$60 Trillion Trouble

[jeb]

Wow, took a long time for this response!

I don't see the logic in this argument.

That's no surprise, given your viewpoint on this subject.

Americans are not surrender monkeys.

My post had nothing to do with surrendering. I was just asking what the folks that believe in this religion are willing to give up to "fix" it.

Jeb you asked what I do because of global warming. Ok I'll rise to that bait.

Good for you! At least you're trying to walk the walk a little. Given the fact that even the Kyoto agreement was predicted to have almost no impact, small steps like you list are not likely to have any impact at all. But at least you're putting your effort where your believes are. Congrats on that! I'd wager very, very, very few alarmists are willing to make any real sacrifices to combat this chicken little scenario, though.

...and your points about the climate models being incorrect are just as misguided. We've just passed the warmest decade on record

Yes, but global temps were steady, and possibly even falling, during that decade. Show me a "consensus" model that showed the temps would do that. I mean one from 10 years ago or more.

The cause and effect for climate is known and we're causing the temps to rise.

Only to the believers and alarmists.

The only question left to us now is how to handle it.

That's where the money is, I'll give you that.

[Tim Smith]

I appreciate the straightforward tone in your reply Jeb. Things have been busy or I would have gotten back to you sooner.

Looking at your content, I suppose I expected most of your reply. You'll probably not be surprised by what I say here, either.

The bottom line is that science has nothing to do with beliefs. If the data supported rejecting the models, that would have happened or would be happening,

I do agree with you that it will take more than a few people cutting their carbon footprint. I suppose mine is well less than half of what it would be if I weren't actively trying to reduce it but it will take all of us doing that plus some systematic changes in the way we do things to make a difference. As a population the US is still the largest per capita emitter of carbon in the world, the changes we make will have more impact than most. I have to say it shames me when I see people in Belize who live far below our poverty levels and who have far smaller impacts than we do trying to reduce THEIR carbon emissions while we're still dawdling over misguided arguments.

I suppose the difference is that they live on a dying reef and are watching the changes unfolding more plainly before them than most Americans have taken the time to see. It's not an abstract issue for them in the slightest.

I look at your arguments as the kind of hold overs that occur during every major change. The people who resisted the sewage treatment plants, or the National Parks, or the effects of cigarette smoking or recycling bins all had reasons to oppose the necessary steps. But we took them anyway and every one benefited.

Eventually, that will also be the case here as well. As the trends continue to play out over time, there won't be any variability to hide behind anymore. It's too bad that we'll have to suffer more until a majority is voting solidly to fix these issues. But that's the cost of democracy and it's a price we're lucky to be able to pay.

[ness]

But that's the cost of democracy and it's a price we're lucky to be able to pay.

Yep. That's a great way of summing it up.

[jeb]

I appreciate the straightforward tone in your reply Jeb. Things have been busy or I would have gotten back to you sooner.

Looking at your content, I suppose I expected most of your reply. You'll probably not be surprised by what I say here, either.

The bottom line is that science has nothing to do with beliefs. If the data supported rejecting the models, that would have happened or would be happening,

You mean like this? : http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/09/12/climate-models-wildly-overestimated-global-warming-study-finds/'>114 of 117 climate models wrong

Here's a direct link to the new study: http://www.see.ed.ac.uk/~shs/Climate%20change/Climate%20model%20results/over%20estimate.pdf'>Direct link

And I'm still waiting for the link to the at least 10 year old model that predicted the temps would be flat or even decline over the last 10 years or more that backs up your earlier assertions.

I do agree with you that it will take more than a few people cutting their carbon footprint. I suppose mine is well less than half of what it would be if I weren't actively trying to reduce it but it will take all of us doing that plus some systematic changes in the way we do things to make a difference. As a population the US is still the largest per capita emitter of carbon in the world, the changes we make will have more impact than most.

China is the biggest emiiter. Spinning it on a per capita basis does not change the fact that China will only produce more if we produce less, since that's where most of the carbon emitting companies/jobs/processes move to when it gets too expensive for them in the USA. I would assume some of that transfer of carbon emissions is figured into the USA per capita use.

But there again, nothing is proven. There is still no solid evidence that CO2, a gas that only makes up .04% of our atomsphere (yeah, you read that right), is impacting the climate at all. Look at the article I just posted in. Those folks need to go back to the drawing board! And that's cool, science works that way. But to go freaking out over this stuff when it's so demonstrably incorrect is lunacy. IMO, and all.

I look at your arguments as the kind of hold overs that occur during every major change.

LOL! I look at the study above to show that we all should be "hold overs".

The people who resisted the sewage treatment plants, or the National Parks, or the effects of cigarette smoking or recycling bins all had reasons to oppose the necessary steps. But we took them anyway and every one benefited.

Do you really think that's even close to the same thing here? Really?

Eventually, that will also be the case here as well. As the trends continue to play out over time, there won't be any variability to hide behind anymore.

True, it will be shown over and over again that it's impossible to model the climate or predict the future weather. There will be no hiding that as these models continue to be wrong. If they become accurate, they won't scare anyone. Can't have that!

It's too bad that we'll have to suffer more until a majority is voting solidly to fix these issues. But that's the cost of democracy and it's a price we're lucky to be able to pay.

I pray we continue to have the common sense politically to not go driving our country further off the rails and into ever more debt tilting at these imagined windmills. The biggest problem facing our country is the rapidly rising debt levels. That will, for a fact, harm ours and our children's future. And that is something we can actually do something about.

[Tim Smith]

So let's get this straight...that little place at the top of the long climb in temperatures is a reason to think climate change is a fraud?

I suppose if you're going to be wrong you might as well be spectacularly wrong.

The trends speak for themselves.

We're sitting at the top of a long continual climb in temperatures with some variation. The period from 1960 to 1970 shows an actual decline in temperatues (primarily associated with particulate pollution), the same thing that's going on now in China where most of the global manufacturing productivity now occurs and is unregulated in any meaningful sense. That point has been out there for quite a while. Interesting you don't address that in your discussion about your models.

The carbon is still there...in fact there's more of it than ever, but a larger proportion is going into particulates. That's not suddenly going to reverse the current warming trend. It can push down the effect of carbon in the short term, but in the long term the effect of increasing greenhouse gasses will still be around for the next 100 years.

http://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-blogs/climatechange/possible-causes-to-the-recent/9845329

What else...oh yes...

The assumption that someone somewhere will continue to build up CO2 levels if we don't is entirely baseless. China is vastly more vulnerable than we are to climate change. Their policy people are beginning to make changes because they're beginning to realize they're cutting their own throats.

The IPCC has just issued their newest report and they're upgraded their certainty level yet again that humans are influencing the long term trend toward increasing temperatures.

Here in Colorado, we've just had our 1st and 2nd worst fires ever over the last 2 years. We just lost 200 miles of roads, 50 bridges, 8 lives, and billions of dollars to the kind of event the climate change models predicted would become more frequent. The road I was hoping to take up to Rocky Mountain National Park for Thanksgiving Holiday is now the bed of a river. The glaciers are melting (you can watch that process over the last 30 years on Google Earth if you care to), the temps are rising, animals and plants are moving north and the temperatures are now higher than they have been over the history of our country. These are all the kinds of things that were predicted by climate change models.

Am I alarmed by that? Am I an alarmist? Not really. There are practical steps that will help once we finally get off our butts and do something about this. I don't spend much time quaking in my boots about this. But I'm also not buying any property at sea level or planning to build in fire zones or arid regions any time soon either. The OP's post is spot on. We're going to be spending more and more time dealing with this in the decades to come.

[Wayne SW/MO]

There is still a lot of explaining to do Tim. If it's man made than the abrupt rise between 2002 and 2005 should be easy to explain?

[lee G.]

What I cant explain is the levels from 1977 to 1997? Thats got me baffled.

[ness]

Maybe you guys should try a bigger font?

[Tim Smith]

Ness, that's ridiculous. If I were really trying, I'd be using emoticons.

[Tim Smith]

There is still a lot of explaining to do Tim. If it's man made than the abrupt rise between 2002 and 2005 should be easy to explain?

One thing doesn't follow from the other, Wayne.

There are multiple drivers affecting the climate. The amount of CO₂ has been going up steadily. Other things are cycling up and down. There's going to be year to year variability in temperatures that have nothing to do with greenhouse gasses.