The Global Warming Pause

[carlfense]

 

 

 

 

So ... no opinion on when our impact changed from "negligible to moderate" and/or "moderate to significant".

 

--

 

I'm trying to read stuff...but a discussion is more enjoyable.

 

Post-industrial revolution.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth's_atmosphere

[tschu]

Basically what that graph is saying is that the slope that you see there, that rate of increase, is way above anything that we've seen happen naturally. And you have to go back somewhere between 10 and 15 million years ago to find the last time that CO2 levels were this high.

 

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/326/5958/1394.abstract

[Moiraine]

There are so many other horrible consequences of pollution, I just don't understand why people argue so much about 50-100 years from now. Sh**ty things are happening RIGHT NOW but people argue about the future as if the bad things aren't happening yet and as if it isn't worth spending money on slowing them down.

[TGHusker]

So in all of this discussion, are there other possible causes for the high CO2 levels not related to man that could explain the increased levels?

At one time we had the ice age and then a mini ice age - prior to the rise of our industrialized nations - what possibly brought about the change from ice age to the age of warming in those situations?

Are there possibly major 'natural' (sun, earthquakes, volcano activity, etc) activities that can increase the CO2 levels significantly and explain our current rise in temps (or a significant portion of it)? Maybe someone has looked at the research on that and can contribute.

 

Then we go back to one of the original questions - Can man actually reverse the warming trend long term? If caused by nature, most likely not. If primarily caused by man, possibly - if all nations contributed - which is doubtful unless we have a one world dictator (let;'s not make this about end times stuff) who can mandate it. I don't think we see all nations working together until there is a worldwide catastrophe related to climate change. Someone may blame hurricane Katrina on global warming here in the USA but some in China and India could care less as it doesn't affect them. Unless the developing nations and the rising nations of China and India are all on board, I think the efforts of western Europe, USA, Japan - other others will have little affect. With that said, I think it is in our best interest to do what we can to clean our air as much as possible. It may be beneficial here and maybe in small incremental ways, help the overall temps.

 

I do think we should do all we can, short of Cap and Trade (which I think will be a big drag on the economy), to reduce emissions. I think the govt should work with industries to improve the efficiencies and practicality of alternative energy sources. This cannot be solved by just the private sector or just by govt mandates. No reason we cannot have a NASA type initiative like we did under JFK to attack the problem in a holistic way - while not picking winners and loosers (your favorite donors get the govt grants).

 

Article discussing the difference between Cap & Trade and a Carbon Tax

 

http://www.lwv.org/content/cap-and-trade-versus-carbon-tax-two-approaches-curbing-greenhouse-gas-emissions

 

 

Articles on Cap and Trade

http://spectator.org/articles/39498/problem-cap-and-trade

 

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jul/4/us-watches-as-eu-struggles-with-cap-and-trade/?page=all

Climate and energy policy specialist Lee Lane said the troubled debut of the ETS should be a cautionary tale for U.S. supporters of the concept, calling the EU plan “deeply flawed.”

“The fact that the Europeans are in the process of changing their own numerical targets suggests that [the cap-and-trade system] may not be a very realistic approach to the problem,” said Mr. Lane, a visiting fellow at the Hudson Institute.

Mr. Lane said that because there is no global agreement on greenhouse gas emissions restrictions, the ETS will not make a significant impact in cutting global emissions.

“Europe simply cannot affect global emissions that much, acting unilaterally as they are doing. And this is frankly the same lesson that President Obama ought to learn with his new proposals for restricting greenhouse gas emissions: [Europe] is having such a deep recession in part because they are overregulated in the first place.”

But the EU adjustment doesn’t mean the cap-and-trade system is failing, said Nathaniel Keohane from the Environmental Defense Fund.

“That’s just telling us there’s room to tighten the cap [and] improve the system,” said Mr. Keohane, who serves as the vice president for EDF’s International Climate program. “We’ve got to keep our eye on the bigger picture. In the long run, the way we need to be judging the performance of the European trading system is whether it’s reducing emissions, and I think [it’s] clear that carbon emission under the cap is down by more than 10 percent and the EU has in place a law that’s going to keep that cap declining past 2020.”

Mr. Keohane pointed to examples in the U.S. of similar successful cap-and-trade-like systems: the leaded gasoline phaseout in the 1980s under President Reagan; the sulfur dioxide (SO2) emission trading program for power plants in the 1990s; and the phaseout of CFCs under the Montreal Protocol during the George H.W. Bush administration.

[Husker_x]

So in all of this discussion, are there other possible causes for the high CO2 levels not related to man that could explain the increased levels?

At one time we had the ice age and then a mini ice age - prior to the rise of our industrialized nations - what possibly brought about the change from ice age to the age of warming in those situations?

Are there possibly major 'natural' (sun, earthquakes, volcano activity, etc) activities that can increase the CO2 levels significantly and explain our current rise in temps (or a significant portion of it)? Maybe someone has looked at the research on that and can contribute.

 

Then we go back to one of the original questions - Can man actually reverse the warming trend long term? If caused by nature, most likely not. If primarily caused by man, possibly - if all nations contributed - which is doubtful unless we have a one world dictator (let;'s not make this about end times stuff) who can mandate it. I don't think we see all nations working together until there is a worldwide catastrophe related to climate change. Someone may blame hurricane Katrina on global warming here in the USA but some in China and India could care less as it doesn't affect them. Unless the developing nations and the rising nations of China and India are all on board, I think the efforts of western Europe, USA, Japan - other others will have little affect. With that said, I think it is in our best interest to do what we can to clean our air as much as possible. It may be beneficial here and maybe in small incremental ways, help the overall temps.

 

I do think we should do all we can, short of Cap and Trade (which I think will be a big drag on the economy), to reduce emissions. I think the govt should work with industries to improve the efficiencies and practicality of alternative energy sources. This cannot be solved by just the private sector or just by govt mandates. No reason we cannot have a NASA type initiative like we did under JFK to attack the problem in a holistic way - while not picking winners and loosers (your favorite donors get the govt grants).

 

Article discussing the difference between Cap & Trade and a Carbon Tax

 

http://www.lwv.org/content/cap-and-trade-versus-carbon-tax-two-approaches-curbing-greenhouse-gas-emissions

 

 

Articles on Cap and Trade

http://spectator.org/articles/39498/problem-cap-and-trade

 

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jul/4/us-watches-as-eu-struggles-with-cap-and-trade/?page=all

Climate and energy policy specialist Lee Lane said the troubled debut of the ETS should be a cautionary tale for U.S. supporters of the concept, calling the EU plan “deeply flawed.”

“The fact that the Europeans are in the process of changing their own numerical targets suggests that [the cap-and-trade system] may not be a very realistic approach to the problem,” said Mr. Lane, a visiting fellow at the Hudson Institute.

Mr. Lane said that because there is no global agreement on greenhouse gas emissions restrictions, the ETS will not make a significant impact in cutting global emissions.

“Europe simply cannot affect global emissions that much, acting unilaterally as they are doing. And this is frankly the same lesson that President Obama ought to learn with his new proposals for restricting greenhouse gas emissions: [Europe] is having such a deep recession in part because they are overregulated in the first place.”

But the EU adjustment doesn’t mean the cap-and-trade system is failing, said Nathaniel Keohane from the Environmental Defense Fund.

“That’s just telling us there’s room to tighten the cap [and] improve the system,” said Mr. Keohane, who serves as the vice president for EDF’s International Climate program. “We’ve got to keep our eye on the bigger picture. In the long run, the way we need to be judging the performance of the European trading system is whether it’s reducing emissions, and I think [it’s] clear that carbon emission under the cap is down by more than 10 percent and the EU has in place a law that’s going to keep that cap declining past 2020.”

Mr. Keohane pointed to examples in the U.S. of similar successful cap-and-trade-like systems: the leaded gasoline phaseout in the 1980s under President Reagan; the sulfur dioxide (SO2) emission trading program for power plants in the 1990s; and the phaseout of CFCs under the Montreal Protocol during the George H.W. Bush administration.

 

The short answer to the question is hypothetically yes. But in this particular case, the answer is no. We can run tests to tell the difference between c02 found naturally and the stuff we put into atmosphere ourselves. Read more here.

 

 

Many are still asking is current global warming natural or human caused? The idea that global warming is natural is not an absurd question. In the natural cycle, global warming is natural. The better question is, 'is current global warming natural'? There are multiple lines of evidence that point us to the origin of our current warming:

1. Greenhouse gases trap infrared heat energy.
2. The isotopic signature clearly shows that the extra CO₂ in the atmosphere is from fossil fuels.
3. We are no longer in the natural cycle. We have largely departed from the natural course of climate and there is no natural mechanism that explains it.
4. The models and the observations match.
5. There is simply no other mechanism that can explain the significantly altered climate path and the changes in the radiative forcing other than human causes.

[TGHusker]

Thanks Husker_x for the link. A lot to swallow and digest on that one.

[sd'sker]

i am just confused on the debate. why would anyone support fossil fuels for the future of our energy? even if global warming is a hoax (a patently ridiculous assertion), fossil fuels are terrifyingly finite and largely in the hands of our enemies or places that will ruin the country for us to get.

 

green energy is better for the economy, security, and environment (beyond just carbon emissions).

 

so, what is the argument?

 

i mean, it looks like arguing that smoking is good for you in the '80s because philip morris said so.

[BigRedBuster]

i am just confused on the debate. why would anyone support fossil fuels for the future of our energy? even if global warming is a hoax (a patently ridiculous assertion), fossil fuels are terrifyingly finite and largely in the hands of our enemies or places that will ruin the country for us to get.

 

green energy is better for the economy, security, and environment (beyond just carbon emissions).

 

so, what is the argument?

 

i mean, it looks like arguing that smoking is good for you in the '80s because philip morris said so.

I don't have a problem with green energy. It's obviously a good thing and any thing we can do to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels the better...especially oil.

 

The problem I have, is that it seems like people want to stop using fossil fuels before we have valid replacements. It seems like some are perfectly fine with fossil fuels being priced way out of the ball park with no alternative just because they see fossil fuels as bad.

 

Well, that attitude can have very negative affects on our economy if countries like China are allowed to just keep using ultra cheap energy with little or no environmental regulations or ramifications for their pollution.

 

For a long time, I have been all for a major shift in government spending to a "manhattan project" type project towards replacement energies that are more green. BUT, if we are going to commit to that, we need to still pump and dig fossil fuels to keep Americans chugging along until those replacements are found and developed enough to be viable replacements.

[LukeinNE]

i am just confused on the debate. why would anyone support fossil fuels for the future of our energy? even if global warming is a hoax (a patently ridiculous assertion), fossil fuels are terrifyingly finite and largely in the hands of our enemies or places that will ruin the country for us to get.

 

green energy is better for the economy, security, and environment (beyond just carbon emissions).

 

so, what is the argument?

 

i mean, it looks like arguing that smoking is good for you in the '80s because philip morris said so.

 

I don't think anybody supports fossil fuels as the future of energy. The argument is that green energy just isn't quite there yet (in the case of electricity generation, not even close to there), and that it will necessarily take time to develop green technologies in order to minimize disruptions in the transition phase.

[Junior]

http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2014/08/14/extreme_weather_new_research_links_it_to_global_warming.html

 

 

Tying extreme weather to climate change is tricky. It’s not so much “this event was due to the Earth warming, which is disrupting the climate” as it is “statistically speaking, we’re seeing more extreme weather events, getting even more extreme over time”. Think of it as playing craps with ever-so-slightly loaded dice. You can’t be sure that snake eyes you threw was due to the dice being weighted, but over time you’ll see a lot more of them than you’d expect, statistically, from fair dice.

 

We’re throwing an awful lot of meteorological snake eyes lately.

 

....

 

Again, we can’t always point to any one event and say “global warming caused (or amplified) this — though sometimes we can. But as our planet heats up, as ice in the Arctic, Antarctic, and Greenland slides away, as California continues to suffer its most apocalyptic drought on record, pointing a finger at such things will get easier and easier.

[Abdullah the Butcher]

 

 

 

The most widely used measurements of Arctic ice extent are the daily satellite readings issued by the US National Snow and Ice Data Center, which is co-funded by Nasa. These reveal that – while the long-term trend still shows a decline – last Monday, August 25, the area of the Arctic Ocean with at least 15 per cent ice cover was 5.62 million square kilometres.

This was the highest level recorded on that date since 2006 (see graph, right), and represents an increase of 1.71 million square kilometres over the past two years – an impressive 43 per cent.

Other figures from the Danish Meteorological Institute suggest that the growth has been even more dramatic. Using a different measure, the area with at least 30 per cent ice cover, these reveal a 63 per cent rise – from 2.7 million to 4.4 million square kilometres.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2738653/Stunning-satellite-images-summer-ice-cap-thicker-covers-1-7million-square-kilometres-MORE-2-years-ago-despite-Al-Gore-s-prediction-ICE-FREE-now.html

[tschu]

Long term trend is still a decline...yawn

 

Also: Nobody cares what Al Gore or John Kerry think. They are politicians, not scientists.

[sd'sker]

Long term trend is still a decline...yawn

 

Also: Nobody cares what Al Gore or John Kerry think. They are politicians, not scientists.

exactly. this is not a political issue. the fact that it says, "bad news for al gore"? i mean, al gore is not hoping for global warming. lol. if he was wrong, i think he would be the first to admit that it was good news that, you know, the world was not ending. but, some people's desire to be politically correct is more important than their desire to do what is right.

[Junior]

 

 

 

The most widely used measurements of Arctic ice extent are the daily satellite readings issued by the US National Snow and Ice Data Center, which is co-funded by Nasa. These reveal that – while the long-term trend still shows a decline – last Monday, August 25, the area of the Arctic Ocean with at least 15 per cent ice cover was 5.62 million square kilometres.

This was the highest level recorded on that date since 2006 (see graph, right), and represents an increase of 1.71 million square kilometres over the past two years – an impressive 43 per cent.

Other figures from the Danish Meteorological Institute suggest that the growth has been even more dramatic. Using a different measure, the area with at least 30 per cent ice cover, these reveal a 63 per cent rise – from 2.7 million to 4.4 million square kilometres.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2738653/Stunning-satellite-images-summer-ice-cap-thicker-covers-1-7million-square-kilometres-MORE-2-years-ago-despite-Al-Gore-s-prediction-ICE-FREE-now.html

 

 

http://www.huskerboard.com/index.php?/topic/70881-the-global-warming-pause/&do=findComment&comment=1388709

 

Already addressed. Keep trying.

[Husker_x]

 

Long term trend is still a decline...yawn

 

Also: Nobody cares what Al Gore or John Kerry think. They are politicians, not scientists.

exactly. this is not a political issue. the fact that it says, "bad news for al gore"? i mean, al gore is not hoping for global warming. lol. if he was wrong, i think he would be the first to admit that it was good news that, you know, the world was not ending. but, some people's desire to be politically correct is more important than their desire to do what is right.

 

 

That's an excellent point. I saw An Inconvenient Truth for the first time last year. This was after years and years of hearing conservative one-liners about it. My expectations were not very high. But then I put it on, and sure enough, he's basically correct about all of the major findings. It wouldn't surprise me to find his research is a tad dated at this point, but I think you would have a hard time fully refuting the central premises of the movie. I also didn't see much in there that was overtly political. He touches on his personal history but it never overshadows the environmental concerns. He also gets some credit for bringing public attention to the issue.