How Scientists Got Climate Change So Wrong

[Teallaura]

Equations don't care if you can't figure out why your numbers don't work.

I'm not seeing your population decline.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]41037[/ATTACH]

Pop decline 1912 - 1920 - which is only eight of the sixty - and far from the largest losses.

Cutesy trick with the graph - I did notice.

You're right that it's the total emissions that matter, and we can split up the emissions into emissions per country, too.

emissions = sum (country pop * country per capita emissions)

Yup.

You can't take the country per capitas out of it, because countries aren't going to sign on to emissions caps that don't account for their population.

Again yup - but the metric here is political. Which was pretty much what I figured - but Roy seems to think otherwise.

The reality is that developing countries, like India and China, independent of their total contributions, are demanding the right to do what we did to get where we are. And to do what we're doing now once they get there.

Again, yup - making it harder to convince them - and why they will point to the per capita as a reason why they shouldn't have to change but the US should (not as oversimplified as you'd think, unfortunately).

That includes a per capita consumption much larger than their own.

Yuppers - so the US is pressured for more concessions and China builds more coal plants - eventually that changes the per capita but no where near fast enough to get the overall reductions y'all seem to want.

So our challenge is to find ways to drive down our own per capitas without wrecking the economy or crippling our living standards. That can be done. What we can't do is drive them down without crippling the fossil fuel industry.

Nah - that's global suicide.

[Juvenal]

Pop decline 1912 - 1920 - which is only eight of the sixty - and far from the largest losses.

World pop grew from 1650 to 2000 million between 1900 and 1928, 40 million WWI casualties notwithstanding.

Cutesy trick with the graph - I did notice.

I also do videos.

Yup.

Because I've got perfect hair.

Again yup - but the metric here is political. Which was pretty much what I figured - but Roy seems to think otherwise.

Individuals can choose their cars, but they can't set fuel economy standards. Or power plant standards. Or sign on to the international climate change agreements we'll need to address the crisis. That's political.

But anyone can do the math that says we need to move on all of those.

Again, yup - making it harder to convince them - and why they will point to the per capita as a reason why they shouldn't have to change but the US should (not as oversimplified as you'd think, unfortunately).

"Do what I say, not what I do" isn't ever going to be convincing.

Yuppers - so the US is pressured for more concessions and China builds more coal plants - eventually that changes the per capita but no where near fast enough to get the overall reductions y'all seem to want.

Nah - that's global suicide.

We survived the death of the whale oil industry just fine, because it turned out electricity can be had much cheaper, and in much greater quantity. In the 70s, Jerry Pournelle wrote about how we could move the entire manufacturing industry and all power production into orbit, using off-the-shelf technology, eliminating poverty in the process of raising our own living standards beyond anything we'd ever dreamed of.

In the 70s, it could have been done, with 1970s technology. Today it could be done a lot cheaper, and we're a lot richer now.

2017 GDP

$19.3 trillion, US
$18.8 trillion, EU
$12.2 trillion, China

5 percent of GDP, between just those three economies, would generate $2.5 trillion a year. That's many times enough for geosynchronous solar power arrays by the end of the next decade.

You're right that it's a political issue, but the science says it can be done, and the economics say that we can afford this. As you point out, it's not like our country hasn't dropped everything to lead the world in fighting a world crisis before.

And the payoff on the investment would be out of this world.

[Teallaura]

World pop grew from 1650 to 2000 million between 1900 and 1928, 40 million WWI casualties notwithstanding.

Cute - and thank you for disproving anthropomorphic climate change.

Edit: Never mind, I misread it. I'll get back to you on this.

I also do videos.

I just bet. Godzilla versus Bambi?

Because I've got perfect hair.

Your comb got glued in by the hairspray again, huh?

Individuals can choose their cars, but they can't set fuel economy standards. Or power plant standards. Or sign on to the international climate change agreements we'll need to address the crisis. That's political.

Yep.

But anyone can do the math that says we need to move on all of those.

Not really - I've seen your graphs. Operations you manage just fine but choosing relevant variables, not so much.

"Do what I say, not what I do" isn't ever going to be convincing.

See what I mean? There are other metrics besides per capita.

We survived the death of the whale oil industry just fine, because it turned out electricity can be had much cheaper, and in much greater quantity.

Petroleum, not electricity, replaced whale oil. No wonder your graphs are so skewed - you're off by over a hundred years here.

In the 70s, Jerry Pournelle wrote about how we could move the entire manufacturing industry and all power production into orbit, using off-the-shelf technology, eliminating poverty in the process of raising our own living standards beyond anything we'd ever dreamed of.

You still wear bell bottoms, don't you?

In the 70s, it could have been done, with 1970s technology. Today it could be done a lot cheaper, and we're a lot richer now.

Sooooo not even beginning to buy this.

2017 GDP

$19.3 trillion, US
$18.8 trillion, EU
$12.2 trillion, China

5 percent of GDP, between just those three economies, would generate $2.5 trillion a year. That's many times enough for geosynchronous solar power arrays by the end of the next decade.

If they could do that two of the three would apply it to debt.

Politically untenable. Maybe Sean will happen along to explain how economically untenable that is - my head already hurts.

You're right that it's a political issue, but the science says it can be done, and the economics say that we can afford this. As you point out, it's not like our country hasn't dropped everything to lead the world in fighting a world crisis before.

Science doesn't say squat. Geeks with more numbers than sense in their heads do (yes, totally unfair characterization - but you chuckled, didn't you?)

Then there's the counter theory that we do this and everyone starves because plants kinda need the CO2. I'm kinda siding with the 'let's feed people' crowd on this.

Also, ring of fire - yet California is heavily invested in solar. I don't see the advantage to letting the inmates run the asylum even if this could possibly work.

Also, not a crisis.

And the payoff on the investment would be out of this world.

You're fooling no one - you just want to build something cool looking in space.

[Juvenal]

I just bet. Godzilla versus Bambi?

Godzilla, and I'll even give you odds.

Not really - I've seen your graphs. Operations you manage just fine but choosing relevant variables, not so much.

This is me, raising an eyebrow, peering over the top of re-adjusted glasses.

By all means, Laura, suggest more relevant variables to the class.

See what I mean? There are other metrics besides per capita.

Ah, how I yearn for the delicate handwave, directed "over there."

Petroleum, not electricity, replaced whale oil. No wonder your graphs are so skewed - you're off by over a hundred years here.

I like to lean forward.

You still wear bell bottoms, don't you?

They're coming back, any time now, I'm telling ya.

Sooooo not even beginning to buy this.

With Kindle unlimited, you could be reading it for free right now. Or if you put it on a wish list, and give it to me, be reading it tomorrow morning. It's the real deal, Laura. Solar power arrays in orbit, broadcasting power in the microwave spectrum back to earth-based receivers. Wildly more efficient than anything surface-based. We could have done this in the 70s.

If they could do that two of the three would apply it to debt.

Says here World GDP was around $80 trillion in 2017, heading up at 5 percent per annum.

The point is that the money is there if we pool it together, with the further point that three political entities could manage it on their own without putting a crease in their economies. Back of the envelope says Musk could get the first arrays up for $50 billion, or that NASA could have done it using the last tax cut that went instead to companies that were already swimming in cash buying back their own stock.

Politically untenable. Maybe Sean will happen along to explain how economically untenable that is - my head already hurts.

Ah, the ever-popular economist's proof: Assume it can't be done.

Sean is, umm, not a good source for economics theory.

Science doesn't say squat. Geeks with more numbers than sense in their heads do (yes, totally unfair characterization - but you chuckled, didn't you?)

Then there's the counter theory that we do this and everyone starves because plants kinda need the CO2. I'm kinda siding with the 'let's feed people' crowd on this.

Also, ring of fire - yet California is heavily invested in solar. I don't see the advantage to letting the inmates run the asylum even if this could possibly work.

Equations can too speak.

Plants did fine at nearly 1000 ppm CO2 for hundreds of millions of years. Plants have done fine for hundreds of millions of years at under 350 ppm. Arguably, they wouldn't do half so well at 0 ppm, so I agree, maybe we shouldn't do that.

And maybe we shouldn't argue about the risks of something no one is suggesting.

Also, not a crisis.

Ah, the ever-popular doubter's proof: Assume it's not a crisis.

Which brings us back to the o/p. The immediate risk is that climate change will disrupt the ecosystem, putting staple food crops into temperature and climate regimes that will drop their yields below what's necessary to maintain our current population, leading to a Malthusian correction, a solution that just about everyone thinks is less than optimal.

The proper, conservative inquiry is not, "Is it a crisis?" but "Are we prepared for a crisis?" based on the proper, conservative maxim: "Hope for the best, but prepare for the worst."

You're fooling no one - you just want to build something cool looking in space.

You say that like it's a bad thing.

[TheLurch]

Then there's the counter theory that we do this and everyone starves because plants kinda need the CO2. I'm kinda siding with the 'let's feed people' crowd on this.

How is "we need to stabilize CO2 levels somewhere well above where they were for all of humanity's entire history" become "we're going to starve the plants"?

That's not a "theory." That's not paying attention.

[Teallaura]

Godzilla, and I'll even give you odds.

Saw the movie.

This is me, raising an eyebrow, peering over the top of re-adjusted glasses.

By all means, Laura, suggest more relevant variables to the class.

I was misreading the second graph to be like the first. Going back to the first, graphing thousands of years rather than the hundred or so is disingenuous at the least.

Ah, how I yearn for the delicate handwave, directed "over there."

Metrics that make it harder for you to get the job done are poor choices politically. Per capita is a 'blame the other guy' political tactic. And it's losing its effectiveness. Polity is anything but static -and the decades of browbeating Western governments for their high standards of living - coupled with other forces - is beginning a backlash.

I've been honest that I think its a political sham - but I'm also giving my best analysis here to those of you who believe in this stuff: per capita is not a good metric to tout if you want Western nations to continue to cooperate long term. If you cannot defend its use as a scientific metric, then it becomes a political tactic that is already producing a backlash - one you do not want to see grow. Western nations can change poitical course - they can also take their balls and go home.

Less finger pointing, more cooperation and more comprehensive efforts will give you better long term results politically.

I like to lean forward.

You're going over the railing again.

With Kindle unlimited, you could be reading it for free right now. Or if you put it on a wish list, and give it to me, be reading it tomorrow morning. It's the real deal, Laura. Solar power arrays in orbit, broadcasting power in the microwave spectrum back to earth-based receivers. Wildly more efficient than anything surface-based. We could have done this in the 70s.

1) My car needs a new engine. No new toys for me this month. 2) I'm still working through Mises Socialism, thanks.

One word: Skylab.

Says here World GDP was around $80 trillion in 2017, heading up at 5 percent per annum.

My account balance has nothing to do with reality at present, either. It doesn't know about that engine.

The point is that the money is there if we pool it together, with the further point that three political entities could manage it on their own without putting a crease in their economies. Back of the envelope says Musk could get the first arrays up for $50 billion, or that NASA could have done it using the last tax cut that went instead to companies that were already swimming in cash buying back their own stock.

The problem is you are spending money you don't realize is already spent.

Ah, the ever-popular economist's proof: Assume it can't be done.

The sad part is the Dems are busily trying to impeach your best shot at this in forty years, with Obama coming in second. As a combo, they might have even done it - you need a Kennedy and the right kind of political will, along with a Johnson and the right kind of get it done know how. But that window is already past - and I'm not sure it was ever really open.

That's the problem with crisis as political tactic. It closes windows instead of opening them.

Sean is, umm, not a good source for economics theory.

Heck of a lot better than you.

Equations can too speak.

Very funny.

Plants did fine at nearly 1000 ppm CO2 for hundreds of millions of years. Plants have done fine for hundreds of millions of years at under 350 ppm. Arguably, they wouldn't do half so well at 0 ppm, so I agree, maybe we shouldn't do that.

Right... which is why both greenhouses and aquariums pump in CO2. They actually don't do 'fine' at 400 ppm. And the danger zone is apparently higher than you think.

Source: Biology - Stack Exchange

That being said, the answer depends on other concept: CO₂ compensation point. For a C3 plant, carbon dioxide compensation point is around 50ppm (Tolbert, Benker and Beck, 1995).
Thus, we can say that, as a rough estimate, the value you want lies between 50ppm and 170ppm (probably closer to 170ppm than to 50ppm).
Of course, that minimum possible value depends on several factors, as the species of the plant, the type of photosynthesis (C3, C4, CAM), temperature, humidity etc.
Source

© Copyright Original Source

And maybe we shouldn't argue about the risks of something no one is suggesting.

240 is awful close to 170 - way too close.

Ah, the ever-popular doubter's proof: Assume it's not a crisis.

Doesn't meet the definition, AOC - and the Chicken Little act is getting old.

Which brings us back to the o/p. The immediate risk is that climate change will disrupt the ecosystem, putting staple food crops into temperature and climate regimes that will drop their yields below what's necessary to maintain our current population, leading to a Malthusian correction, a solution that just about everyone thinks is less than optimal.

Based on models that assume more CO2 = bad.

The proper, conservative inquiry is not, "Is it a crisis?" but "Are we prepared for a crisis?" based on the proper, conservative maxim: "Hope for the best, but prepare for the worst."

No, it isn't. Swallowing hook, line and sinker every 'sky is falling' theory that comes around and wrecking economies to fix what may not really be broken is the proper liberal maxim, not conservative.

You say that like it's a bad thing.

[Teallaura]

How is "we need to stabilize CO2 levels somewhere well above where they were for all of humanity's entire history" become "we're going to starve the plants"?

That's not a "theory." That's not paying attention.

That's also not what was theorized or what I wrote - or what activists are seeking.

Also, have you even heard of an environmental famine since the 1930's? All the ones since then have been either made a lot worse or flat out caused by political forces - but I can't think of any strictly from crop failure (including Ethiopia, although it comes closest). I fully grant there are a lot of variables in agriculture - but CO2 is clearly one of them. And fossil fuels play an immeasurable role in mitigating even the worst crop failures.

[TheLurch]

That's also not what was theorized or what I wrote - or what activists are seeking.

Could you find me evidence that activists are trying to push CO2 levels to below 180ppm?

[Teallaura]

Could you find me evidence that activists are trying to push CO2 levels to below 180ppm?

Probably - but I already have two other commitments (one to you) and this is a side issue. The short answer is that they aren't pursuing any renewables that are truly carbon neutral - the carbon positive should disappear if we made a complete switch - and 'freezing' levels isn't in the language of any proposals I've seen. It's all 'reduction' not 'maintenance'. If we truly did nothing but the reductions, shouldn't that eventually drive CO2 down, especially when coupled with sequestration efforts?

Edit: Sorry, headache and losing battle with flooding septic tank are making me grumpy - that didn't come out as intended. I'll keep an eye out and get back to you when I find it, okay?

[oxmixmudd]

Could you find me evidence that activists are trying to push CO2 levels to below 180ppm?

I think most are aware of the problems of too little co2, but we are not and likely will not for hundreds of years at least be in any position to have to deal with such a problem.

[TheLurch]

Probably - but I already have two other commitments (one to you) and this is a side issue. The short answer is that they aren't pursuing any renewables that are truly carbon neutral - the carbon positive should disappear if we made a complete switch - and 'freezing' levels isn't in the language of any proposals I've seen. It's all 'reduction' not 'maintenance'. If we truly did nothing but the reductions, shouldn't that eventually drive CO2 down, especially when coupled with sequestration efforts?

The arguments i've heard are to reduce our emissions - not reduce the overall CO2 levels. All the talk of "negative emissions", which would involve pulling CO2 from the atmosphere, is predicated on us not getting our act together on emissions in time to avoid hitting levels that will see >2șC warming.

I've not seen any serious discussion of going back to preindustrial levels, simply because it's going to be so difficult just to stabilize where we're at now. Going below those levels is not something i'd heard at all.

[demi-conservative]

Where's the actual engagement if you straw man me constantly? Without any engagement, it's impossible for there to be a point to it.

Here's something that should not be a newsflash: people who want to do something about climate change have a huge range of opinions about what they'd like to see done about it, and differ on how they feel the best way to build support for their favored options. That's the reality. Your approach in this discussion has been "i'm going to assume everyone who disagrees with me does so for reasons i dislike, and treat them accordingly."

Cut the crap, I address the mainstream 'sky is falling' view because it is the most common. If you differ, then just link to your other posts stating that, and stop pretending it's trying to get you to jump unreasonable hoops by asking for links to your other relevant posts.

Try reading my statement more carefully. I'm aware of countless accusations of dumping. I'm not aware of the evidence showing those accusations are accurate. I do know that various trade organizations have imposed anti-dumping tariffs, but i have not seen the evidence they used to make the decision. Since you're the one who made the claim, it would seem asking you for the evidence would be appropriate.

You know that various trade organisations have argued that dumping exists, so if you're not convinced for evidence go read their reports. It's not hard.

The wider issue is claiming that solar and other renewables are now viable on a mass scale because of cost decreases. That can't be taken seriously without accounting for the fact that many countries are heavily subsidising production (known fact), and whether the subsidies can and will continue, especially on the massive scale required for proposed massive scale replacement of fossil fuels.

[demi-conservative]

Latest News!!!

Beijing (AFP) - China plans to add new coal power plants equivalent to all of the EU's current generating capacity, putting the world's biggest emitter out of sync with its commitments to combat climate change, researchers said Wednesday.

China built enough new plants between January 2018 and June 2019 -- nearly 43 gigawatts worth of capacity -- to cancel out the decrease in the rest of the world, said the US-based Global Energy Monitor.

Researchers warned that an increase in China's coal power capacity was incompatible with keeping global warming "well below" 2 degrees celsius, a key commitment of the 2015 Paris Agreement on Climate Change which China is a party to.

Another 147.7 gigawatts of coal plants in the country are currently under construction or likely to be reopened, nearly as many as the entire European Union's 150 gigawatts of existing capacity, the report said.

The plants would take China's total coal power plant capacity to 1174.7 gigawatts.
https://news.yahoo.com/china-adds-co...054100784.html

Okay, to be fair,

The report attributed China's coal expansion to a two year period in which provincial governments rapidly approved projects as part of an effort to boost regional growth.

most could be completely unused like some ghost cities, but it's still hilarious.

[Teallaura]

The arguments i've heard are to reduce our emissions - not reduce the overall CO2 levels. All the talk of "negative emissions", which would involve pulling CO2 from the atmosphere, is predicated on us not getting our act together on emissions in time to avoid hitting levels that will see >2șC warming.

I've not seen any serious discussion of going back to preindustrial levels, simply because it's going to be so difficult just to stabilize where we're at now. Going below those levels is not something i'd heard at all.

I'm guessing you missed my edit. And I'm batting .1000 at 'having headaches when coming across your posts' (grumble, congestion, grumble). Yes, I've seen activists wanting to reduce CO2 levels - I'll grab it for you next time I come across it - and I don't have any impression of sequestration being a fallback plan in any proposals I've seen.

Frankly, governments don't work that way. Creating agencies they do well; eliminating them when no longer serving the original goal - heck no. Assuming you guys are right, you need a skeptical opposition to act as a brake or pandering governments, believing that CO2 is 'pollution', will rocket along trying to eliminate it altogether.

Slippery slope is both a logical fallacy, and a political reality.

[Roy]

No, look again at what you wrote. You said Germany was producing more after reunification. I thought it a bit odd but figured EG simply ramped up faster so they produced more pollution.

Maybe I worded it poorly. I mean that Germany as a whole was producing mire than East Germany or West Germany individually. No change in pollution.

But here's the main point:

If splitting a country in two is just dividing responsibility, then joining two countries is just combining responsibility.

Yep, pretty much.

Looking at the combined output of two countries (East and West Germany, or UK instead of England, Scotland, Wales) is just combining responsibility.
Looking at countries vs semi-autonomous regions (Texas, California, etc, or Shanxi, Qinghai, etc) within that country is also just combining/dividing responsibility. Sure, there are certain decisions made at the higher level, but most pollution-related decisions are not. And anyway, national decisions in many countries are made by elected representatives who are (supposedly) carrying out their elector's wishes.
Looking at states, provinces or territories instead of lower-level political divisions (counties, parishes etc) is also combining responsibility
You can look at the emissions at different levels, and because countries, states, provinces, counties, parishes etc are changeable and often historical accidents, get very different results regarding where to focus efforts.

For example, Brazil produces more CO₂ than Australia, which would (if looking at total output rather than per capita) indicate focussing more on Brazil that on Australia for trying to reduce emissions. But because Brazil has 27 subdivisions and Australia only 8, Australian states and territories produce more CO₂ than Brazillian ones, which would indicate the opposite.

There's also the problem that some nations have boundaries that aren't really amenable to this sort of areal analysis. Why lump Alaska with the rest of the USA? Why lump the Hawaiian islands with North America? Why associate Corsica with France, but Sardinia with Italy? Why would you combine Wallis Island with part of Northwest Europe?

Looking at national totals is combining responsibility based on historical happenstance. Why would you compare the output of 1.3 billion Asians with the output of 350 million North Americans and Pacific Islanders? That isn't likely to tell you anything other than 1.3 billion is bigger than 350 million, which you already know.* Better to compare the output of 100 million Asians to the output of 100 million Americans - that way you'll get a result based on pollution levels, not one based on arbitrary political lumping. Per capita measurements not only remove distortion due to differing size, they also allow meaningful comparisons regardless of scale (e.g. California vs the whole US).

That's why per capita measures are used by scientists, but national volumes are used by politicians.



*Though if you pick a different 1.3 billion Asians to compare to your 350 million NA&PIs, it tells you a lot.