Obama global warming statements today (Page 3)

Debate? Drew said as far as the science goes it is "unequivicable" that humans are responsible for "most of it".  So now we'll get into a tedious discussion of what constitutes "most of it" and what correlative studies "prove".  I'm a wildlife biologist, not a climatologist or atmospheric physicist.  But I'm not an idiot who thinks humans have zero impact on our environment.  I agree with calls for being good stewards of the environment and I like to breathe relatively clean air and drink relatively clean water.  But when the Al Gore's of the world sensationalize things and post pictures of tidal waves 40 stories high crashing into skyscrapers in NYC due to global warming (ironic to say this after the tidal surges caused by Hurricane Sandy) and then call for us to drastically change our lifestyles (while he's flying around on private jets) and economies based on a debate that is far from over, then I have problems buying it.

Science is to put it simply, nothing more than observation. Scientists have observed plenty and reported what they observed. That is the science of our environment. The subject became politicized and that all got corrupted by opinion and passions and here we are.

I did not believe in GW and parroted all the same reasons why. But then, after reading some stuff, I wanted to know for myself. Look over the data, do some research, don't just look at what proves you right... it's not hard. The science behind all this is pretty sound.

But at that point, it is no different than the big bang. It is just an interesting subject that does not change my daily life one single bit. Now the politics of GW... that is an entirely different subject that has nothing to do with scientific research.

As far as the second bolded part... well that's just it. Research has observed these processes taking place... what does it mean? Well now we are getting into predictions and assumptions. Scientists do try to take their data and build models to predict stuff... but again that is just research. They try to predict earthquakes and tornadoes too... but those predictions are not trying to change my life or tap into a new tax revenue stream. The subject is so politicized right now that it is really difficult to tell research form an agenda. But there are still environmental processes we don't understand, there are plenty of other things we do not understand either... but common folk are not claiming gravity to be a bunch of tree hugger B.S. just because we can't put our finger on what gravity actually is. That's what is going on with environmental research right now.. as soon as you say ""warming" or "change" everyone stick fingers in their ears and saya blah blah blah loudly and claims it all to be a bunch of BS.

The problem I have with the whole "what does it mean" part is not one single scientist has been able to show me that if we spend "X" amount of money on these "U, V, and W" measures, we will get "these" results. That is the political BS part. Let's throw all this money at a problem when we have zero idea of it's effectiveness to make us all feel better... and best yet is we HAVE to because we are ALL going to DIE if we don't. THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!! That's the BS part. But to claim all environmental research is all BS too is not the answer either.

Then learn how to separate the science from the politics. I realize at is point it is darn near impossible, but we can try.

I don't have a problem with "most of it is man made". I have a problem with some of the suggestions of "what it means", and what we should do about it. This is where I will turn into a DB....

I believe man is causing CO2 concentrations to increase in our atmosphere.... and I don't care. Sorry, I just don't at this point.

The Earth has been hotter, the CO2 concentration has been higher. Man is making a mess, and man will just have to deal with it. All this really means is man will eventually limit how many people this planet can support. I don't care what that number is. All those people that live on shore lines will have to move, we have had migrations before. Natural disasters will continue to cost us money, just like earthquakes, tornadoes, hurricanes, floods, and wild fires have always cost us money. Life will go on.. until the next meteor or global calamity happens and then there will be another mass extinction and Earth will be reset. Perhaps Cockroaches will finally get the break they have been looking for.

I get you now. 

It's like when bat specialists study the number of bats in an area and then try to predict the number that will die from a car hitting it as it's chasing a moth over a bridge. 1+1=1,272

science vs predictive assumptions.

I agree with your last post.

I hit a bat once with my RV.  He was in the zone and thwack, right in the middle of the windshield.  

Many of the attribution studies use models. The models are based on our understanding of atmospheric physics, not just projecting a trend out to the future.  Basically what they do is run the model over the past (usually the last century) with and without anthropogenic CO2 additions and the only way the the model outcomes match the  temperatures actually observed is with the additional CO2.  In other words, the observed temperatures are outside the range of natural climate variation unless you add in extra greenhouse gasses.  We also know this from paleoclimate studies - by looking at what has caused the climate to change in the past.  For example, the ice ages were caused by gradual changes in the earths orbit and tilt (called Milankovitch cycles).  By looking at what has caused changes in the past we can then go ahead and ask ok, are any of these things happening now that could explain the energy imbalance we are currently experiencing, and the answer is no, the only thing that has been observed which could have an influence on the earths energy budget which has changed since we've seen the earths temperatures start to rise, is the addition of green house gasses and changes in land cover by humans.  In addition to being unable to explain where the extra energy is coming from that is raising temps if it's not from CO2, you'd also have to explain why the extra CO2, which has been known from simple physics experiments to be a greenhouse gas since the 1800's, isn't acting as a greenhouse gas, and no one's been able to come up with a reason for that either.

There are a few ways of knowing that humans are the source of this additional CO2.  For one thing we have a good idea of the global scale CO2 fluxes and over (relatively) short term the natural part of these basically cancel out.  Land cover changes by humans have acted to decease the absorption capacity of the environment which causes the CO2 conenctrations to rise.  We also have a really good idea of the amount of fossil fuels we are burning and adding to the system.  In addition, we also know from carbon isotopes that the additional CO2 is from humans.  Plants preferentially absorb a certain kind of carbon isotope and so by looking at the percentages of these isotopes in the atmosphere we can see that the additional CO2 has come from the burning of plants, or more accurately, what used to be plants millions of years ago (explained better here - references at the bottom).

As far as CO2 lagging warming, this is true and it isn't.  The current understanding is that what happens is, as you are coming out of an ice age you get a gradual warming due to the above mentioned Milankovich cycles.  At some point this warming leads to an increase in CO2 outgassing from the oceans which causes more warming, which then causes more CO2 additions to the atmosphere, which causes more warming and so on.  So basically you have an very small energy imbalance in the beginning which causes CO2 to be released and then CO2 takes over the drivers seat.  Temperature leads in the beginning, then CO2 takes over.  In case you're wondering, the ocean at the moment is a sink for CO2, not a source.  In fact a large portion of the CO2 we are adding is being absorbed by the oceans (which is why they are acidifying).  Currently we're at ~400 ppb CO2 in the atmosphere (it was ~280 before we started adding to it) and without the oceans it would be around 500 ppb.

Hope I was close to answering your questions.  If you have any others I'll do my best.  I'm not a climatologist either so I'd encourage you to track down more information if you're interested in something in particular.  Despite what the skeptics say, the IPCC report is a great, unbiased synthesis of the current science (although even though it was published in 2007 it's already getting a bit out of date).  If anything it tends to be on the conservative side of things, we're already observing things to be happening faster than they predicted then.  And like I said, just because we know we're the ones changing the climate doesn't mean we know for 100% sure what the outcomes will be.  At this point it's looking more and more like it will be closer to the very serious side of things than the no big deal side of things, but even though there's good certainty in some predictions (such as temp) there's still a lot of uncertainty in some parts of the predictions (such as the effects on hurricanes or where tipping points might be) so that is a legitimate area of contention.  But at the same time, I see it as a matter of risk management.  It's almost certain that my children are going to experience a planet very different from the one I grew up on.  I'm not saying it's going to be uninhabitable or anything like that, but we do have to factor the risks that things could be worse than we think along with the risk that they could be better than we think, and right now, we're only counting the risk it could all work out ok even though the evidence is not leading us in that direction.  We'll probably be able to adapt (at least those countries that can afford to), but the fact that there is uncertainty in many areas is even more of a reason to act.  People are worried about the deficit and say we have to endure some pain now in order to avoid a possible disaster later (despite uncertainty in the magnitude of the 'disaster'), but yet when faced with the same scenario except with a much much more dire potential outcome somehow the risk analysis gets reversed.  Anyways sorry for the mini rant and the humongous post.  Hope it helps.

BTW - I didn't realize you were a wildlife biologist - that's cool!  What do you study?  I'm actually working on a masters in ecology right now, focusing on ecosystem ecology and global change adaptation.

Venice is flooded again.

Unlike religious people who believe or don't believe their imagination, scientists know or don't know facts.

Global warming is a fact ... that's what the international community of scientists have determined.  Ignorant people perpetuate political propaganda to maintain their power.  Like the pope denied Galileo, the republicans deny reality.

As we evolve, some of us will adapt

I sort of exaggerate, but you get my point. I understand nobody can say "X' amount of money will buy us this... but do you know the numbers Drew?

Is there any data that says if we cut our emissions "this" much, then we can turn the tide or mitigate this much risk? Because that is what risk management is... how much is it gong to cost me to change, how much is it going to cost me if I do nothing? At this stage of the game, surely there has been some numbers crunched to shed some light on what we are really looking at.

The last I looked, there was some conflicting data on what we "speculate" will actually happen. So until we can sort of nail that down, we are not really able to form a educated decision. Also, there is a time component to this. There are other conflicting ideas that there is still time, and some think we are past the time to change it.

And thanks for the book, that was really interesting... can you answer this? So water is a greenhouse gas, but it does not really matter... meaning it is self regulating. If it wasn't we would have a runaway feed back loop. Hotter equals more evaporation, more water vapor, gets hotter... The regulation is cloud cover. You sort of said the same thing for CO2 coming out of an ice age, warms up, more CO2 is off gassed, gets hotter, more CO2... well then that would always happen. What is the regulating factor for that? If there was no regulation, we would have been a super hot ball of gas at this point. I'm not debating you, I'm seriously curious about it. I don't know.

I *think* on the CO2 part you're asking two questions: why is climate stable, and why doesn't CO2 run away?  The climate has been stable now because at the current level of energy inputs the earth is basically able to balance CO2.  CO2 emitted to the atmosphere by natural processes is in balance with the CO2 being absorbed (until we started adding C which had previously been stored that is).  And in addition to the positive feedback loop of CO2, there are also negative feedback loops acting to keep concentrations stable (for example, increased CO2 tends to leadto increased plant production).   What studies of the past climate have shown is that at some point an energy imbalance which causes CO2 release at a higher rate will reach a threshold where the CO2 being released overwhelms the ability of the environment to absorb it, and that's where you start getting the positive feedback loop kicking in.  In the currrent situation, it isn't an energy imbalance that's allowing more CO2 to be released than absorbed, it's all the CO2 we're adding.

So then why doesn't co2 run away until the planet turns into Venus?  Well there are actually people out there who say that's exactly where we're headed if we let concentrations get up over 1000 ppb (where methane hydrates would be mobilized) although I'm yet to be convinced that's where we're headed, I think that's a pretty fringe view, even among people who study climate change.  The reason we don't get a runaway CO2 effect is that the positive feedbacks tend to diminish  after a few cycles.  In the beginning all the CO2 that is easy to mobilize gets released, but as the cycle continues, the remaining CO2 is in deposits which are much more difficult to release. 

As far as the adaptation goes, yes there has been work done on this, but economics is a much murkier area and it's much easier to massage the data to tell you what you want to hear.   To be honest it's not something I follow all that closely, but my sense is that the costs of adaptation have been downplayed somewhat, but the risks of inaction have been downplayed much more. You're right that it is much more challenging because there is a greater amount of uncertainty. 

Most of the risk asessments I've come across find that the risks far outweigh the costs (especially since many of the costs are for stuff we'll have to do at some point anyway and have other non-climate related benefits), but it's also complictaed by the fact that almost all of the uncertainty lies in things which would have enormous negative effects.   As I mentioned in another thread, studies have shown that in the past, ice shelf collapse has happened when CO2 concentrations have hit around 450 ppb, leading to an increase in sea level of about 250' over about 20-30 years.  These are the sort of threshold events we know are out there and we'll hit at some point, but the uncertainty in our knowledge at this point is such that it's very difficult to include these threshold type events in a cost-benefit analysis. We have good certainty that temperatures will increase and even by how much, but the effects this increased energy in the system will hhave on other processes is harder to quantify, although this is a huge area of research, so we're getting better.

The bottom line though, even over the past 5 years our understanding has progressed a lot, and that this point we DO have a really good idea of the climate sensitivity to CO2, so in that sense, we do have a good idea of how much of a benefit we could expect from a reduction in ppb.  But what also isn't mentioned it seems is that we're already beginning to pay costs associated with climate change (the number of billion $ disasters set a record last year and isn't far behind this year for example), and there's no sign the impacts we're already seeing are doing anything but increasing.   And where do you think the money to help the victims comes from?  Or to adapt? Yup, higher taxes and decreased services.   In that sense, it's just like the deficit argument in that the longer we wait to address the problem, the higher the costs are going to be when we're forced by circumstances to finally say, oh crap.  Except in the case of climate change the risks of being wrong are much much worse, and by the time we realize we have a problem it's entirely possible (even likely) that many of the changes are irreversible.  Damn, I promised myself I'd try to cut down on these long posts so someone might actually read one because I think this is really important.  Sorry.

I found this review which lays out the risks and costs but I'm sure there's more out there.  I think a complicating factor is that we're already seeing effects happening that weren't predicted to happen until CO2 level were higher (such as the melting of the arctic ice), meaning that if anything we have probably overestimated the amt of CO2 we can have in the atmospehere before we start seeing serious effects and I don't know that any of the risk assessments have been updated to reflect this.

Thanks for the explanation. The study was pretty interesting. Plenty of research, and the author admits applying economic models to long term economies is difficult at best. Basically stabilization can occur with significant cuts and cost, but manageable one. And they are much less than doing nothing.

It states pricing carbon by taxation, or regulation is a must have component of any policy. That is where I get skeptical... not that it is needed, but that our politicians will take this vast new revenue stream and actually use it for it's intended purpose. That's a tricky one, because so far, they have shown that is not possible.

I have said we do not need such economic incentive for a while. We are the ones emitting GH gasses the most, but we do not have the highest birth rates or population density compared to the rest of the world. So we could do without, but that would have very little impact on the rest of the world.

I see no reason to "incentivize" kids... but thinking about moving to a consumption tax... Parents, would  then be paying the tax for the kids basically. The kids would consume products, but they are not the ones paying the taxes or earning the wages. Now obviously that is their decision to have kids, but families would shift to paying higher percentage of tax just due to being higher consumers.

At least now, the income earners, parents, only pay based on their income, and then get breaks for having kids as dependents to pay less taxes. Yet the kids are using resources none the less from the education system and what not. To go to a consumption tax the burden would shift in a very large way. That would be a problem for a large part of our country... meaning very hard to pass a consumption tax without exemptions.

Agreed.

Since we need to raise revenue, decrease co2 output that doing away with or phasing out the deductions for dependents should be a no brainier, yet I've not heard it mentioned other than by you or me.

I don't know the details of our welfare system but I believe we as a nation provide more benefits the more children that someone on welfare has. If I'm wrong on this someone please chime in.

I do believe in global warming and that man is at least somewhat in the mix.  IMO what needs to be figured out is how much.  Is it 1% or 99%?  In the meantime, I am all for it and will throw an extra tire on the fire since the older I get the more I hate the cold and snow.  LOL!

I know other places have birth restrictions... I want to say Singapore.. I was there, but it might be somewhere else... anyway, you are entitled to one child... after that, the other children receive absolutely no State benefits... medical, education... anything. Basically, they are cut off.

I'm not saying we are there, but a max of two dependents is not unreasonable. And it is a "dependent". I claim my MIL as a dependent. She is on disability and lives with us. I receive a tax deduction, but I have no children. It is becoming common for children to take care of their parents... so even just limiting dependents to two or 3 would be a step in the right direction. I have two co-workers that have 5 and 6 children and pay next to nothing in tax... yet these are very well paid people in solid middle upper middle class. I think that is ridiculous.

Now they are paying a ton for those kids so it isn't like they are making out... they are still broke. But I just think it is wrong for able people to not pay taxes like everyone else... or rather I subsidize my co-worked and his 6 kids. It wasn't my choice for them to have 6 kids.

Welfare does pay for every child you have... because the argument is why should the child suffer for poor parenting decisions... I honestly can't imagine a parent having another child to get a raise... but obviously there has to be some sort of consequence to having more children you can't provide for other than the State picking up the check.

I'm not sure of how to make it work...  I have always thought there there is a lot more we could be doing without getting into "global warming". If there is no other alternative right now, then higher fuel mileage is not unreasonable. If you want a muscle car pay for it. Conservation could go a very long way. But most models of aggressive conservation is 10-15%... but hey, it's 10-15% and that is "free" so to speak.

Believe it or not, I actually think every coal plant should not be grand fathered... force regulation of current plants and that would automatically make utilities shut down older less efficient plants. The ones that are left would be at least compliant and the most efficient. My company already is in compliance. I see no reason why everyone else should not be too. You would see a much larger shift to gas... and while that is still CO2, it is half of coal. It would at least get us by in the meantime.. as more uncarbon sources come on line... wind solar, nuclear... at least we would have fast starting back up gas plants for reliability.

If there was really a will... there would be a way, but right now it is lost in politics and we are as divided as ever... so that does not look good for any drastic change.

Well this gets back to the 'so what do we do about it' question and away from the science side of things.   I think there are a lot of different solutions and there's not going to be one silver bullet.  To really tackle the problem we're going to need solutions that come from all ends of the political spectrum.   The easy answer is that anyone in power, dems or reps wants to stay in power, and eliminating things like child tax credits and such would be hugely unpopular.

But I don't think the issue is really sheer numbers of population per se, it about resource use.  The populations in first world countries are pretty stable (or even declining in some like Japan or Italy) if you don't include immigration, yet our resource consumption is many times that of countries like China which have many more people.  At its heart an economy is simply a system for converting natural resources to waste and improving human welfare along the way.  The problem is that the supply of resources and the capacity for absobing waste are finite (in fact we've already surpassed the planets ability to absorb our CO2 waste which is why it's building up in the atmosphere).  I think in the future we're going to have to move to an economy where we don't measure human well being by wealth or how much we consume, but by other metrics.  The country of Bhutan for example has made their national goal not the increase of GPD as a measure of growth, but the increase of happiness.  It may sound kind of silly at first, but it also sounds silly when you realize that we currently measure our well being by whether we have a 60" tv or not, not whether we surround ourselves with friends and family, rewarding jobs etc.  Other measures of growth such as the GPI (Genuine Progress Indicator) have been proposed as measrements in place of GDP as well.  In other words, our quality of life and our measures of progress don't have to strictly be tied to consumption (in which case population growth is a much bigger concern).  I don't mean to sound all utopian, I don't really expect channges like this to happen for a long time, and I think it probably won't be a concious decision, but its the consumption of resources and additions of waste to the system that are the problem, not the absolute number of people (assuming we have the ability to feed & clothe everyone obviously) and at some point we're going to have to become much smarter about the way we use and then throw away stuff.  Look up steady state economics if you want a better explanation.  That answer anything or just make it more confusing?  It's getting a bit away from climate chnage...

Drew, while you and I may disagree on how much humans contribute to climate change I really respect your opinion and the amount of research and detail you put into your posts.

In part to answer my own question and I hope this doesn't derail this but a big part of why they will never do away with the dependent or childcare credit is because we need an increasing population to keep funding the Ponzi Scheme we call Social Security.

We are a nation that does waste and consume way more than necessary. How do we get to where we care more about each other than what each other has? IDK.

I was in Costa Rica a couple of months ago and while they don't have the best roads the people have a quality of genuinely caring that I found very refreshing and ,,,,,,,,, there's another word I'm looking for but it's escaped me. Anyway, my point to this last to try to convey that I think I understand what you are saying and agree.

I appreciate these discussions with guys like you & powerman because I learn a lot from you guys too.  I can't say I agree with your take on SS & tax credits, but I understand where you're coming from and I think it's really important to be exposed to every viewpoint, not just the ones you agree with.  It might seem like we're talking past each other a lot on these boards, but I've definitely had times where I've had to reexamine what I think and even changed my view on things.  

With climate change, I think to believe that one 'side' has all the answers is a mistake - the scale of the problem means we're going to need solutions from every side.  I actually think the conservative approach of strengthening community & family ties (the things, not the tv shows) is going to be a really important part of the move away from the focus on consumption and resource use we'll have to make.  What worries me in not that we can't agree on what steps to take, it's that we can't agree that we need to take steps at all and we're increasingly seeing we don't have as much time as we thought.