Climate change: the longer we wait to act, the more severe the costs.

[Direckshun]

It's really time for the excuses to end. There are a hundred arguments you could make against climate change:

Originally Posted by Direckshun

There's no way human activity can alter the climate.

And even if it can, there's no way it can alter it by that much.

And even if it could, there's nothing alarming about it.

And even if there was, there's nothing we can do about it.

And even if there is, it wouldn't do much.

And even if it did, it would cause too much economic collateral damage / be ineffectually implemented / inexcusably rob us of freedom to pursue.

Therefore, I am opposed to climate change legislation.

The science has shot down every one of these arguments, save the last one which is a political argument.

To that political argument, ask yourself one question:

Do you think, in our current trajectory of global greenhouse gasses, that whether it be 10 years, 20 years, or 50 years, is unsustainable and damaging to our ability to exist on this planet as we currently do?

If you do, than you really have no choice. We must act now to stave off having to suffer drastic solutions later.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/...9010HU20130103

Cost of combating climate change surges as world delays: study
By Environment Correspondent Alister Doyle
OSLO | Thu Jan 3, 2013 7:15am EST

An agreement by almost 200 nations to curb rising greenhouse gas emissions from 2020 will be far more costly than taking action now to tackle climate change, according to research published on Wednesday.

Quick measures to cut emissions would give a far better chance of keeping global warming within an agreed U.N. limit of 2 degrees Celsius (3.6F) above pre-industrial times to avert more floods, heatwaves, droughts and rising sea levels.

"If you delay action by 10, 20 years you significantly reduce the chances of meeting the 2 degree target," said Keywan Riahi, one of the authors of the report at the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis in Austria.

"It was generally known that costs increase when you delay action. It was not clear how quickly they change," he told Reuters of the findings in the science journal Nature based on 500 computer-generated scenarios.

It said the timing of cuts in greenhouse gases was more important than other uncertainties - about things like how the climate system works, future energy demand, carbon prices or new energy technologies.

The study indicated that an immediate global price of $30 a metric ton on emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2), the main greenhouse gas, would give a roughly 60 percent chance of limiting warming to below 2C.

Wait until 2020 and the carbon price would have to be around $100 a metric ton to retain that 60 percent chance, Riahi told Reuters of the study made with other experts in Switzerland, New Zealand, Australia and Germany.

And a delay of action until 2030 might put the 2C limit - which some of the more pessimistic scientists say is already unattainable - completely out of reach, whatever the carbon price.

"The window for effective action on climate change is closing quickly," wrote Steve Hatfield-Dodds of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation in Australia in a separate commentary in Nature.

Governments agreed to the 2C limit in 2010, viewing it as a threshold to avert dangerous climate change. Temperatures have already risen by 0.8 degree C (1.4F) since wide use of fossil fuels began 200 years ago.

ECONOMIC SLOWDOWN

After the failure of a 2009 summit in Copenhagen to agree a worldwide accord, almost 200 nations have given themselves until 2015 to work out a global deal to cut greenhouse gas emissions that will enter into force in 2020.

Amid an economic slowdown, many countries at the last U.N. meeting on climate change in Qatar in December expressed reluctance to make quick shifts away from fossil fuels towards cleaner energies such as wind or solar power.

Each U.S. citizen, for instance, emits about 20 metric tons of carbon dioxide a year. There is no global price on carbon, only regional markets - in a European Union trading system, for instance, where industrial emitters must pay off they exceed their CO2 quotas, 2013 prices are about 6.7 euros ($8.83) a metric ton.

The report also showed that greener policies, such as more efficient public transport or better-insulated buildings, would raise the chances of meeting the 2C goal.

And fighting climate change would be easier with certain new technologies, such as capturing and burying carbon emissions from power plants and factories. In some scenarios, the 2C goal could not be met unless carbon capture was adopted.

($1 = 0.7585 euros)

(Scientist corrects carbon price to $30 a tonne from $20 in paragraph 6)

[Pin Head]

Originally Posted by cdcox

The actual model is physical, but the inputs and outputs are statistical in nature.

Actual future CO2 emissions were unknown. So, three statistical representations of future emissions were made: scenarios A, B, and C. Hanson argues that scenario B most closely matched the actual forcing from 1981 to 2006. Austin Chief argues that emissions exceeded those of scenario A (the case where climate forcing was projected to be the greatest). If emissions match scenario B, the Hanson model is pretty reasonable. If emissions exceed scenario A, as Austin Chief is claiming, then the predictions are pretty poor.

One last point about the statistical nature of the output. If you run a climate model from two very similar initial conditions, you will get two different projections of future climate. This is due to the chaotic nature of the physics inside the model. This chaotic behavior is also present in real world climate systems. One can run several climate simulations and determine the ensemble average and variability of future conditions. For the actual measured climate, we can only have one realization. If the actual climate measurements fall within the bounds of the ensemble average and confidence intervals of many simulations, then it can be said that the model describes the climate.

It should be pointed out that in 1988, Hansen didn't have the computing power to make ensemble runs. He could only do one run, which won't necessarily match the earth's climate in an exact manner due to the inherent internal stochasticity of the climate system.

In short...The issue of C02 saturation is firmly disputed. Global warmist's arguements are based on the hypothesis that an '''artfiicially'' high concentration of C02 is what's causing climate change yet faoil to demonstrate it repeattedly, for starters.

[Pin Head]

Originally Posted by cdcox

I've done that in Post 42. Your turn to produce a peer reviewed reference that backs your case.

Till you can create and replicate a man-made global warrming scenario, it's not science...

Dispute that...

[cdcox]

Originally Posted by Narrow Head

In short...The issue of C02 saturation is firmly disputed. Global warmist's arguements are based on the hypothesis that an '''artfiicially'' high concentration of C02 is what's causing climate change yet faoil to demonstrate it repeattedly, for starters.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...assy-argument/

[Pin Head]

That's an article.

[cdcox]

Originally Posted by Narrow Head

Till you can create and replicate a man-made global warrming scenario, it's not science...

Dispute that...

The idea that the earth would warm as fissile fuel use increased was first floated by Svante Arrhenius in in 1896. We've been conducting the experiment ever since and the results are confirming his predictions, namely that the earth is warming at a rate never seen in the past.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svante_...enhouse_effect

[cdcox]

Originally Posted by Narrow Head

That's an article.

Did you not notice that the article has links to a place where you can get dozens and dozens of peer reviewed articles supporting the statement in the article.

And you have yet to cite a single peer reviewed article to support your assertions.

[Pin Head]

You're joking again, right?

[cdcox]

Originally Posted by Narrow Head

You're joking again, right?

What would make you think that?

[Pin Head]

Originally Posted by cdcox

What would make you think that?

You're continual posting of outdated and already debunked material.

[cdcox]

Originally Posted by Narrow Head

You're continual posting of outdated and already debunked material.

OK, debunk it with a reference to a more recent peer reviewed study. Still waiting for you to post your first one.

[Pin Head]

Originally Posted by cdcox

OK, debunk it

I've aready done that, repeatedly.

[cdcox]

Originally Posted by Narrow Head

I've aready done that, repeatedly.

That's what I thought, you can't come up with a single peer reviewed article to support your saturation theory from the 1920's.

[Pin Head]

Originally Posted by cdcox

That's what I thought, you can't come up with a single peer reviewed article to support your saturation theory from the 1920's.

It's clear by your track reccord in this thread (that you haven't the foggiest idea) how out of the know you really are....it merits ridicule.

[Pin Head]

Originally Posted by cdcox

Geez, conservatism became synonymous with taking delight in willful ignorance?

It's ideaogically driven by ego-maniacs and enviro elites...like greed and politcs' there's rampant agenda corruption which is polluting its science.

[Baby Lee]

1. Its a little too pat that everything progressives and socialists seek in society matches up so perfectly with the solutions to GCC. I've said this in the past, but it's like a bunch academics insisted that it was proven fact that life begins at conception and gay marriage erodes families and is a net detriment to society.

2. I've read a whole lot on DCC, the crux for me is that no one gives a adequate explanation of the albedo, which is the basis being concerned about DCC. The rise of emissions, yes, and a panoply of new products and procedures to minimizes. But no one really explains credibly how the carbon emission is stopping sun rays from returning to space, but doesn't stop the increased solar waves that are incoming.

3. And this is the confounding point, all solutions are straight up retrograde harming the poor the most. One can only drive so many cars or leave so many lights on. And the more innovative the renewable solution the more expensive they are. Solar panels, even with MASSIVE incentives from the Feds, states, and power companies [on the order of 60% of total installed costs], the ROI is in the decade and a half range.

The best I can conjure is an issue of optics. It might be a more palatable to let alternative energy be borne by the remorseful rich. It's fairly equal in operation to taxing the rich more and more and more, then subsidize energy needs of the poor, but at least it remains voluntary.