Climate Change - Impacts, Part II


Mick, here’s a recent analysis of evidence to date on the BC carbon tax:

British Columbia’s Revenue-Neutral Carbon Tax - a Review of the Latest “Grand Experiment” in Environmental Policy

From the summary:

[quote]Empirical and simulation models suggest that the tax has reduced emissions in the province by 5–15%. At the same time, models show that the tax has
had negligible effects on aggregate economic performance, though certain emissions-intensive sectors have faced challenges. Studies differ on the effects of the policy on income distribution but agree that they are relatively small. Finally, polling data show that the public initially opposed the tax but now generally supports it.[/quote]


Speaking of “alarmism”:

New Study Says Even 2 Degrees of Warming ‘Highly Dangerous’

[quote]… a new study being published this week by a team of 17 leading international climate scientists warns that even 2 degrees of warming is “highly dangerous” and could cause sea level rise of “at least several meters” this century, leaving most of the world’s coastal cities uninhabitable.

“The economic and social cost of losing functionality of all coastal cities is practically incalculable,” the authors write. “It is not difficult to imagine that conflicts arising from forced migrations and economic collapse might make the planet ungovernable, threatening the fabric of civilization.”[/quote]

I think the part about alternative publishing/peer review is promising, as there’s been a lot of gripe about the traditional system. Still I’m not crazy that the media is publicizing this before that process has been finished. Anyway, it’s an interesting read.


Stop throwing facts at Fred. Facts don’t work. We must try to appeal to that innate, evolved part of his brain that’s screaming to break through the fog. Make your arguments more visceral and primal


I wasn’t addressing him - heck, on this subject, his thinking is so predictable I could probably write his response for him and no one would know the difference. I post stuff for people actually interested in the topic - not those who just want to fling shit and muck up the discussion.


Fred, what do you say to that?


What do I have to say? Well, clearly we need to ACT URGENTLY NOW!!! and my suggestion is to take trillions of one dollar bills and burn them in a sacrifice to Mother Earth. That would appear to be about as effective as how the current monies are being spent… and so much more directly sacrificial. I think that we can all appreciate the importance of making a gesture to appease the angry earth goddess, right?


Fred, you’re with people that care about you. Don’t be afraid


Ok, now THAT made me laugh.


[quote]Ok, now THAT made me laugh[/quote].

About time…it does take you rather a while to get clued into the humor of the occasion. Mother Earth made me miss my connection today. Doh!


Well, if we’re being honest, your last Apostle’s Creed was pretty funny.


Clearly your white genes are not protecting you from the hot and getting warmer-thru-climate-change sun :roflmao:


This really belongs in a “Climate Change - Solutions” thread, but in order to avoid giving the hydra more heads, I’ll put it here:

This Giant Wall Sucks Carbon Dioxide Straight Out Of The Air

[quote]This giant wall really sucks.

Created by Canadian company Carbon Engineering, this wall could be built to draw carbon dioxide straight out of the air and convert it into fuel. The research and engineering firm hope to build such walls where regrowth of trees simply isn’t possible.

As shown in the video below, air flows through the row of fans. They are connected to a carbon dioxide-rich solution, which absorbs carbon compounds out of the air. The solution is purified, with the carbon dioxide within it extracted, and then purified again for reuse.[/quote]

One comment, parroted from the mouth of Kevin Trenberth (prominent climatologist)… while there have been a lot of promising developments in different kinds of sequestration (IE, pulling GHG’s straight out of the atmosphere), there is one inherent problem in this strategy: more than 3/4 of GHG’s are absorbed in the oceans (if I remember correctly), and thanks to the law of partial pressures, if GHG concentration in the atmosphere decreases, it will get sucked back out of the oceans. Meaning that it will take one HELL of a lot of sequestration to make any difference. The good news about this, though, is that even if we didn’t manage to make a dent in atmospheric warming by sequestration, at least we could possibly reduce the impact of ocean acidification!


It rained this morning.


The wall is a cool concept, but it’s more aimed at making fossil fuels “sustainable” than to replace them. I think in the short term this and similar things like the factory-emission scrubbing process they’re trying in Texas are not bad ideas, because as Buzzkill pointed out before he went all angry, we need some breathing space to convert infrastructure.


PS: For wanna-be climate nerds like me, here are a few articles about the “bomb-shell” Hansen study I linked to earlier. I will just quote a few hi-lights. The first is a kick-ass climate blogger, Tamino:

Hansen et al.

[quote]A big source of uncertainty is the use of truly-exponential ice sheet decay. Recent results from the GRACE (Gravity Recovery And Climate Experiment) satellite show that linear models are definitely inadequate:

It’s just one of the reasons that there is now near-consensus that the IPCC projections for 21st-century sea level rise are not just out of date, but too low. However, there’s quite a difference between nonlinear mass loss and truly exponential, and we simply don’t have enough data yet to know. But just as we can’t yet reliably claim exponential mass loss, we can’t rule it out either. Hence, although this idea is speculative, it’s also possible, and I believe it’s crucial for us to explore the consequences of what will happen if it turns out to be the case.[/quote]

In the general media, it’s mostly refreshingly appropriate skepticism:

Here’s Andrew Revkin, who wrote the first actual review of the paper (though he’s mostly just quoting relevant experts; he himself isn’t one):

A Rocky First Review for a Climate Paper Warning of a Stormy Coastal Crisis

[quote]The paper is a sweeping cross-disciplinary challenge to status-quo science on risks posed by the building greenhouse effect. The authors, led by James E. Hansen, the veteran climatologist-turned-campaigner, stitch a variety of findings and simulations into a worrisome vision of a looming and abrupt collapse of Antarctic ice sheets and a multi-meter rise in storm-raked seas. They directly call for urgent action by the world’s nations at the Paris treaty talks in December.

It’s no wonder the paper made headlines.

But, after less than two days of public review, the paper is being revealed as much more of a rough sketch, a provocation, than a thorough, deeply grounded new thesis.[/quote]

Here’s National Geo:

Prediction of Rapid Sea Level Rise Won’t Change Global Climate Talks

[quote]A bombshell climate study published this week warns that sea levels may rise a catastrophic 10 feet (3 meters) by the end of this century, rather than the currently predicted 3 feet (.9 meters). But mainstream climate scientists say the report appears speculative and is not in sync with the leading understanding of melting sea ice.

As a result, the study is unlikely to change leading scientific consensus or affect the current negotiations on a comprehensive global agreement on climate change.[/quote]

This one in the WashPo also has some interesting commentary from pertinent experts:

James Hansen’s controversial sea level rise paper has now been published online


I miss Fred. His stubbornness and refusal to accept facts is somewhat endearing. Fred, are you there my friend? How’s the weather in your parts?


The water in the shower felt somewhat warmer than usual today. I live in fear of water, coastal and otherwise. Oh dear! More of it! Given that the Arctic Ice will all be melted by summer of 2019, I suppose we have to have some new ice to melt to keep things interesting. Just sooooo relieved to hear that new sources of anxiety have been found. What a relief!


If you’d bothered to actually read the links, you’d see many climatologists are skeptical of this research’s conclusions. It’s very preliminary stuff - but has created a lot of interesting discussion. I’d say the response is a good example of ~real~ scientific skepticism as opposed to ideology-driven pseudo-skepticism.

In AR5, the IPCC predicts ice-free summer by 2050 - though their ice-melt predictions so far have come out under observations. 2019 was the prediction of one scientist (or “scientist”?) - Maslowski.


What did the IPCC predict in AR4 and AR3 and AR2 and AR1… but that ONE scientist WAS cited MANY times as KNOWLEDGEABLE regarding the Arctic and then it was walked back as 2013 did not happen and walked back because 2016 is NOT going to happen and then walked back because 2019 will not happen so we are all happy to be back at 2050 again? But wait! what will that do to all the predictions of Russian and American military preparations for an ice-free Arctic in the next decade or so? Oh dear. I suppose those will have to be walked back as well. Oh, I know you will say it was just ONE scientist or just ONE group or just ONE article when they don’t pan out… sorta kinda like you do when it comes to those not having climate science (advanced/peer-reviewed) degrees/credentials spouting off about the issue but always with qualifiers… but Naomi Oreskes is ONLY talking about statistics. Well, wherein lies the difference with all the meteorologists who DARE NOT have an opinion when they look at the STATISTICS and TRENDS of weather patterns? Oh that’s right! Not acceptable because climate is different… but then we get all of your “heat wave in Alaska” type of posts even though this is EXACTLY the same type of limited data set discussion… I believe in one global warming, the father of climate change which together with global warming was MADE not begotten. Light of light… heat of heat… very hot of very hot…


I don’t know - why don’t you tell me? What is this - guilt by insinuation?

Haha cited by you, mainly. I remember there was an article about him in the Guardian a few years back. And no one said he isn’t knowledgeable. Nevertheless, his opinion is outlying - same as with Hansen’s in the case I posted about above. It therefore merits extra skepticism.

Seriously - you think the military is playing along with the alleged moving goalposts of scientists? Give me a break. Who says they need a completely ice-free Arctic? It’s already happening: … by-russia/

Far as I can remember, you were the one who first brought up Maslowski’s prediction, and I’ve been saying the same thing all along.

You never responded to my answer to your ongoing Naomi Oreskes tirade so don’t bother bringing it up again until you have done so.

Um, when most meteorologists aren’t even required to take a course on climate, I’d say yeah, that makes their opinions on the subject rather irrelevant. Not to mention, when those meteorologists disagree with basically the entire body of scientific knowledge on the subject. If a meteorologist happens to have expertise in climate and - ideally - has published research on the topic, his opinion on the subject is probably more worth listening to.

What are you talking about, a limited data set? Basically, we’re back to “the whole world has to be on fire before it counts”.
Where do you come up with this stuff?