The editors of the New York Times urge President Biden to fulfill his promise relating to climate change by executive order:
Without congressional backing, Mr. Biden has fewer tools to achieve his goals, which now seem out of reach. His best course is to take the same regulatory path President Barack Obama was forced to follow after the Senate’s last colossal climate failure — a cap and trade bill that passed the House in 2009 but died in the Senate the following year. Using his executive authority, Mr. Obama secured big improvements in automobile efficiency and ordered reductions in power plant emissions, which didn’t take effect, although the power companies managed to achieve them on their own by burning cleaner natural gas and closing inefficient coal-fired plants.
Would that be more likely to improve the environment or to encourage open rebellion? I sometimes wonder if the editors of the NYT actually want a civil war. It would certainly provide big news.
The Western Elites, including all of the mainstream media, and nearly all of the education establishment K to postdoc, is delusional and lives in a fantasy world.
Their climate polices will result in de-industrialization and de-agriculturalization: no factories; no farms, viz. Germany, the Netherlands, and Canada.
The consequence will be famine, pandemics (real ones), and major population loss.
The radical ecologists actually want to reduce the human population to a few million paleolithic hunter gatherers scattered over the world. If you don’t believe that go read Paul Ehrlich, or better John Holdren, who was the senior advisor to President Barack Obama on science and technology issues, and who is now Research Professor in Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government and Co-Director of the Science, Technology, and Public Policy.
A good starting point is: Paul R. Ehrlich, Anne H. Ehrlich, and John P. Holdren, “Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Development,” W. H. Freeman and Co., San Francisco (1976). They propose universal, involuntary birth control, administered through either the water supply or food supply. You might note that one of the accusations against the covid vaccines is that they cause infertility in women.
PS. The use of executive orders to achieve outcomes that the Congress will not enact nor the Courts impose marks the end of the Age of Parliaments, and the return of the Absolute Monarchs.
“You might note that one of the accusations against the covid vaccines is that they cause infertility in women.”
You might notice that belief was delusional. Ranks up there with the vaccine magnetizing people and containing 5G chips. Hey, who says conservatives are not creative? (OK, you actually wont notice that.)
Steve
Little befuddled at this sudden rush to declare a Climate Emergency and what they hope to to do. From reading CNBC, Common Dreams, the Nation, EENews, The Guardian, appears a ban on oil exports, ban on all offshore oil drilling, a massive increase in solar panels, wind mills, electric cars etc by decree and joining the various class action suits here and there.
Think if thats what they want more attention on winning House and Senate seats would more helpful.
Notably missing from these ideas is any cost-benefit analysis or even any benefit analysis. How much would these Executive actions actually do, even if we assume they are well and fully implemented with generous estimates on effects? My guess is not much, the equivalent of a bail bucket on the Titanic.
There is also a big disconnect between rhetoric and actions. The problem of climate change (which I think is a serious and genuine concern) is often called an “emergency” and a “crisis,” but very few of those who characterize it that way actually act like it’s an emergency or crisis, particularly the editors of the NYT.
The best cost/benefit analyses of renewables are at Manhattan Contrarian. The biggest problem with renewables is the required battery backup, the cost of which is many multiples of GDP for any state or country.
Currently, world temperatures are about where the were in the 1930’s. We are cooler than the Medieval Climatic Optimum, which was cooler than the Roman expansion, which yet was cooler than the Minoan era. The Holocene is cooling towards the next ice age. Another couple of degrees brings us to the Neolithic agricultural revolution.
I don’t believe the story the NY Times is telling.
“Using his executive authority . . .”
It doesn’t say executive order, and the executive orders I found are more limited than what the NY Times is claiming. He fast-tracked the EPA & NHA update of fuel efficiency standards. He didn’t order new standards based solely on his authority, he told those agencies to prioritize those periodic regulatory updates authorized by statute so they would come into effect quicker.
“ordered reductions in power plant emissions, which didn’t take effect”
The Clean Power Plan rule was stayed by SCOTUS at the end of the Obama Presidency, overwritten by the Trump administration (which itself was blocked), abandoned by the Biden administration, and then ruled to have mostly exceed statutory authority last month by the SCOTUS. I don’t see any executive order here.
“power companies managed to achieve them on their own by burning cleaner natural gas”
What lesson should be drawn from this? I think the NY Times thinks the blocked rule somehow worked and motivated power companies to comply with them even though they were never required to. I think a cheap natural gas supply is important and the NY Times should write editorials about that.
“closing inefficient coal-fired plants.”
That was not because of anything Obama did. Coal-fired plants grandfathered past much of the Clean Air Act of 1990 regulations, and were nearing end of life about 15 years ago.
The NY Times is not helping Biden. It’s raising unsupportable expectations among voters that want to see more action, devaluing the importance of specific environmental legislation, and tarring him with dictatorial ambitions he probably does not have.
Decent rule of thumb: anything that any administration likes that happened during its watch is because of the administration; anything they don’t like happened despite it.
bob sykes: Currently, world temperatures are about where the were in the 1930’s.
Nope.
bob sykes: We are cooler than the Medieval Climatic Optimum,
Nope.
bob sykes: which was cooler than the Roman expansion, which yet was cooler than the Minoan era.
Nope.
Of course, while ” the rate and magnitude of modern warming are unusual,” the real concern is projected warming.
Both Bob and Zach’s arguments suffer from recency issues.
Consider:
1. Atmospheric CO2 concentrations have declined for 150MM years. 6000 ppm way back when, 2500 ppm to 180 from start to end of the last glaciation. Warming oceans subsequently spit out CO2 to reach 280ppm in 1850. Remember this date, because the entire GW zealot argument relies on this starting point. Of note: at 180ppm plants begin to suffocate. Greenhouses purchase CO2 to pump into their buildings, increasing CO2 to 800-1200 ppm.
2. CO2 was 6000 ppm at the beginning of life on earth, and has been higher than now (except for the past 150 years – a flyspec of time) during all life, including mammalian life. Today’s 450ppm is relatively low.
3. For 99.9% of all time CO2 and T have been entirely uncorrelated. The focus on post 1850 is one of convenience. For about .01% of history, since 1850 we have T and CO2 moving in the same direction. Hence the diversionary tactic.
4. This data is backed by extensive marine sediment data. It doesn’t lie.
5. A logical question: if CO2 levels are relatively low right now where did it go? Answer: The oceans (marine organisms) and plant life. Its stored. Imagine if it was released. Think your Prius is going to stop that 6000 ppm figure previously cited? LOL
Humans are capable of the most fascinating self indulgence and conceit. We think, despite overwhelmingly more powerful factors than ourselves, that we control climate during our vanishingly short lives. It is to laugh. But it has made many shills rich. And the politicians love it.
Galileo must be rolling in his grave.
Drew: 1. Atmospheric CO2 concentrations have declined for 150MM years.
Generally so. However, this does not represent an argument against anthropogenic global warming. The world was much different 150 million years ago.
Drew: 2. CO2 was 6000 ppm at the beginning of life on earth, and has been higher than now (except for the past 150 years – a flyspec of time) during all life, including mammalian life.
Your second point is the same as your first. The answer is the same. While life, including mammalian life, can certainly evolve to survive in different environments, that does not represent an argument against anthropogenic global warming. Nor does it suggest that the associated climate change won’t be costly in economic, ecological, and political terms.
Drew: 3. For 99.9% of all time CO2 and T have been entirely uncorrelated.
That is incorrect. CO2 is part of a dynamic relationship. The recent climate history of Earth seesaws between two relatively stable equilibria, ice and ice-free. This is largely due to positive feedbacks from albedo and greenhouse gases.
Drew: 4. This data is backed by extensive marine sediment data. It doesn’t lie.
Again, just because CO2 levels were much higher in the past doesn’t mean humans want to cause that to suddenly happen.
Drew: 5. A logical question: if CO2 levels are relatively low right now where did it go? Answer: The oceans (marine organisms) and plant life. Its stored.
The primary reservoirs are paleo-organic: coal and oil. It took millions of years to sequester, and will take only decades to release it.
Drew: We think, despite overwhelmingly more powerful factors than ourselves, that we control climate during our vanishingly short lives. It is to laugh.
It has to do with exponential growth. While millions of people burning fossil fuels may have little effect, billions of people burning fossil fuels will change the climate. Keep in mind that it was the exponential growth of humble photosynthetic microbes that brought about the Great Oxidation Event.
A bacteria is put in a beaker. It doubles every day, and in a month, the beaker is full. When is the beaker half full? And what is a sentient bacteria (perhaps named Drew) likely to say on that day?
Drew: 4. This data is backed by extensive marine sediment data.
See Rae et al., Atmospheric CO2 over the Past 66 Million Years from Marine Archives, Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences 2021: ” We find close coupling between CO2 and climate throughout the Cenozoic, with peak CO2 levels of ∼1,500 ppm in the Eocene greenhouse, decreasing to ∼500 ppm in the Miocene, and falling further into the ice age world of the Plio–Pleistocene.”
“Nor does it suggest that the associated climate change won’t be costly in economic, ecological, and political terms.”
That is the key point IMO. What is the cost-benefit, and what are the tradeoffs for any particular policy?
It could be that not worrying too much about carbon and focusing on mitigation is the best option, and it could be that the neo-Luddite zero-carbon world is the best option. Or something in between. That discussion isn’t happening, instead, it’s about yelling dogma and catechisms.
This comment thread has suddenly and somewhat unexpectedly evolved into a productive discussion.
I will only add that in my view whether whatever warming is occurring is anthropogenic is a bit of a red herring. Does it really make a difference if the world is becoming unbearably hot due to human action or not? If it is in fact becoming too hot for human habitation, wouldn’t we want to do something about it regardless?
Consequently, it seems to me that there are several important questions
1. Is it actually getting hotter?
2. If so is there anything we can do about it?
3. Are we willing to bear the costs of mitigation?
and most importantly
4. Do the measures being proposed actually mitigate anything?
IMO the answer to #4 is generally “no” for a simple reason. If the G7 completely eliminate their carbon emissions while China and India’s (Indonesia, Brazil, Pakistan, Nigeria, etc.) continue to grow it won’t do a darned thing. That’s why I think the “neo-Luddite” solution is absurdly stupid. IMO there are things we can do but they all involve producing more electricity rather than less.
Sorry, Zach. You are just flat damned wrong. Mammalian life has existed through almost all the time period you cite. Nothing is materially different in the mammal DNA. And there is nothing special about the past 150 years, except that it represents the infinitesimally tiniest sliver of conditions where CO2 and T happen to be moving in the same direction, a convenient artifact for hystericals. But irrelevant in the larger scheme. And further, what is so special about 200-400 ppm CO2 of recent times that makes it optimal, and >450ppm deadly? Nothing. It has been far higher for most of history. Plants and animals have done just fine.
Dave – You already knew the answers to your queries. There is nothing we can do to control the actions of China, India and general global growth, which is energy intensive and which will by force be fulfilled by fossil fuels, unless we want to kill millions through starvation and the like. Western country actions are just feel good moves, but wholly impotent.
You chose to not put my post with link to prior gloomsayers into the thread. But its only purpose was to simply illustrate the folly of prognosticators and their never ending unfulfilled prophecies, and remind us that the gloom and doomers of today are in no way different, other than their non-scientific goals. AGM is the most successful “theory” that has never predicted anything accurately that I have known. And as Fineman observed, a theory that does not predict is no theory at all.
Dave Schuler: 1. Is it actually getting hotter?
Yes.
Dave Schuler: 2. If so is there anything we can do about it?
Yes. The excessive warming is anthropogenic. It took a century to build the current infrastructure, and there’s no reason to suppose humans can replace the current infrastructure over time. Most of it ages out after a few decades anyway.
Dave Schuler: 3. Are we willing to bear the costs of mitigation?
Early investment will be less costly, and the permanent damage to the Earth’s ecosystems will be minimized.
Dave Schuler: 4. Do the measures being proposed actually mitigate anything?
You gotta start somewhere.
Dave Schuler: If the G7 completely eliminate their carbon emissions while China and India’s (Indonesia, Brazil, Pakistan, Nigeria, etc.) continue to grow it won’t do a darned thing.
The problem is the tragedy of the commons. It’s to each individual’s or each individual country’s advantage to dump pollution of any kind. However, a rules-based system can be developed. As new technologies are created, countries will adopt and adapt. Electric cars are already becoming the new standard.
Drew: Mammalian life has existed through almost all the time period you cite. Nothing is materially different in the mammal DNA.
Huh? What are you suggesting. Humans won’t be directly forced into extinction by global warming. They will adapt. Political pressures will increase, and that could lead to more conflict.
Drew: And further, what is so special about 200-400 ppm CO2 of recent times that makes it optimal, and >450ppm deadly?
It has nothing to do with being “special.” It has to do with stability. Human civilization developed in a relatively stable climate. Huge infrastructure has been built reliant upon the existing climate; especially agriculture and urban areas. Ecosystems, which constitute an important human inheritance, are also under stress and can’t evolve nearly as fast as the changes are occurring.
Drew: Plants and animals have done just fine.
Sure. Cockroaches will inherit the Earth.
We happen to be rather fond of the humans, though. Call it a peccadillo, if you like.
Drew: AGM is the most successful “theory†that has never predicted anything accurately that I have known.
Projections vs. Observations
and, with most of the world’s population ignoring the rules completely or, as has been the case to date, explicitly placed outside the rules it will be completely meaningless.
That’s why the “neo-Luddite” strategy, as Andy described it is not the way to go. There are other alternatives which are much more likely to be adopted.
Dave Schuler: with most of the world’s population ignoring the rules completely or, as has been the case to date, explicitly placed outside the rules it will be completely meaningless.
There are a number of working international rules regimes, primarily concerning trade, such as the WTO which regulates 98% of international trade. So, we know that a rule-based system is possible.
The primary issues have to do with cumulative emissions and per capita emissions.
https://ourworldindata.org/uploads/2019/10/Cumulative-CO2-treemap-768×640.png
I’m sorry but per capita emissions have nothing to do with the problem. That’s just a dodge to excuse China, India, and Indonesia from compliance. What is important is present emissions.
I think we should be reducing our present emissions. To do that we’re going to need a lot more electricity and, since neither solar nor wind are suitable for baseload power, that means more nuclear power or fossil fuels. My vote is for more nuclear power generation.
There are lots of other things we should be doing like encouraging WFH and some things we should not be doing like subsidizing highway construction to enable commutes over longer distances.
Dave Schuler: I’m sorry but per capita emissions have nothing to do with the problem.
Of course it matters—to the per capita.
The West pollutes more per capita, so the rest of the world blames them for most of the problem. The West also has more cumulative emissions. It’s a common resource, and the developing world doesn’t believe it fair that the West industrialized by dumping and expects everyone else to lose out. The answer, of course, is compromise. New technologies will allow continued development while still reducing emissions.
@Drew
I applaud your effort, but you are pissing into the wind. The topic is thermal energy and energy transfers. Temperature is an abstraction used to quantify storage and transfers. “Warming” & “cooling” are relative terms.
The entire debate is about statistics by people who understand very little about thermodynamics, magnetism, or fluid dynamics. There is an inverse relationship between hysteria and knowledge.
Consider this, melting ice caps store thermal energy in the resulting water, and that thermal energy is no longer available to the atmosphere.
TastyBits: Consider this, melting ice caps store thermal energy in the resulting water, and that thermal energy is no longer available to the atmosphere.
So, the atmosphere is warming, the hydrosphere is warming, the cryosphere is melting. What does that tell you about the total heat content of the climate system? (Do you not think scientists know about thermal energy?)
Zachriel:
A ton of carbon is a ton of carbon, whether emitted by the activities of a million people or a billion.
@Zachriel
As I stated previously, I am not interested in discussing the topic, but if I were, you have not demonstrated your knowledge of the subject matter – thermodynamics, magnetism, and fluid dynamics. I am not having a debate with the links you dredge up through google about topics you do not understand.
Furthermore, your concern about cockroaches being the only living species once humans have destroyed the planet is a little hard to accept when you have no concern about absolute numbers. “Per capita” is an artificial construct, and it has no bearing on the topic.
Dave Schuler: A ton of carbon is a ton of carbon, whether emitted by the activities of a million people or a billion.
True enough, but emissions won’t end tomorrow, and we are talking about getting people to take action. Consider an American who has spewed a hundred tons and continues to spew a ton a year, and then consider someone from China who has spewed ten tons and continues to spew a half a ton a year.
To allow for development without following the same carbon-intense pathway, the West will have to export technology to developing countries.
TastyBits: I am not interested in discussing the topic
But that’s not true. You said, “Consider this, melting ice caps store thermal energy in the resulting water, and that thermal energy is no longer available to the atmosphere.” We did consider it, and asked you a couple of pointed questions—which you won’t deign to answer.
The atmosphere is warming, the hydrosphere is warming, the cryosphere is melting. What does that tell you about the total heat content of the climate system? (Do you not think scientists know about thermal energy?)
“There are a number of working international rules regimes, primarily concerning trade, such as the WTO which regulates 98% of international trade. So, we know that a rule-based system is possible.”
I’m not sure the WTO is the best example of an effective rules-based system.
I agree that we can create international rules regimes; enforcing them is another matter as well as ensuring they can’t be (and aren’t gamed). This is especially difficult in an international context. It’s instructive to note that none of the countries of relevance is willing to accept enforceable limits, and instead, we have pinky promises like the Paris Agreement, and even there, the pinky promises are not sufficient to meet the agreement’s goals.
I think at this point, people should start realizing that the global community is very unlikely to be able to cut emissions as fast as the scientific consensus says is necessary. That doesn’t mean giving up on emissions reductions but planning for the reality that they will take a lot longer.
As I alluded to earlier, I think the net should be cast wider. If this truly is an existential crisis, as many claim it is, then everything needs to be on the table. I don’t give much credibility to those who claim there is a crisis yet insist they will only support the specific measures they want. In contrast, a crisis or emergency suggests that nuclear, sequestration, geo-engineering, capture as well as adaptation projects to deal with the effects, should all be seriously considered as part of the whole strategy. Even the rosiest scenarios (which the world is very unlikely to meet) predict effects that governments will have to deal with, so adaptation is going to be required.
Plus, a lot of the more long-term mitigation solutions require nearer-term developments. The most obvious example here is the US electrical grid. If one wants to minimize the need for solar and wind back up and peaking power sources (expensive and not green), then a modern nationwide (even continent-wide) grid is required. But all one ever hears about this, including from the Biden Administration, is more platitudes about “strengthening” the grid and making a “grid for the 21st century.” Taking a problem seriously requires more than platitudes.
That’s just one example – there’s a whole host of things that need to be done, even if one believes solar, wind, and other renewables should be prioritized above all else.
@Zachriel
My statement was directed at @Drew. I know he understands the physics enough to have an intelligent discussion.
Asking questions you found by googling about a topic you have not demonstrated you understand is not how a scientific discussion is conducted.
I am more than willing to be enlightened the observations you have noted, but you are required to explain the mechanisms to me. Unless you are two years old, asking “why” continuously is a little trying.
Andy: I’m not sure the WTO is the best example of an effective rules-based system.
WTO is a weak system, but still undergirds most international trade.
Andy: people should start realizing that the global community is very unlikely to be able to cut emissions as fast as the scientific consensus says is necessary.
There’s little doubt that there will be substantial damage to the climate system, but that is not a reason to not take action to prevent worse damage.
TastyBits: Asking questions you found by googling about a topic you have not demonstrated you understand is not how a scientific discussion is conducted.
In other words, you can’t defend your position.
Tasty –
I’m weak. I try but I know its a fools errand. Zach doesn’t know crap. His responses are, as you point out, just Google pieces thrown up against the wall, or completely off point and nonsensical.
Anyway. Dave does understand. If I understand him he acknowledges a current T rise, but prefers to ascribe it to humans vs this tiny, tiny sliver in time of correlation between CO2 and T. I think he’s dead wrong, and if I knew how to cut and paste a graph I have demonstrating this I would. It makes the case in one picture. In any event, his is a good faith position. And he comes to where everyone has to come: if you really believe in AGW you must go nuclear. That wind and solar thing is just pissing in the wind; one will get awfully wet.
Drew and Tasty ——-> Thank you.
Drew: His responses are, as you point out, just Google pieces thrown up against the wall, or completely off point and nonsensical.
This was directly on-point and specifically in response to you:
Drew: This data is backed by extensive marine sediment data.
Z: See Rae et al., Atmospheric CO2 over the Past 66 Million Years from Marine Archives, Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences 2021: â€We find close coupling between CO2 and climate throughout the Cenozoic, with peak CO2 levels of ∼1,500 ppm in the Eocene greenhouse, decreasing to ∼500 ppm in the Miocene, and falling further into the ice age world of the Plio–Pleistocene.†{emphasis added this time}
We can point to the evidence, but we can’t make you look at it.
Not exactly. I think that human action is one of several causes but that climate changes, even within historic norms, would cause a global political upheaval so the cause doesn’t really matter. I also think that human action has more effect on local climate changes than on global climate change and that local climate change is another one of the causes.
Just to take one example. Consider the Southwest of the U. S. When the Spanish came to Southern California, they planted olive and orange trees and the temperature went down. At the turn of the last century people began to cut the trees down and pave everything and the temperature went up. The Colorado running dry because too many people are taking too much water out of it will rather clearly have repercussions. And so on.
Drew: ascribe it to humans vs this tiny, tiny sliver in time of correlation between CO2 and T.
The basics physics of greenhouse warming have been known for over a century. See Arrhenius, On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air upon the Temperature of the Ground, London, Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science 1896. Are you saying there is no greenhouse effect?
Well, once you decide the problem is real, immediate, and catastrophic,
and you’re agreed that the cause is human consumption of available, affordable energy, you are forced to consider population issues.
Else you aren’t serious.
If population must be reduced quickly it will be by committee, not lottery.
The poor and uneducated will never agree to a reduction of their living standards, and we must consider the why of their own situation.
Not easily ameliorated but easily eliminated, that is if we’re serious.
The planet itself and any possible future for the human species is at stake.
A little tax shifting and lowering thermostats isn’t serious.
So do we need to keep an eye on the warmists just as we would a serial killer?
Looks that way to me.
Grey Shambler: Well, once you decide the problem is real, immediate, and catastrophic, and you’re agreed that the cause is human consumption of available, affordable energy, you are forced to consider population issues.
Population growth decreases once a society develops. Real solutions will require new technologies to allow continued development and prosperity while reducing emissions. Indeed, solving the climate problem requires economic growth to fuel the innovation required.
https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EN.ATM.CO2E.PP.GD
Totally agree it is not worth talking over this issue with people ignorant of the physics and the research or so biased by their politics it ends up being the same thing. That said I would at least correct the misconception that there is no historical correlation between CO2 and temperature.
https://skepticalscience.com/co2-higher-in-past-intermediate.htm
(Number one son starts grad school at MIT this fall. He is moderately apolitical but he does enjoy the rants here when I can get him to read them.)
Steve
or strategies for reducing the volume of carbon in the atmosphere without impeding growth.
“Real solutions will require new technologies to allow continued development and prosperity while reducing emissions.”
The problem is that new technologies don’t exist yet and we have no idea how effective they will be, what they will cost, and how long they will take to develop and scale. It seems to me that betting on future technology relies quite a bit on hope.
Turning to the science debate between Zachriel, Drew, and others, I would just caution again making certain conclusions given the amount of actual uncertainty, which is very high. Zachriel is correct, for instance, that “The basics physics of greenhouse warming have been known for over a century.” And the IPCC says this basic physics causes about a 1 degree C warming for a doubling of atmospheric CO2. That isn’t nothing but it also isn’t a lot.
What’s much more uncertain are the “forcings” that could increase global temperatures even more. Despite decades of research, we still don’t know how powerful those forcings are, which is why the IPCC estimates of the climate’s sensitivity to CO2 are a wide and uncertain range. In the latest AR6 report, the “likely” range is 2.5 to 4 degrees Celsius for a doubling of CO2 from the combined effects of the CO2 itself and the various forcings. “Likely” is estimative language that means 66-100% probability. So even that range contains a lot of uncertainty. (For AR5, the likely range was 1.5 – 4.5.) The difference between 1.5, 2.4, 4, or 4.5 degrees of warming is potentially massive in terms of impacts and effective policies.
Point being, I don’t give much weight to overconfident predictions in either direction. We’re living in a big experiment, one that can’t be compared to a control, and one that involves the interaction of a huge number of complex systems we don’t fully understand. Certainty is the last thing we need right now, especially when considering what actions to take. Even if one believes that climate change won’t amount to much, hedging is still prudent. On the other end of the concern scale, if one believes the maximalist version, then we are already fucked and should start preparing to evacuate coastal areas or build seawalls.
Instead, we are doing what we humans always do: rationalizing uncertainty as definitive support for what we already believe or want to do.
Andy: The problem is that new technologies don’t exist yet and we have no idea how effective they will be, what they will cost, and how long they will take to develop and scale.
Most proposed solutions will not take great scientific leaps. Markets will find “nearby” solutions, if properly incentivized.
Andy: And the IPCC says this basic physics causes about a 1 degree C warming for a doubling of atmospheric CO2.
If you mean only the direct effect of CO2, then that is correct, but atmospheric water vapor amplifies the direct effect. A reduction in albedo also acts as a positive feedback.
Andy: In the latest AR6 report, the “likely†range is 2.5 to 4 degrees Celsius for a doubling of CO2
And very likely (>=90%) to be greater than 1.5 °C.
“The basics physics of greenhouse warming have been known for over a century.â€
But there is no information content in that statement. Its a high school debating tactic. Everyone knows what a greenhouse gas is, owing to its structure. But that says nothing about other factors, or the laughable absence of correlation of CO2 and T over vast periods of time.
I have to investigate Dave’s assertions about local effects more thoroughly, but I suspect it will come down to local measurement issues. The errors in measuring T near population centers is well documented. At issue, really, is what happens after fluid mixing effects.
Drew: But there is no information content in that statement.
A citation was provided.
Drew: absence of correlation of CO2 and T over vast periods of time.
A citation was provided.
Drew: The errors in measuring T near population centers is well documented.
See Rohde et al., Influence of Urban Heating on the Global Land Average using Rural Sites Identified from MODIS Classifications, Geoinformatics & Geostatistics 2013: “Time series of the Earth’s average land temperature was estimated using the Berkeley Earth methodology applied to the full dataset and the rural subset; the difference of these is consistent with no urban heating effect over the period 1950 to 2010”. {See figure 5A.}