or extraction too costly... While the whole of the EU imported 53.4 percent of its energy consumption in 2014, Germany’s dependency was even higher with an import share of 61.4 percent – only slightly below the previous year’s all-time high of 62.6 percent... Germany needs to import nearly 90% of the gas it consumes. In 2013 the country produced 9.7 billion cubic metres [of] natural gas, but according to geologists, the fields are nearing depletion. Current domestic production will likely decrease during the next 10 years to nought... ...[E]ven if Germany consumed considerably less natural gas in the long term, it would not necessarily decrease imports from Russia. That is because gas production is declining among current alternative European suppliers: Norway, the Netherlands and the UK... Germany’s exit from nuclear power and low wholesale electricity prices have boosted the comparatively cheap generation of electricity from coal, leading to a marked increase in imports of hard coal. Long-term climate targets clearly imply Germany will have to abandon coal entirely by 2050 unless an affordable technology can be found to make coal clean. But exiting coal alone will not help supply security, as Germany will initially have to import more gas to compensate, concedes Juergen Nitsch, a former scientist from the German Aerospace Centre at Stuttgart, and an expert on energy scenarios.
Doesn't sound too promising. By the way, solar panels on roofs, which are currently popular in Germany, are a bad idea. Utility-scale solar power is more efficient and economical: http://www.energybiz.com/article/14/01/why-roof-top-solar-panels-really-dont-make-sense Regarding sea levels, Zachriel writes:
As you are arguing against mitigation, you may as well only concern yourself with RCP8.5, which assumes unrestricted emissions of CO2... The estimated sea-level rise under RCP8.5 is not at equilibrium, but will continue to rise long after the end of the century. Long term, this will probably result in permanent loss of major portions of the Earth’s ice caps.
Just to be clear: I'm not arguing against mitigation. Improvements in energy efficiency are a great idea, as is a reduction in personal energy consumption. I'm simply arguing that the money we're currently pouring into renewable energy (including solar panels) would be better spent on R & D, which will provide real and affordable solutions to the problem of global warming. And yes, I accept that it is a problem, but I'm more of a lukewarmer myself: based on observations of temperature increases over the past 35 years, I'm inclined to believe that we have about 70 or 80 years to fix the problem before it gets really serious, whereas most global warming alarmists say that we need to fix the problem by 2050. Regarding the cost of rising sea levels for the USA, see the following excerpt from an IPCC report: http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg2/index.php?idp=298
Neumann et al. (2000) have estimated that a 0.5-m sea-level rise by 2100 could cause cumulative impacts to U.S. coastal property of US$20 billion to US$150 billion and that more extensive damage could result if climate change increases storm frequency or intensity... n the United Kingdom, sea defenses and shore protection works around 4,300 km of coast cost approximately US$500 million/yr to maintain at present— a figure that Turner et al. (1998) suggest will continue to rise in the future... The total expenditure to keep the present level of functions and stability for about 1,000 Japanese ports is estimated to be US$110 billion for a 1-m sea-level rise (Mimura et al., 1998).
$150 billion is still peanuts, when compared to the $100 trillion cost of combating global warming, using current technologies. That's why my advice is to focus more on R&D, to bring the cost down.vjtorley
May 4, 2016
May
05
May
4
04
2016
09:23 PM
9
09
23
PM
PDT
Hi everyone, I've been looking at the evidence regarding the Medieval Warm Period, and it seems to suggest that (a) the warming that occurred probably wasn't global; and (b) while it was warm, it wasn't as warm as it is today. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/12/151204145919.htm http://insideclimatenews.org/news/04122015/medieval https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/medieval.html For a contrary view, see here: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/31/new-paper-shows-medieval-warm-period-was-global-in-scope/ It has been claimed that the world was hotter during the Mid-Holocene Warm Period - about 6,000 years ago. However, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) currently states on its Website that "the mid-Holocene, roughly 6,000 years ago, was generally warmer than today, but only in summer and only in the northern hemisphere": https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/holocene.html In the far southern hemisphere, it was warmer than today between 8,000 and 10,500 years ago: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_climatic_optimum To go back to a time when the whole world was warmer than it is today, you have to go back to the last interglacial period, 125,000 years ago, when temperatures were 1 or 2 degrees Celsius hotter than they are now, as I stated in my OP: https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/interglacial.htmlvjtorley
May 4, 2016
May
05
May
4
04
2016
07:07 PM
7
07
07
PM
PDT
Mahuna writes:
The simple fact is that temperatures have NOT been rising at all. Scientists at NOAA and other government agencies have been caught FAKING the data for the last several decades. The warmest period of weather in the last 200 years occurred during the 1930s.
I'm sorry, but the accusation that scientists have been faking temperature data is incorrect: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2015/feb/11/fiddling-with-global-warming-conspiracies-while-rome-burns http://www.factcheck.org/2015/02/nothing-false-about-temperature-data/ http://grist.org/climate-energy/no-climate-scientists-are-not-manipulating-their-data/ http://www.skepticalscience.com/kevin-cowtan-debunks-christopher-booker-temp-conspiracy-theory.html And yes, it was warmer back in the 1930s - but only in the U.S. http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/hansen_07/ On a worldwide level, there was significant warming during the 1930s and early 1940s, but temperatures were not as high as they are now. And it turns out that that warming was man-made, too: http://www.climatecentral.org/news/scientists-trace-climate-heat-link-to-1930s-20115 The reason why it cooled between the 1940s and the 1970s was because of aerosols released by the burning of large amounts of coal - and in any case, the cooling occurred largely in the Northern Hemisphere. It wasn't observed in New Zealand. Temperatures continued to climb there, and probably in other parts of the Southern Hemisphere, as well: https://www.aip.org/history/climate/20ctrend.htmvjtorley
May 4, 2016
May
05
May
4
04
2016
06:45 PM
6
06
45
PM
PDT
It is interesting that climate change and evolution are both subjects that need to be sold by the NCSE which is a non profit political lobby group. When the pitch is scientific consensus you can be sure there is a lack of evidence validating the hypothesis. I personally think moving methodically away from fossil fuels is a good idea however the evidence for the problem being man made at this point is lacking.bill cole
May 4, 2016
May
05
May
4
04
2016
06:35 PM
6
06
35
PM
PDT
dgosse: 1. The medieval warm period which is usually ignored or deemed a ‘local’ anomaly but indicates a demonstrably warmer arctic than the present. Not sure why you say it is ignored. The Medieval Warm Period has been subject to intensive investigation. In any case, the warming during the Medieval Warm Period was not uniform, and overall global temperatures were not as high as today. dgosse: 3. Thermometers have existed for a scant 300 years and have been accurate to less than 1 degree for little more than 50 years so any estimate of temperatures prior to WWII us just that, an estimate. Multiple measurements can provide higher precision. dgosse: 4. Most of the global records that predate WWII were collected by local amateurs with imprecise instruments. Scientists are well-aware of the nature of the data. Many different statistical methods have been applied, and they all show the same warming trend. dgosse: 5. Estimates based on ice, sediment, and dendrochronology are, at best, open to dispute. Estimates are subject to investigation. That's what scientists do.Zachriel
May 4, 2016
May
05
May
4
04
2016
05:04 PM
5
05
04
PM
PDT
In the 60's they told us we wouldn't have enough food. Now, with the earth marginally warmer, and with more CO2 in the air, food production has gone way up. Isn't this a good thing? Oh, wait, the Left will stop existing if there isn't something to complain about and some crisis that needs their attention. If you want to know why the temperatures have gone up, it's because they went from humans actually measuring temperature to weather stations connected to a network using thermometers that need "adjustments." This is the real source of "man-made" human warming: the temperature adjustments they've made to raw data. The raw data shows hardly any temperature gain whatsoever during the 20th century. Then the Left gets hold of the data, and all hell breaks loose as usual.PaV
May 4, 2016
May
05
May
4
04
2016
04:05 PM
4
04
05
PM
PDT
I've been following the 'climate change' nonsense for years - since reading a book, "The Coming Ice Age" sometime back in the 80s. There are several points which overlooked or deliberately discounted when discussing the coming climate Armageddon. 1. The medieval warm period which is usually ignored or deemed a 'local' anomaly but indicates a demonstrably warmer arctic than the present. 2. The effect of tectonic activity and erosion on sea levels. How many cubic miles of material are transferred from the continents to the ocean each year and what are the effects of submarine earth movements? (I could never find even a rough estimate of the first and the second is unknowable) 3. Thermometers have existed for a scant 300 years and have been accurate to less than 1 degree for little more than 50 years so any estimate of temperatures prior to WWII us just that, an estimate. 4. Most of the global records that predate WWII were collected by local amateurs with imprecise instruments. 5. Estimates based on ice, sediment, and dendrochronology are, at best, open to dispute. 6. A few hours drive from my residence are glaciers whose retreat have been documented since the late 19th C., long before the rise of CO2. 7. AFIK not one apocalyptic 'climate' forecast has actually occurred. 8. Most of the alleged solutions are either ineffective or more harmful than doing nothing. https://news.mongabay.com/2008/01/e-u-may-ban-palm-oil-biodiesel/ http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20150402-the-worst-place-on-earth 9. Many recycled materials, although heavily subsidized, are more costly than their non-recycled analogues - if price is a measure of resources used then these recycled materials actually have a higher resource (and probably a higher carbon) footprint than their non-recycled analogues. And this is just off the top of my head.dgosse
May 4, 2016
May
05
May
4
04
2016
02:55 PM
2
02
55
PM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply