The ridicolous 40% by 2020 campaign
July 20th, 2009 at 4:00 pm by David FarrarI despair for the people who will see the cute Greenpeace ads on television about how we need to cut our carbon emissions 40% by 2020, and say you should text your name in support. They fail to point out what sort of country we would live in, if anyone was insane enough to agree to such a goal.
On NewstalkZB I described it as this:
First you would have to stop all transport emissions. So all cars and buses are gone. Then you would have to stop all electricity emissions. So NZ would have no cars and no electricity. But even that would not be enough to get emissions in just a decade to 40% below 1990 levels. You would have to hire gangs of vigilantes to hunt down any cows they can find and shoot a decent proportion of them.
Now you may think I am exaggerating. But not really. No one should think one can cut greenhouse gas emissions by around a half in just a decade without a massive impact on NZ society. Hopefully someone somewhere has hired some economists to work out what the consequences and costs would be of such a dramatic reduction over such a short period of time.
Colin James looks at what the reduction should be:
Advocates of a 40 per cent reduction from 1990 levels have been crowding Smith’s meetings. Opponents of a 40 per cent reduction say that would cripple the economy (though their models exclude unpredictable growth possibilities). John Key has said the economy must trump the environment when the two clash. So 40 per cent is most unlikely.
Too right.
On the most recent (rubbery and constantly changing) computations, New Zealand will more than meet its Kyoto commitment for 2008-12 of net emissions at the same level as in 1990 because, although our gross emissions are around 23 per cent above 1990 levels, enough trees were planted in the 1990s to offset this (though forest owners might claim some of those credits and taxpayers would then have to buy matching foreign credits).
The recession has also helped. We emit less when business is slack.
The 1990 tree plantings are projected to keep our net emissions around 1990 levels until 2016. But from then the trees start to be harvested and by 2020 our net emissions are projected to match our gross emissions — 41 per cent above 1990. After 2020 the figure soars.
So Colin correctly points out that if no changes are made our emissions in 2020 will be 41% above 1990 level. So if we were to follow Australia and say we will get emissions down to 5% below 1990 levels by 2020, that would be a reduction from 140% to 95% – still a massive reduction.
So to get to 40 per cent below 1990 levels in 2020 we would have to cut by around 60 per cent compared with going on as we are (“business as usual”) — or buy a swag of credits offshore, which may be very expensive if other rich countries are also buying for their “responsibility” targets. Or, some argue, we could plant masses of trees, starting now.
So a 60% reduction over the business as usual scenario. And now look at our emissions profile:
- Agriculture methane 30%
- Transport 20%
- Agriculture nitrous oxide 16%
- Stationary energy 15%
- Electricity generation 9%
- Industrial processes 6%
- Waste 2%
So as I said, let us say we get rid of every car and bus in New Zealand. We all walk to work, video-conference, cycle or take the solar powered train. That takes out 20%. Only a third of the way there.
Then we decide to join Great Barrier Island and survive off solar power. We close down all the power plants and turn off the electricity supplies. It’s candles for warmth in winter. That gets a another 9%. 29%.
To get to 60% we also really need to wipe out those agricultural methane emissions by shooting every evil cow we can find. That gets us to 50%. Yes I know it will mean no more dairy exports. In fact we may even need to import our milk and butter, but hey we will have met our target.
There is an upside though. Our incomes will all drop by thousands of dollars as we wipe out the agricultural sector. And it is tough having less money to spend. But as cars would have been outlawed, and there will be no electricity bills, as we have no electricity, then that should allow you to survive the drop in income a bit easier.
Now of course technology may make the job easier. I certainly hope so. But consider how much of an impact technology can have in just a decade. By 2050 I think technology will have allowed us to make much more significant reductions. But 2020 is not far off, and even if within a few years someone does work out how to stop cows emitting methane, it would take many years to produce and roll out the technology.
Related posts:
- The madness of a 40% reduction by 2020
- Fallow on 2020 target
- What should be NZ’s 2020 emissions target
- NZBCSD suggest 20% target
July 20th, 2009 at 4:16 pm
Net emissions David, net emissions. Apparently we’re close to even on net emissions now when compared to 1990. So if we say cut gross emissions by 20% and planted a LOT of trees (enough to suck up 20% of emissions) then a 40% reduction is quite possible.
Considering that the future of transport is in electric cars and public transport, I think it’s reasonable to expect a big reduction in transport emissions in the future (although the government would need to realise it’s not the 1960s with their transport policies – a big ask). Some reduction from agriculture, and hopefully a shift towards more renewable power generation would also contribute to a reduction in gross emissions.
You are just scaremongering with your utter disregard for the difference between gross emissions and net emissions. The question is: why?
[DPF: You are totally wrong. Did you not read the Colin James column I quoted, or even the MFE documents? Around 2016 the tree harvesting starts and by 2020 net emissions are projected to be the same was gross emissions]
Vote:July 20th, 2009 at 4:17 pm
They should start by banning their members cars. I don’t think I’ve ever seen a Greenpeace sticker on an efficient car, but I’ve seen them on dozens of shocking old smoke-blowing rust buckets.
Vote:July 20th, 2009 at 4:21 pm
Sarcasm aside David you digress from the point being that there are plenty of parts in our lives where we can make simple changes that would have a direct reduction in emissions and reduce our consumption which is currently at unsustainable levels.
Change has to happen now, waiting is foolish. Ill admit that 40% by 2020 is unreasonable, but whats wrong with aiming high when setting goals?
Waiting until 2050 for technology is preposterous, waiting for some elixir that we can pour over the world and renew non-renewable resources? A large vacuum that sucks CO2 out of the air? a time machine so we can revive lost species?
[DPF: I am not advocating no action until 2050. I am advocating a 2020 goal that is both achievable and will not cause major economic damage. The problem with setting a high goal is we become obliged to meet the goal or pay our billions of compensation to countries that do meet their goals, if we do not]
Vote:July 20th, 2009 at 4:25 pm
“..John Key has said the economy must trump the environment when the two clash. .”
so he’s gonna go down as a herbert hoover on the environment..as well as the economy..?
(the/any? historians aren’t going to look on him that favourably..
..as one who knew what was happening..
..and the probable/certain impacts..
..had the power to effect the necessary changes..
..and ..yet..who did nothing/nowhere near ‘enough’….
phil(whoar.co.nz)
[DPF: Well Phil just consider that if we suffer too much economic damage, we might not be able to keep benefit levels as high as they are]
Vote:July 20th, 2009 at 4:27 pm
I think you’re being overly negative, it’s not as bad as all that. All we’d have to do is cut everything roughly in half – shoot every second cow, only be allowed to drive every second day, only grow organic crops with no machinery etc. Plus we could keep the hydro running and just shut down the coal and gas plants, we’d still have *most* of our electricity.
Unemployment would drop to zero as food prices skyrocket and agricultural becomes labour-intensive. Traffic would be solved overnight. And people would only be allowed to blog about 75% of the time so there’d be a lot less crap to distract ourselves with – and with TV becoming too expensive to create or watch people will end up reading books in their (heavily curtailed) spare time.
A return to the countryside and less air pollution will cut rates of lung cancer, bronchitis etc, saving billions on healthcare. Ciggies will obviously need to carry a carbon tax component so smoking will quickly become too expensive for most.
We’ll have a better standard of living, education and we’ll all be fit and healthy from working outdoors. Crime will be non-existent because there’ll be nothing worth stealing. Education standards will rise with no pop cultural distractions and we’ll have a greater feeling of community from singing Kumbaya together round our emission-less recycled cow pat campfires.
It’s practically utopia.
Obviously there’ll be naysayers and trouble-makers like yourself who will disagree on minor details like “freedom” and “common sense” so we’ll need a good secret police force to keep you in line… but ordinary law-abiding citizens would have nothing to fear.
Nothing could possibly go wrong!
Vote:July 20th, 2009 at 4:35 pm
Socialism was the single biggest killer of the 20th century, with over 100 million people sacrificed so that socialists could control the means of production.
But I think Greens will take the prize for the 21st century. In the west we’ll all be reduced to subsistence farming, with the miserable existences and lifespans to match. While if you’re in the Third World at the moment, you’re probably already hungry because your food has been turned in to biofuel, and you could use genetic engineering to increase yields but then European Greens would ban your exports.
And why? Because computer models told us it should be getting warmer, and Greens chose to believe those models even when the evidence told them that temperatures were stable. And the politics of fear led people to think that temperatures a bit closer to Sydney’s would, inexplicably, be bad for New Zealand.
Vote:July 20th, 2009 at 4:37 pm
Why don’t we just genetically engineer farm animals so they produce less methane… oh, wait…
Vote:July 20th, 2009 at 4:37 pm
Can you point to an example of someone talking about climate change being bad for New Zealand?
Vote:July 20th, 2009 at 4:38 pm
First you would have to stop all transport emissions. So all cars and buses are gone. Then you would have to stop all electricity emissions. So NZ would have no cars and no electricity. But even that would not be enough to get emissions in just a decade to 40% below 1990 levels. You would have to hire gangs of vigilantes to hunt down any cows they can find and shoot a decent proportion of them.
Or we could just plant some trees. That sounds a lot easier, but you wouldn’t be able to clutch your pearls, roll your eyes and scream yourself hysterical while it was happening.
[DPF: Sadly no it is not that easy. Tree planting will help but if you continue to have growth in gross emissions, you need to be planting more and more trees every single year. I give you a challenge. Work out how many trees need to be planted by 2020 to have net emissions at 40% of 1990 levels.
You have to maintain trees forever to be effective. Whenever you harvest them, they must be replanted to keep counting.
As an example let us say you build a new power plant that emits one million GG units a year. Now the same year you plant enough trees to soak up those one million GG units. The following year that plant will emit another one million GG units. So you have to plant the same amount of trees again, and keep maintaining the ones from last year.
Trees can and will help, but in the long term one has to actually reduce gross emissions, not just plant trees.]
Vote:July 20th, 2009 at 4:44 pm
Gazzaj, you and sceptical others are quite right. Ongoing science, ie, the CLOUD experiment at CERN, and ARGOS monitoring sea temperatures, and other studies will eventually prove this GIGO computer generated panic quite wrong. Already the Rudd government is backpedalling on its ETS, we will do the same and the whole fear based green edifice will come tumbling down. It’s cracking up as we speak.
Keep up to date with it all at http://climatedebatedaily.com/
And of course mickysmuses.blogspot.com.
Vote:July 20th, 2009 at 4:45 pm
If what pass for “celebrities” in New Zealand are in favour of it it must be good.
Yes we can plant a lot of trees, and provided we dont cut them down they will count as a carbon sink; yes you can change how you farm, and if allowed, engineer animals to produce less methan; yes you can do a bit (but not a lot) more in terms of renewable power generation but majorly shifting the dial requires major change and that would mean major sacrifice. And for what? Exporting coal (because presumably the Chinese re-bury it rather than burn it) doesn’t count? We are already slinking out the back of the OECD in terms of standard of living; we dont have any industries of merit or note than agriculture and tourism.
Assuming there was a global consensus (including the US and China) I am actually Ok with NZ pulling its weight in some sensible manner. But cutting food production in NZ so higher energy food production can occur somewhere else is just dumb.
And all that is assuming you accept the “politically proven science” that is AGW.
Vote:July 20th, 2009 at 4:45 pm
Socialism is a CULT.
Green Policies are hysterical, and non sensical. Luddites rule.
There are a set of issues that don’t need action, because there is no problem.
Would reducing shower pressures help? Not even a bit?
I have just ordered a new car. It is Euro 5 rated for emissions that kicks in November this year.
Euro 6 is another 2 years away. And is anyone dares to suggest that a ‘Hybrid’ is the answer, then they will get a mouthful.
No one supports either waste, or pollution. Happy to eliminate all that first, but i don’t think that CO2 is a pollutant.
PLANTS actually need it. They are a good thing, aren’t they?
Vote:July 20th, 2009 at 4:46 pm
IMHO we should do nothing until the big emitters sign up to the programme.
We are a fraction of the total. Why destroy our way of life if the big emitters do nothing so the alledged event occurs ( and remember it is only an alledged event).
Why be suckered into stuffing our economy more than it is now and will continue to be stuffed?
Calm down chill out
Wait until the big emitters put their cards on the table
No need to rush in. Remember the old bull and the young bull?
Vote:July 20th, 2009 at 4:47 pm
davidp: “if you’re in the Third World at the moment, you’re probably already hungry because your food has been turned in to biofuel”
If you did some research you would find that a huge portion of crops grown are used to feed livestock, “in the U.S., 70% of all the wheat, corn and other grain produced goes to feeding herds of livestock” http://www.time.com/time/reports/v21/health/meat_mag.html
And DPF, just last week you are quoted as saying “I personally believe that the IPCC is basically right with its conclusions that, if nothing else changes, ever increasing levels of greenhouse gases will lead to a rise in global temperatures. It is pretty basic science.” So instead of being so critical and negative, how about some ideas?
If you see this as a problem lets be constructive.
[DPF: I have said I am comfortable with a target similiar to Australia]
Vote:July 20th, 2009 at 4:53 pm
i don’t think that CO2 is a pollutant.
PLANTS actually need it. They are a good thing, aren’t they?
For a demonstration of the negative effects of CO2 try shutting yourself in a small room with an unvented gas fire. (Note: please do not actually do this.)
Vote:July 20th, 2009 at 4:54 pm
Like Coca Cola Inc buying as many ‘Fresh Water Companies and sources’ that it can get its paws on.
The syrup that eats metal coins organisation is pragmatically getting the core product(s) all secured.
The CO2 emmision thing is so very clever. Because once the cows have gone, then sheep, pigs, and dogs and cats.
The next thing that the Hysterical ones will turn on is human exhaled breath. The most perfect tax ever to be invented.
Only window tax, and sex tax will come close. (Pun Intended).
Until India, and China are able to control their economies, and more importantly populations we stand no earthly chance of
contributing anything meaningful.
Vote:July 20th, 2009 at 4:56 pm
It’s candles for warmth in winter………………….Don’t think so they are sure to emit something.
Factor in the population increase, world population to almost double 1990-2020…NZ will have at least another million makes it a bit more difficult.
Vote:July 20th, 2009 at 4:59 pm
I agree, DPF, that 40% would be a tough target, but it is not anywhere like as apocalyptic as you make it out to be. As jarbury says, it is 40% of net emisssions, and it would require planting a hell of a lot of trees to get there. For the current Kyoto period to 2012 though, predictions are that afforestation will over the period likely offset the increase in emissions over the period. So it’s not a 60% reduction on business as usual at all, as Colin James suggested, but likely around 40%.
For a start, energy conservation measures (you know, the sort that National opposes, like water heating and lighting standards, together with many others) can reduce electricity demand.
A major shift from coal, oil and gas electricity generation to renewable electricity generation is achievable in 10 years, although planning processes are likely to be required to be shortcut to achieve this (something I think even most Greens would agree with in this specific instance – the lesser of two evils). So it’s not a matter of “close down all the power plants and turn off the electricity supplies”. Fossil fuel generation could within 10 years be largely, if not solely, the backup for when the wind doesn’t blow and the lakes run low.
And you appear to ignore agricultural nitrous oxide emissions from your calculations. Unlike agricultural methane, these can be readily addressed through better fertiliser management, deintensification and moving to organics (lower yields but higher prices) and soil remineralisation and nitrification inhibitors (I’m a bit wary about the last of these – precautionary principle).
As for transport, well, jarbury says it above.
[DPF: See above. By 2020 due to logging, net emissions are projected to exceed gross emissions. One can talk about reducing electricity demand but the reality is efficiency measures cut usage by say 10% or so, when I have shown you could cut electricity use 100% and still be nowhere close.
I support moving away from fossil fuels, but we simply can not build enough renewable plants by 2020 to have closed down all the other plants by then. Hell we are struggly to even meet current demand.
Yes stuff like better fertiliser management can help, and should happen. But adding together all these incremental changes will not get us 40% below 1990. Only massive and serious cuts in output would do that]
Vote:July 20th, 2009 at 5:00 pm
Danyl, or perhaps a tube from the exhaust of my car into the cabin. Carbon MONOXIDE being even better at prevention of gaseous exchange by human lifeform.
Try the same with just Oxygen Danyl. The effect would be quite instant. What an ‘effin stupid analogy.
Yes, I am reasonably well travelled.
Vote:July 20th, 2009 at 5:05 pm
Random thought but if you can make a little machine which you stick in a cows arse (clearly on the outside) and burns the methane as it farts you would effectively reduce our global immisions by 28.6% as methane has apparently 21x the effect of carbon dixiode (source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_methane#Methane_as_a_greenhouse_gas ). Effectively therefore if you can invent some sort of igniting machine, mass produce it, we would be 71% of the way there.
Vote:July 20th, 2009 at 5:19 pm
Indian Cows Good, and NZ Cows bad!
The Yanks and the EU get their biggest competitor in Dairy out of the game very early. More profits for them. The poor struggle to pay for food as it is.
Giving money to Russia, Ukraine, China, India, the UAE is a sick joke.
What does Russia/Ukraine owe the World for Chernobyl, and the Murmansk Nuclear releases? Or is that sort of pollution not too bad?
When will the madness end?
If flying is so bad for the World, why are we allowing old planes to fly? Why are we building new Airports, New terminals.
How does 100GBP Airline Passenger Duty help emmissions exactly? Those planes are flying anyway.
Has Government after Government realised that the demand curve for flying is reasonably inelastic? Great for a taxation product.
The only reason that we have this crap is to raise taxation for Beauracrats and their gold plated pensions, the world over.
If there were incentives, and tax breaks for all the efforts. Instead of bannings and large taxes, I would start to believe.
As it is, The Ozone layer is self repaired. Y2K millenium bug was bollocks, And at least a good pandemic will thin the population out again.
Vote:July 20th, 2009 at 5:20 pm
My prediction: the slogan: 20 by ’20; 50 by ’50 will prove to be irresistible…
Vote:July 20th, 2009 at 5:21 pm
Jeff, most of the methane comes from belching rather than farting so it’d have to be at the other end… which might make eating difficult. Still, I think you’re onto a winner.
We’d have to keep the flame-throwing dairy herds away from forests and houses, obviously… but they’d make a pretty cool sight at night and could be a tourist attraction.
Vote:July 20th, 2009 at 5:30 pm
“We’d have to keep the flame-throwing dairy herds away from forests and houses, obviously… but they’d make a pretty cool sight at night and could be a tourist attraction.”
What I would pay to see fire spitting cows. Maybe they could evolve to using it as a weapon.
“Glutaemus above”
Agree with allot of your sentiment but remember the Ozone is repairing itself (very slowly) because we stopped using CFC’s, i.e. we responded. The problem with global warming is its more of a one way curve, due to it being in part natural. The question is how much are we affecting it, a large portion of the scientific community believe we are, however the eventual effects and the degree is less certain. Yes there is argument (although allot of it gets discredited) but the way I see it is this, we do not know for certain, but we know it could be fairly bad, like wise perhaps the earth has some more tricks up her sleve or perhaps the effects will not be that bad. So I see doing something to reduce emmisions as like insurance, perhaps we need it, perhaps we dont, but the cost of not could potentially be much greater than we can afford.
Vote:July 20th, 2009 at 5:35 pm
Glutaemus Maximus “The Ozone layer is self repaired.”
You could equally argue that replacing CFCs with less destructive HCFCs has helped the Ozone, a good example of action taken to reduce our impact on the environment.
Vote:July 20th, 2009 at 5:37 pm
Melbourne has periodic gas flame burnoff thingies along a concourse in the CBD…NZ would have glorious flame spitting cows – I think I KNOW which the tourists will flock to.
Vote:July 20th, 2009 at 5:41 pm
Some of you might enjoy my post and the subsequent exchanges on the Frogblog site at:
http://blog.greens.org.nz/2009/07/20/town-and-country-at-loggerheads/#comment-85231
Read the post and then see my response and the strange responses (and eventual conversion
by mugwump).
The statement I quote from the FAO (towards the end of my posts) is very telling. The plot thickens.
Vote:July 20th, 2009 at 5:44 pm
The only ridiculous thing is that you scaremonger emission reduction options with zero knowledge of the net emission concept that underpins the whole thing, international trading of units, or lower-emission replacements for existing technology.
40% NET emissions reduction by 2020 may still be unfeasible, but it ain’t nothing like the hysteria you’ve just painted.
Why can we not have a proper, reasoned discussion about true cost of the options we face (various possible actions as well as inaction)? Greenpeace doesn’t want to have it, and it seems neither do you.
[DPF: I have said I favour a 2020 target that is lower than our 1990 level, and similiar to Australia. Would be delighted to have a sensible debate about the pros and cons of having a similiar target to Australia. Go for it]
Vote:July 20th, 2009 at 5:46 pm
Anyone know if fish fart? No there is a problem looking for a solution. PSSSSST Don’t tell the Greenies.
Vote:July 20th, 2009 at 5:48 pm
So the gist of the post is basically…well climate change sure isn’t a good thing, but if you had your way New Zealand would never ever actually do anything about it, because farmers are more important than anybody else, and we can’t ever possibly stop them to stop contributing so many emissions? And that maybe one day in the future when half of us are dead, some smart alec will figure out a way of making cows not pollute so much, but until then being a reactionary is the way to go? Neat. Real ambitious for New Zealand
Vote:July 20th, 2009 at 6:01 pm
I’m also wondering why we’d “turn off all our electricity”? Given 70% of our power is from hydro, geothermal and wind? Just for good times?
Vote:Good, logical handle on the issues I see.
July 20th, 2009 at 6:06 pm
Anyone know how much energy goes into making a brand new car rather than keeping ye ole smoke belcher? i tend to think it is a good idea to stick to older models rather than brand new ones although it should always be the owners decision at the end of the day.
Vote:July 20th, 2009 at 6:09 pm
So DPF seeing that you accept the science behind AGW what emission target would you go for and why?
[DPF: I quite like what Australia has proposed. A 5% below 1990 levels regardless of agreements. A further decrease if developed countries reach an agreement and an even further decrease if all major emitters agree to reductions. But we need to be careful about making reductions that will just out source industries to China, resulting in an overall incraese in emissions. That is a lose-lose for NZ and the environment]
Vote:July 20th, 2009 at 6:17 pm
I like Piggys definition of ambition. A 1960′s economy for 2020 New Zealand, but without the agriculture that made the country viable back then. Scoff.
And garethw, if we swicth off the power plants that DO emit CO2, then what would we do in the next drought? Not enough base load energy is generated from renewable sources to protect against black outs. And there are no wide scale plans to get there by 2020 either (we couldnt even if there were).
This is why people like me are unwilling to listen to twats like Greenpeace on what may very well be an important topic. Their “goal” is not feasible, and they dont seem to care!
You greenies shouldnt complain that you are losing the debate when the only one thinking about the real world is your opposition.
Vote:July 20th, 2009 at 6:25 pm
you didn’t do a ‘post’..owen..
..you did a comment..
can’t you even tell the truth about that..
..and what possible credibility can you have..?
..having been a paid climate-change denier..funded by oil-company front-groups..
bah..!
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:July 20th, 2009 at 6:26 pm
Environment Minister Nick Smith is doing a live internet broadcast from the Beehive at 7:30 tonight, with a chat tool to encourage audience participation. Watch and engage at http://www.r2.co.nz/20090720 The main questions for the minister and his panel are going to be selected from email, so if you want to ask a question best to get it in now. Event is scheduled to go as late as 9pm. It’s a very innovative part of the 2020 target consultation process. The chat room is live now.
Vote:July 20th, 2009 at 6:40 pm
garethw, I agree that this post by DPF is unbelievable scaremongering. The question is which of the following two is correct:
1) DPF knows the difference between net emissions and gross emissions but wants to mislead everyone into believing that they are the same thing. What would his motive for that be I wonder?
2) DPF doesn’t know the difference between net emissions and gross emissions. I find this option pretty unlikely, as he seems like a reasonably smart guy. But reading this post….. geez it makes me wonder.
The point about turning off “all power” is a classic example – why the heck would we do so when 70% of our power is from renewables? Crikey, DPF please calm down.
Maybe the Nats are really worried about how popular the 40% by 2020 target is, and are resorting to wild hysterical inaccuracies to try and turn around public opinion?
[DPF: Are you blind? I quote in the article that by 2002 net emissions is projected to be the same as gross emissions - in fact probably even higher.]
Vote:July 20th, 2009 at 6:42 pm
It’s because of wankers like those in Greenpeace and fallow demented retards of the same ilk that the gun safe is well stocked and the ammo locker is kept full. I live for the day one of these fucking morons show up to kill one of my cows, I do hope their life insurance is fully paid up, they’ll fucking need it!!!!!!!!!!
Vote:July 20th, 2009 at 6:48 pm
40%. Easy peasy.
Vote:take agriculture out of the equation. It will put is in line with everybody else anyway.
At the very least we should remove forestry. How much carbon is released when we cut down a tree? Most of our logs are processed overseas so they should take the hit.
July 20th, 2009 at 6:55 pm
The thing about Kyoto is that it isn’t going to make any difference anyway – that is why the US did not sign up. To quote from Ian Wishart’s Air Con (which everyone should read) –
I really think someone needs to set up a local website to counter the Sign On site, and put some of the real facts on it – not this bullsh*t that greenies and the media are trying to force feed us.
Lucy Lawless and Keisha should know better – or at least they should read up on some of the facts before putting their names to this charade.
Vote:July 20th, 2009 at 7:13 pm
Just think of all the credits we would earn… by just getting rid of all the bullshit and hot air on this site.
What is New Zealands total emissions compared to the rest of the world.. 1%-2% at the most.. and most of that is natural methane from animals.. when we start taxing nature for doing what nature intended.. we are all hot air and bullshit.
Vote:July 20th, 2009 at 7:17 pm
Well thats the answer then – lets make the recession permanent.
Fuck I’d love to entrench all the Chardonnay socialists and greenies into a third world poverty stricken lifestyle – they’d soon change there tune when they were crapping in a hole in the ground, living off weevily rice and sleeping on dirt with no hope of improvement.
Fucking arseholes want to condemn everybody to that in the name of some fantasy that life before the industrial revolution was the Garden of Eden or some such crap.
My God these pricks should go and visit Jakata and see how clean and green the third world isn’t and try and get their little brains around the concept that only wealthy societies can afford to be “green”.
Then grasp the notion that if their fuckwitted policies are adopted we will no longer be able to afford to be “clean and green” but will be in survival mode.
And people in survival mode do not care about the environment – can’t afford to.
Vote:July 20th, 2009 at 7:32 pm
“For a demonstration of the negative effects of CO2 try shutting yourself in a small room with an unvented gas fire. (Note: please do not actually do this.)”
That is carbon monoxide dipshit.
Vote:July 20th, 2009 at 7:34 pm
Everything about this proposition is total crap including the notion that we even know what our net emissions are and were.
No-one even knows how much methane our land and sea economic zone itself emits let alone how much CO2 is locked up in plants and trees or for how long.
The accounting is b.s., the science is b.s., the economics is b.s. and the proposition that cap and trade will make a measurable difference to AGW is b.s. Apart from that, it’s brilliant.
Vote:July 20th, 2009 at 7:39 pm
David Farrar. You put this topic in “uncategorised”. I would put it in “new age” loopy evangelism. The issue is no longer about reason but “faith”. And we all know what happens when we attempt to agree on matters of faith. Not possible.
Vote:Meanwhile … the credulous new converts’ drum banging seems to be paramount in an apparently “simple” society.
I worry.
July 20th, 2009 at 7:42 pm
Andrei, you’re a brain dead chirstian, nothing you say has any credibility as you display no ability to critically examine anything.
[DPF: Attacks his arguments, not him]
Vote:July 20th, 2009 at 7:54 pm
Racer;
Have you ever heard the apocryphal tale of medieval theologians arguing over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?
Well that story is bs but the one about 21st elites arguing over “Carbon emissions” and “Carbon offsets” is not, alas, it is all too serious. And like arguing over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin – utterly meaningless. Or would be if it wasn’t for the fact that the elites will use it to line their pockets at the expense of the people who actually do real tangible things that improve the lot of mankind.
Vote:July 20th, 2009 at 7:55 pm
“For a demonstration of the negative effects of CO2 try shutting yourself in a small room with an unvented gas fire. (Note: please do not actually do this.)”
I suggest you drink a pint or two of nitric acid. Given your proven knowledge of chemistry and chemical formulae, I trust you’ll find my suggestion entire acceptable.
Vote:July 20th, 2009 at 8:23 pm
“..# side show bob (1559) Vote: Add rating 0 Subtract rating 0 Says:
July 20th, 2009 at 6:42 pm
It’s because of wankers like those in Greenpeace and fallow (sic..heh!) demented retards of the same ilk that the gun safe is well stocked and the ammo locker is kept full. I live for the day one of these fucking morons show up to kill one of my cows, I do hope their life insurance is fully paid up, they’ll fucking need it!!!!!!!!!!..”
you sort of have killing as a major theme in your life..
..don’t you..bloody hands bob..?
..got the whole family locked into your blood-drenched revenge-fantasies..?
..or is it a solo effort..?
..and i wouldn’t be there to ‘kill’ your cows..
..i’d be there to take them somewhere where they aren’t routinely brutalised..
..and will be able to live out their natural lives..
..not have those lives ended..when you deem they are flogged out..
..you call it ‘uneconomic’..
..five years usually..?
..eh..?
..then you kill them..
..eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:July 20th, 2009 at 8:29 pm
I must point out David, that although we wouldn’t have electricity supplied, we would still be billed the daily charge for being connected to the national grid.
Vote:July 20th, 2009 at 8:39 pm
Philu,
Vote:I do not normally respond to your ravings because they are not worth the time of day, but I referred to my ‘comment’ as a ‘post’ to try and make the point that it was not my comment but a post of someone else’s work namely one of the Soil Conservation agencies of Canada.
So get lost and stop accusing me of being in the pay of Oil companies or one day I might just decide to sue you and then how could you afford the dope with which you feed the inner dope.
July 20th, 2009 at 8:42 pm
Perhaps then Philu you should thank your lucky stars you weren’t born a cow as I doubt you would have even made a decent burger.
Vote:July 20th, 2009 at 8:46 pm
Can all you geniuses please remind me again why this planet Earth needs to reduce / eliminate Agriculture methane, Transport, Agriculture nitrous oxide, Stationary energy, Electricity generation, Industrial processes and Waste emissions when the planet Mars is concurrently with planet Earth going through a period of warming.
Vote:July 20th, 2009 at 8:54 pm
When you think that New Zealand only produces .03 percent of the world’s pollution, can anyone tell me why I have to change my lifestyle? If I did or if every New Zealand did, there wouldn’t be a change in the environment in the WORLD!!! You are also forgetting technology and the electric car will be coming down the pike. I think it is the greens who are scare mongering thinking that if we don’t act now, there will be a point of no return. I shake when I read that not because I believe it but because I am freezing my ass off here in Napier. One of the coldest winters on record. This whole thing is a scam because this is a chance for the socialist to cash in.
Vote:July 20th, 2009 at 8:57 pm
The answer is we don’t but the useless as tits of a bull elites do.
Its all part of a power grab.
Since such people are pathologically incapable of producing anything of value what-so-ever they invent phantom menaces in order to suck their tribute from those that can and do produce valuable commodities – like food for us peasants to eat or energy to warm our homes.
Vote:July 20th, 2009 at 9:01 pm
AGW. What a crock of shit. There is no proof whatsoever of AGW. There is only consensus. CONSENSUS HAS NO PLACE IN SCIENCE!!!!! If science was based on consensus, there would have been no need to build the Large Hadron Collider. The scientists could have saved 8 billion if they had voted on the existence of the Higgs particle. I therefore absolutely refuse to lift a finger to help prevent global warning.
Bill.
Vote:July 20th, 2009 at 9:05 pm
greenie is all very nice, but who wants to live in a cave.
Vote:July 20th, 2009 at 9:08 pm
Yes Bill, the world is going friggin nuts.
Vote:You know, I cop a lot of crap for being a Christian, but really honestly I have never witnessed religious fervor like that of this anthropogenic global warming crowd.
Comes back to my conclusion that all human beings are religious, just some more than others I guess.
July 20th, 2009 at 9:14 pm
““For a demonstration of the negative effects of CO2 try shutting yourself in a small room with an unvented gas fire. (Note: please do not actually do this.)”
That is carbon monoxide dipshit.”
Actually both CO and CO2 are bad for us, I mean there is a reason why we breathe it out.
NZ is a lucky country to have such a good supply of renewable and non-renewable energy, however we are not allowed to harness this because of the NIMBY’s and Luddites. The Greenies want more green power but lo and behold, we propose green power and suddenly the greenies claim it’ll “destroy our tourism industry” (e.g. Project Hayes or Aqua”).
I believe in AGW to an extent but I believe that the effects will be minimal, ice is melting but it is being replaced. Extinction, as much as we want it to stop, is a fact of life. But still, we do need to change our lifestyles. No it does not mean going vegan (we need our agricultural industry more than ever with a growing population) but we could stand to lose so much if we keep taking things for granted.
Vote:July 20th, 2009 at 9:18 pm
“Actually both CO and CO2 are bad for us, I mean there is a reason why we breathe it out.”
Its not poisonous and it is not a pollutant, it is just a gas.
Vote:It is only harmful in the same way that trying to breathe under water is harmful, ie excluding oxygen from our lungs.
July 20th, 2009 at 9:18 pm
Besides, if Greenpeace and the Greenies were so environmentally sound, they wouldn’t be wasting galloins of petrol hunting down whalers or flying in “deadly” planes.
And shunda, CO2 is toxic in high concentrations. refer to http://www.inspect-ny.com/hazmat/CO2gashaz.htm
Vote:July 20th, 2009 at 9:24 pm
We’d be a long way to reducing carbon emissions if . was removed from philu’s keyboard
Vote:July 20th, 2009 at 9:25 pm
mcshane..are you saying you never took monies/got paid/supported by those oil company funded climatechange denial ‘organisations’..?
if so..i apologise..
..if you did..
..w.t.f..!
‘inner dope’..indeed..!
how is it going then..?
..that climatechange denial..?
..still peddling yr false science..?
..(paid..or..unpaid..)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:July 20th, 2009 at 9:32 pm
and mcshane..that is a comment with a link.. to someone elses’ work..
..not a ‘post’..
(i mean..!..you can’t even get that right..?..)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:July 20th, 2009 at 9:40 pm
DPF, agree with your analysis, not with the options you present.
How about this:
1. More research into agriculture, establish that pastureland actually is a carbon sink. Cows are no longer carbon emitters – that carbon all came out of the atmosphere in the first place, went into the cow, came out again. If we farm carefully, we increase the humus layer in the soil, which is a carbon sink. Failing this, just exclude agriculture like everyone else did – nobody asked us to include it.
2. Of what’s left, mainly electricity and transport. And for the idiot who said “electric cars” – nice one. So now zero for transport, and we tripled our electricity emissions. Or did you think the electricity would generate itself? Anyway, try this on: nuclear power. 4 large power stations, decommission all our coal and gas fired plants.
3. Transport. Carbon tax on petrol and diesel, encouraging people to get more fuel efficient cars. Reduce some of the recent rules that made newer jap imports expensive. Introduce rules that make older or less efficient cars more expensive (same as everyone else in the world does).
4. Plant trees. Cut them down and bury them, plant new trees. No carbon emitted, so you can actually reuse the land without having emissions. Actually, cut them down, make them into timber, build a house. Carbon also not emitted. The models in this area are sounding a bit simplistic.
5. Set the target at 20% or so instead of 40%.
Done. The key one here was that nuclear one. Known and proven technology, guaranteed to reduce carbon emissions. How much do the greens really care about the environment?
Vote:July 20th, 2009 at 9:42 pm
“And shunda, CO2 is toxic in high concentrations. refer to http://www.inspect-ny.com/hazmat/CO2gashaz.htm”
I stand corrected, interesting how it can make blood acidic, I guess that’s why Coca cola rots teeth so well
Vote:July 20th, 2009 at 9:46 pm
“CO2 is toxic in high concentrations.”
Most things are. No reason to shut down economic growth and create widespread poverty.
Vote:July 20th, 2009 at 9:54 pm
noskire “We’d be a long way to reducing carbon emissions if . was removed from philu’s keyboard”
Even further if philu was removed from philu’s keyboard.
PaulL, stop wasting time and money on a non-existent problem. There are plenty of real ones to solve. Sea level was on track to rise 0.3m in 100 years up to 2006 but since then has hardly risen at all. Global temperature has been flat for the last decade. Global sea ice is around average – antarctic up/arctic down a little. Sunspot activity has stopped. Tropic temperatures don’t show warming predicted by climate models. Nobody knows how clouds or aerosols work and the hockey stick was a statistical fraud.
Vote:July 20th, 2009 at 9:57 pm
Alan, that could be the most efficient debunking of AGW I have read thus far.
Vote:July 20th, 2009 at 10:00 pm
SB – since AGW is currently a comprehensive failure we might as well point that out to the endlessly gullible.
Vote:July 20th, 2009 at 10:25 pm
[DPF: Are you blind? I quote in the article that by 2002 net emissions is projected to be the same as gross emissions - in fact probably even higher.]
Do you care to explain how that’s possible?
[DPF: As trees get cut down, we lose their credits]
Vote:July 20th, 2009 at 10:27 pm
Hope you’re not referring to me as “endlessly gullible” Alan. As I’ve said a number of times, as DPF has also said a number of times.
1. It is likely that CO2 and other greenhouse gases are contributing to warming, and it is likely that human contributions are a portion of that problem. If you don’t agree with that, then you simply don’t understand science – these aren’t things we “believe in”, they are measurable facts. Yes, the sea level rise and warming have flattened recently, but the timeline is within the margin of error. You’re basically founding your argument on statistical noise. It isn’t certain, but it is likely.
2. The cost of changing that is likely higher than the benefits, on a global level. However, the costs and benefits are disproportionately spread across the globe. It is politically challenging to organise things such that nobody is worse off. It makes sense to take actions to the extent that they are low cost and have some benefit. Such as, for example, a low carbon tax offset with income tax reductions.
3. It is a big PR deal – failing to play nice impacts our trade.
Vote:July 20th, 2009 at 10:35 pm
PaulL,
1. It doesn’t matter whether CO2 and or human contributions are contributing or not if the warming is insufficient to cause any problems within the period we have influence over. And that is certainly the case as far as we can tell.
2. You contradict yourself. If the costs and benefits are spread disproportionately then countries cannot offset carbon tax with income tax reductions. There must be cross-border transactions. It is pointless, wasteful and harmful doing things that have no benefit.
3. There is no PR in being stupid.
Vote:July 20th, 2009 at 10:44 pm
someguy, from reading the blog post I think DPF meant “relative to 1990 levels of each”. That is the proportionate increases are equal, not absolute amounts.
Vote:July 20th, 2009 at 10:46 pm
Ironically, what we really need here, are dozens of patriotic and expert lefty propagandists skilled in disinformation, dissembly, and plain lies.
There people would be really really useful in the diplomatic circles that count on this issue.
How come they apparently, don’t want to help?
Vote:July 20th, 2009 at 10:51 pm
DPF
You have outdone yourself this time. Really quite a ridiculous showing.
Net emissions. If anyone builds a new gas fueled power plant in the teeth of peak-oil they’re an idiot. This is the most renewable rich country on the planet with the possible exception of solar in Oz.
Which leads me to the conclusion that you are being purposefully misleading. To what end I can only imagine.
You don’t acknowledge that the Greens already provided for exclusion of the agriculture from the counting until other countries sign on to it. So try taking 40% of everything ELSE away for a start.
You don’t acknowledge that the target is just that, a TARGET which is to say, the negotiating position we go in with.
You don’t acknowledge that there will be sanctions on the non-participants. You can bet on it, you can COUNT on it, if there is any sort of agreement at all – so China and India don’t get away with anything either.
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/06/29/climate-trade-obama/
John Key has said the economy must trump the environment when the two clash.
I trust he has permission from God to hold the laws of physics and thermodynamics at bay while his banker buddies reap their obscene profits. If you don’t have an environment you don’t have an economy. Not even a broken wheezing Cuban peon economy.
When Kyoto was proposed it was easy. When the turds-for-brains running the Bush administration (and Labour here) were finished, it had become a lot harder and where we are now, with stuff-all progress towards meeting those modest goals, the only thing that is likely to stop runaway warming from happening to us is a very sharp reduction in emissions.
We didn’t apply the brakes when we noticed the cliff, now we’re almost over the damned cliff and we have to put them on as hard as we can and pray.
Because what is coming if we don’t is going to be apoco2yptic. It won’t stop at 2 degrees, and it won’t stop at 3… the last time this planet had as much CO2 as we have NOW the temperature stabilized at 3 degrees warmer and we’re still pumping it up.
…and there was no summer sea ice at either pole.
…and the ocean was about 25 meters deeper.
… and the feedbacks which gave it that level of CO2 then haven’t happened to us yet. ( So it could go to plus 5 or 6 degrees. No ice at the poles at all. 80 meters of sea level rise. Yeah, it’d take a thousand or so years, but I don’t give us a big chance of surviving the transition with an intact civilization. )
It isn’t a good thing boys and girls. Even though 3 degrees will only give us about 2 meters by 2100, it won’t STOP. Stability will take hundreds of years more, but the climate will ring like a bell throughout the transition. Droughts and floods and extremes of all sorts. Agriculture will take a real beating too. I think the herds might be reduced without anyone actually shooting them.
Then we decide to join Great Barrier Island and survive off solar power. We close down all the power plants and turn off the electricity supplies. It’s candles for warmth in winter. That gets a another 9%. 29%.
Given our resources in renewables and current electricity generation percentages this is simply absurd. Perhaps you should stick to economics. You aren’t very good at that either but whatever mistakes we make there can always be changed back. As long as we have a civilization we can always choose to be more civil.
But once we push the climate to where the feedbacks are triggered there is no changing it back, even if we did every ridiculous thing you mention all over the entire planet.
Once that happens there is only one thing that could save us and it isn’t one that any of you have mentioned, though it is a regular feedback on Frogblog. Cheap Access To Space. CATS – could retrieve things. All we have to do is persuade one of the big guns to work on it. I am betting that the future speaks Chinese.
This country doesn’t need nukes. It has the Cook Strait and can pull more power per year from that alone than it consumes. It has geothermal, it has wind to beat all hell. All it takes is a little intelligence. I conclude from this blog entry and the comments provided that this requirement is entirely beyond the reach of the country and that I should prepare for the worst.
BJ
Vote:July 20th, 2009 at 10:57 pm
All targets should be achievable and practical.
I am all for preventing real pollution, and cutting waste.
By definition a resource is finite.
What I object to is being taxed on the premise that something which is naturally occurring, may make a miniscule difference to the
Planet. Cows are the perfect example. Methane is a gas. And? It warms up the world. Not what my thermometer says.
The summer here in Northern England is crap. Daytime temperatures over 20′C are rare.
And still no AGW CULTIST, can name one earthly piece of the Planet that has been lost to the sea in the last 30 years.
Go on, name one Island that has been depopulated as a direct result of and by sea levels gradually rising. Tsunamis do not count!
Vote:July 20th, 2009 at 11:06 pm
“…and there was no summer sea ice at either pole.
…and the ocean was about 25 meters deeper.
… and the feedbacks which gave it that level of CO2 then haven’t happened to us yet. ( So it could go to plus 5 or 6 degrees. No ice at the poles at all. 80 meters of sea level rise. Yeah, it’d take a thousand or so years, but I don’t give us a big chance of surviving the transition with an intact civilization. )”
Rarely have I seen such unmitigated drivel. Summer Ice? They never talk about the extra Winter Ice do they?
The Ocean(s) was about 25m deeper. How does that work? Evidence please? Seismic shift over the entire sea bed? Rubbish.
80 meters of sea level rise. Utter bullshit. So the sea water (if ever it did rise) would not be spread out over newly claimed land such as the whole of Northern Europe for one.
Vote:July 20th, 2009 at 11:20 pm
(1) translation: I don’t agree with you so I will call you an ignoramous.
So computer models based on dodgy assumptions and poorly understood complex systems are what counts as science in these enlightened times – huh.
I’ve got news for you – thats not science thats voodoo and about as meaningful as predicting the future by examining sheep guts and probably, if the truth be told, less accurate given the track record of “climate science” computer models.
And Mr patronize-your-opponents I know why.
See to model the earths climate you need to set up whole families of non-linear differential equations – in itself an impossible task since the number of them is effectively infinite. Then you need to solve them – not easy because the vast majority of this huge number of equations do not have an analytical solution and even if you can develop an approximate solution the chances are that it exhibits what is called “initial condition instability” meaning that a small variation in the input leads to a large variation in the way the system develops with time.
Because God structured the universe this way it is impossible – except in a small number of very restricted circumstances to predict the future.
Thus we will beat our chests over “climate change” which we can do nothing about even if it is occurring in the way the screechers maintain and end up being wiped out by something nobody has seriously worried about- maybe Lake Taupo blows up – something like that will happen but alas I am not privy to what it will be and do not have the arrogance to claim otherwise. Which probably explains why I am not jetsetting around the world business class to climate change conferences on the taxpayers dime.
(2) Your argument is founded on meaningless babble
Vote:July 20th, 2009 at 11:30 pm
[DPF: As trees get cut down, we lose their credits]
What if we plant more?
[DPF: The credits are effectively restored. But as I have explained elsewhere planting trees is an ineffective substitute to reducing gross emissions. Here's why. Let's say our annual gross emissions increase by 1 million tonnes and then stay constant. To counter that one million tonnes, you plant enough trees to credit one million tonnes. Then at the end of the first year, you have to plant that many trees again. And then in year three again that many trees etc etc]
Vote:July 20th, 2009 at 11:34 pm
andrei: is it true that the globe has warmed in the last century. That is a measurable fact. Is it true that the short run fluctuation in temperature in the short run (2-5 years) is quite high, and relatively meaningless in the context of the trend?
I’m not a big AGW propagandist, but it really is a waste of time discussing if we can’t even agree on the facts. There is a big difference between agreeing there is warming, and then discussing if and what we might do about it. V’s arguing about whether there is warming at all – which so far as I am concerned is pointless.
And, by the way, models have nothing to do with whether it is warming or not. It has to do with the consequences of that warming, projections into the future, feedbacks both positive and negative. I have my opinions on those, but it is complete irrelevant to a discussion of whether or not there is warming. Are you calling a thermometer voodoo science these days? I mean, really, if that is what you’re here to argue about, then don’t bother.
Vote:July 20th, 2009 at 11:40 pm
[DPF: Are you blind? I quote in the article that by 2002 net emissions is projected to be the same as gross emissions - in fact probably even higher.]
Do you care to explain how that’s possible?
[DPF: As trees get cut down, we lose their credits]
And how does that end up with net emissions greater than gross emissions? And why wouldn’t we plant new ones?
[DPF: If the number of trees fall below 1990 levels net emissions are greater than gross emissions. Look at the MFE documents. And you can plant new ones but the Crown doesn't get to decide that - land owners do]
Vote:July 21st, 2009 at 12:05 am
It’s a good cause for a new referendum. “Would you be prepared to halve your standard of living in order for New Zealand to meet proposed net greenhouse gas emission reduction targets?”
Vote:That should soon sort out where NZ stands on the issue.
July 21st, 2009 at 12:09 am
Paul;
It is probable that the majority but not all of the places on this planet are marginally warmer than they were in 1850.
The thing is what does “average temperature” really mean and how do you calculate it?
How many thermometer readings for Ulan Bator do we have from the nineteenth century? And how accurately was the thermometer that was used calibrated? And how rigorous was the person who recorded the readings in his procedures? These are non trivial questions Paul
I have a thermometer on my deck in the front of my house and another outside the backdoor. They can vary by as much as five degrees – assuming of course they are both calibrated the same and to be sure they are probably not very accurate.
The same thing is true everywhere – temperature continually varies in time and space and fluctuates continually.
It is claimed that the “average temperature”, whatever that really means, of the planet has risen by somewhere 0.7 – 1 degree since 1850 but if the old readings used to calculate this are accurate +/- 1 degree I’d be surprised.
The best way of detecting climate change is changing vegetation patterns which might suggest a marginal warming but that is well within the bounds of so what and there is nothing to suggest that this will continue into the future, nothing at all.
Vote:July 21st, 2009 at 1:16 am
“andrei
So computer models based on dodgy assumptions and poorly understood complex systems are what counts as science in these enlightened times – huh. ”
More so than making shit up on the spot then searching the internet for people who agree with you (see wishart, yourself, any number of other kiwibloggers)
Vote:July 21st, 2009 at 1:29 am
Rarely have I seen such unmitigated drivel. Summer Ice? They never talk about the extra Winter Ice do they?
Summer Ice means the arctic ice cap and the ice surrounding the antarctic continent. It locks up gigatons of water as ice and contributes to the earth’s currently diminishing albedo. This is important in summer because that is when the sun is shining at the poles. 24/7.
The Ocean(s) was about 25m deeper. How does that work? Evidence please? Seismic shift over the entire sea bed? Rubbish.
That ice, at the West Antarctic Ice Sheet and the Greenland Ice Sheet gets to move off the land and into the water. The water level rises.
If you were smarter this might be a debate.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090622103833.htm
Vote:July 21st, 2009 at 1:32 am
andrei
How many thermometer readings for Ulan Bator do we have from the nineteenth century? And how accurately was the thermometer that was used calibrated? And how rigorous was the person who recorded the readings in his procedures? These are non trivial questions Paul
They can be inferred from known strong relationships, just like you don’t need to walk off every cliff you see, to check that gravity still works, you can infer that it still does.
Vote:July 21st, 2009 at 7:27 am
But Lucy Lawless, a teenage mother and some blond actress are telling us that Signing Up will save the planet. It must be worth doing. I mean, how can their empassioned plea not be scientific fact.
Vote:July 21st, 2009 at 8:10 am
DIM wrote:
Nope. That’s a demonstration of lack of oxygen. For a demonstration of the negative effects of zero CO2, try breathing a mix of nitrogen and Oxygen ONLY (with No CO2).
Note: please don’t try that either. The CO2 regulates the breathing.
Vote:July 21st, 2009 at 9:00 am
As I understand it, we are one of the few, if not the only, developed country that includes agriculture carbon emissions, which account for 46% of emissions in this country.
If we are to compare apples with apples, why count them?
If we disregard them, as most of the world does, then our target is achieved!!!!!!!
(socialist statistics 101!)
Vote:July 21st, 2009 at 9:05 am
Andrei
Here is a debunking of Gerlich and Tscheuschner that allows some confidence that the planet CAN have an average temperature.
http://rabett-run-labs.googlegroups.com/web/G%26T_rebuttal-2-6.doc?gda=VYg-R0oAAADEUdes6psiZfp7tCY5Z2rJa-o0q5vHRx3Yf8okgx3yAGP5lCq_E9H643M_Z42vuq_iZHwnlxJOXh-dokhRSd4k_e3Wg0GnqfdKOwDqUih1tA&hl=en
( Perhaps this should just be taken as an example of how complex the thinking about climate actually gets as I think you are asking a different question. )
What is the actual temperature given the disparity of the thermometers and measurements.
Let me ask a counter question. To measure warming and cooling do we actually need to know that?
Consider. If you take the average of the temperature change for both your thermometers on any given day, and measure the change in that average on the next day, what does that tell you about the system as a whole? THAT is a very robust measurement of temperature change providing that the thermometers are even reasonably accurate at measuring local temperature within the temperature range.
If you then start adding additional sorts of thermometers you can work back to incorporate the old ones… the system is actually quite robust for measuring changes.
respectfully
Vote:BJ
July 21st, 2009 at 9:35 am
Been to the Maldives twice. Stayed both times at the Lily Beach Hotel, in South Ari Atoll.
Not been for 5 years. Just looking at Diving Holidays again, and this Hotel has had a very expensive makeover.
It is a leased island, belonging to the Government.
Look it up in Google cache, as to what it was like, and have a look now.
Not expecting Sea level increases anytime soon! Go on Pinko alarmists. Name just one tract of land over run by the sea in the last decade. Might and possibly just don’t cut it.
Vote:July 21st, 2009 at 10:04 am
Emission Caps in NZ – the really simple story – it means kill cows and plant more trees.
Neither of these things are good things.
Kill Cows – price signal on meat and dairy goes upwards, creates a boom in these industries and the conversion of more Brazillian forest to pasture.
Plant Trees – price signal in timber products goes downwards, devalues the usefulness forested areas to other countries.
End result – Capping emissions in little old NZ, means burning the Brazillian rainforest.
Vote:July 21st, 2009 at 10:12 am
Of course you need to reduce gross emissions, the point I was making is that you’re completely ignoring the possibility that planting more trees can contribute to a 40% decrease in NET CO2 emissions by 2020.
Our gross emissions are around 25% up on 1990, yet because of tree planting we’re roughly level with 1990 net emissions levels. That’s a good start in that it shows planting trees can offset rising emissions. The challenge now is to take that to the next level and start to decrease our net emissions. That means BOTH reducing gross emissions AND planting more trees. Perhaps it means planting a LOT more trees.
With an ETS in place there would be a financial incentive to plant those trees – ie. if it was cheaper to reduce CO2 emissions by planting trees than by reducing gross emissions then the market would incentivise tree planting.
I think a bigger question is how National are going to slow the rise in emissions levels at all, considering their energy and transport policies are dragging them in the complete opposite direction. For example, how it taking $300 million from public transport, walking & cycling and maintaining roads over the next three years and ploughing it into building more motorways, going to help reduce CO2 emissions? I suspect it will do quite the opposite.
Vote:July 21st, 2009 at 10:21 am
bjchip, what utter claptrap. Bugger all heat lands on the poles winter or summer. The tropics is where it matters for the planet’s radiation balance. And the Antarctic is always frozen – never gets anywhere near melting so albedo is constant and so is its contribution to sea level. The Arctic has huge ice fluctuations winter/summer and always has had – mostly affected by weather patterns of wind and sea currents. Current global sea ice is around average extent.
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=6547
The guys who actually measure global temperature accurately, comprehensively and as reliably as possible using satellites don’t believe the AGW scaremongering:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/
The sea level has been rising at a rate of 0.3m per century not 2m and has been flat for the last 3 years:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/07/18/global-sea-level-updated-at-uc-still-flattening/
The collation of surface temperature measurements is a farce, having been whittled down to airport tarmacs:
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=6607
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/07/15/giss-worlds-airports-continue-to-run-warmer-than-row/
… improperly if at all corrected for urban heat island effects:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/07/20/and-now-the-most-influential-station-in-the-giss-record-is/
… and subject to innumerable bizarre “adjustments” that always tweak the warming line upwards:
Vote:http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=6382 (and many many other similar analyses)
July 21st, 2009 at 11:03 am
bjchip, bugger all heat lands on the poles winter or summer. The tropics is where it matters for the planet’s radiation balance. And the Antarctic is always frozen – never gets anywhere near melting so albedo is constant and so is its contribution to sea level. The Arctic has huge ice fluctuations winter/summer and always has had – mostly affected by weather patterns of wind and sea currents. Current global sea ice is around average extent.
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=6547
The guys who actually measure global temperature accurately, comprehensively and as reliably as possible using satellites don’t believe the AGW scaremongering:
Vote:http://www.drroyspencer.com/
July 21st, 2009 at 11:04 am
The sea level has been rising at a rate of 0.3m per century not 2m and has been flat for the last 3 years:
Vote:http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/07/18/global-sea-level-updated-at-uc-still-flattening/
July 21st, 2009 at 11:04 am
The collation of surface temperature measurements is a farce, having been whittled down to airport tarmacs:
Vote:http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=6607
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/07/15/giss-worlds-airports-continue-to-run-warmer-than-row/
July 21st, 2009 at 11:05 am
… improperly if at all corrected for urban heat island effects:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/07/20/and-now-the-most-influential-station-in-the-giss-record-is/
… and subject to innumerable bizarre “adjustments” that always tweak the warming line upwards:
Vote:http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=6382 (and many many other similar analyses)
July 21st, 2009 at 11:07 am
Sorry for duplicates. Thought the first post had got blocked permanently but now it reappeared.
Vote:July 21st, 2009 at 11:15 am
And what happens if you (for example) later discover that people stopped measuring the temperature at 9:00 am and 5:00 pm, and instead decided to measure it at mid-day and mid-night? Are your “averages” reasonable?
For example, a large change in sea surface temperture was noted post WWII. The reason was attributed to global warming, but there is now evidence that it was largely due to a difference where the WWII record was largely by the US navy who would measure the temperature in a different way from the British navy. Go figure.
Vote:July 21st, 2009 at 11:21 am
Spam, not to mention that anyone who produced that calculation as an estimate of an average temperature would fail STATS101 comprehensively.
Vote:July 21st, 2009 at 12:38 pm
Yes, the inimitable Dr Spencer. The problems you have Alan, stem from hanging out with the wrong crowd… and reading Dr Spencer’s blogs rather than his actual scientific work. There is a remarkable disconnect between his blogs and his science.
First… you don’t have the minimum Sea Ice for this year yet. That gets taken in September. There are a lot of people watching it and despite last year being an el-nina and coinciding with an intense solar minimum, the ice extent hasn’t recovered from the two record setting years that preceded it. This year is going to have an el-nino, and the solar cycle appears to be ticking upward.
Second – The difference in the effective albedo of the planet when sunlight hits deep ocean instead of ice 24×7 for several months, is quite significant. It isn’t the only significant thing of course, but to dispose of the effects on the global climate by saying it doesn’t matter because it is at the pole, is nonsense. As for the sea-ice around Antarctica, that is not permanent and has moved in the past. I think your protest here loses something but the point is that I DID specify sea ice, not the ice on the continent.
I really find the “it isn’t happening” crowd to be among the most amazing of all.
Sea levels. Please consider the synthesis report, in particular on page 8 figure 1.
http://climatecongress.ku.dk/pdf/synthesisreport
The point is that we are tracking the very top of the range of IPCC projections… and the period at issue is absurdly short.
To quote RealClimate on this…
The absurdity of this approach is see by picking an even more recent trend, say starting in June 2007, which gives 5.3+/-2.2 mm/yr! Secondly, this short-term trend (1.6 +/- 0.9 mm/yr) is not even robust across data sets – the French analysis shown above has a trend since the beginning of 2006 of 2.9 mm/year, very similar to the long-term trend. Third, the image Pielke links to shows the data without the inverted barometer correction – the brief marked peak in late 2005, which makes the visual trend (always a poor choice of statistical methodology) almost flat since then, disappears when this effect is accounted for. This means the 2005 peak was simply due to air pressure fluctuations and has nothing to do with climatic ocean volume changes.
As for the increasing rate of sea level change, that is part of what is predicted and the rate of increase is expected to increase as the process gains momentum. Since the equilibrium state for this CO2 level in the paleoclimate IS 25 meters higher than now, with the conditions I stated the only question is how fast we get there. Several positive feedback mechanisms have been identified. Sea Ice is only one of them.
Temperatures – Spencer has his opinions. He usually keeps them out of his science. I suggest you look at some of the whoppers he has been guilty of in the past before you rely on him to the exclusion of the Hadley Center and the GISS.
The various sources of the temperature record are of course, a matter of interest.
The “urban heat island” effects are of interest and MacIntyre has contributed something in trying to keep it clean. However, there are several reasons to believe that this is more “heat than light”
First here:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/the-surface-temperature-record-and-the-urban-heat-island/
and more to the point – download this image
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/0208/earthlights02_dmsp_big.jpg
Pretty picture and it also provides a really good idea where all the urban heat sources actually are.
Now examine the temperature data.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/do_nmap.py?year_last=2009&month_last=06&sat=4&sst=1&type=anoms&mean_gen=0112&year1=2006&year2=2008&base1=1951&base2=1980&radius=1200&pol=reg
Is there any sort of correlation between the locations of the fastest warming parts of the planet and the airport tarmac?
I think not.
That said I DO hope that MacIntyre gets enough traction with this to actually help get the stations set up so that he doesn’t have a complaint to make about it. I reckon that this is important, if only to make it clear to the doubtful that there is a real problem.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/cdrar/do_LTmapE.py
respectfully
Vote:BJ
July 21st, 2009 at 12:42 pm
Hi Alan,
The latest data from the National Oceanic and Atmosphere Administration:
NOAA: Global Ocean Surface Temperature Warmest on Record for June
Vote:http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2009/20090717_juneglobalstats.html
July 21st, 2009 at 12:59 pm
Changing the conditions so that you collect temperature at different times is a wonderful rhetorical device spam, it does not affect the question of using relative measurements to get meaningful data even with instruments subject to different local conditions. As long as those conditions remain consistent the delta temperatures measured will be meainingful.
BJ
Vote:July 21st, 2009 at 1:01 pm
bj: “you [are] hanging out with the wrong crowd”
No, the crowd I hang out with allow debate from all points of view. The crowd you hang out with [RealClimate, Tamino, etc] block scientific opponents from responding, quote work they wish to criticise selectively while refusing to link to the full works and come from very narrow scientific fields whereas climate requires a huge range of expertise to understand.
“There is a remarkable disconnect between [Spencer's] blogs and his science.”
No, there isn’t. He publishes much of his science on his blogs. Moreover his principle satellite monitoring project co-workers share the same low opinion of AGW fanaticism.
“As for the increasing rate of sea level change, that is part of what is predicted”
Except that the rate of change is slowing not increasing as shown from the chart I linked.
I’ve seen the earthlights. The GISS chart you link tells us absolutely nothing about how it was calculated whereas there are many studies showing that the GISS temperature trends at individual locations are unsupported by raw local data until it has been “tortured into submission”, as someone recently put it ,via GISS “adjustments”.
My personal view is that surface-based measurements will never give a sufficiently accurate, unbiased and comprehensive coverage to validate or refute climate models unless run for a very long time and opened up completely to independent auditing. Automated satellite data is the only logical way to go. And the satellites are telling us that global warming is way below predicted levels, especially in the tropics which matter most and are supposed to be warming fastest.
Vote:July 21st, 2009 at 1:10 pm
He still knows more about the topic than some airhead actresses pushing a stupid tv ad campaign.
Vote:July 21st, 2009 at 1:12 pm
Bullion, and both satellite series refute that claim:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/07/10/rss-global-temperature-for-june-09-also-down/
However El Nino brings warmer sea surface temperatures and the surface heats the air so the temperature gap may close a little next month:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/07/16/ncdc-june-2009-second-warmest-on-record-globally/
However even RealClimate ran a paper recently worrying that temperatures may not rise again for another decade.
Vote:July 21st, 2009 at 1:51 pm
BJ ;
Do you know anything about the science of measurement what-so-ever.
Tell how do you measure “sea level change”.
Start with what is sea level measured with respect to.
Then factor in the well established fact that at any particular point on the earth where it is covered by water the actual level of the ocean varies by the second as waves move across it, on a minute by minute basis as the tides ebb and flow, on a monthly basis as the moon goes through its phases and on an annual basis as the earth moves through its elliptical path around the sun. Not forgetting the influence of the other planets. Each one of these influences except the latter have effects that can be measured in meters, not the fractions of a meter claimed for sea level rise.
Now there is a “mean sea level” but how do you establish what it is with any precision, say to within +/- 1 meter given what I have stated above.
And if you cannot establish the “mean sea level” to within one meter currently how on earth can you claim it has risen by 0.3 of a meter in whatever time frame is currently being claimed.
So tell how do you establish the current “mean sea level” , what is the reference frame is used and what is the tolerance of this figure ie +/- how many cms, meters, whatever and then i might begin to take your hysterics a bit more seriously.
As it is I live with the fact we inhabit a planet that is in a dynamic state of flux where things change continually, accept that without this occurring there would be no life in the first place and that there is very little we can do to alter this fact- even if we wanted to.
Vote:July 21st, 2009 at 2:12 pm
“As for the increasing rate of sea level change, that is part of what is predicted”
Except that the rate of change is slowing not increasing as shown from the chart I linked.
Again… you are looking at a very short period of time. It is meaningless.
“The crowd you hang out with [RealClimate, Tamino, etc] block scientific opponents from responding”
I find this assertion interesting. Where is this blockage happening, in the refereed journals? What part of “bad science” are you so determined to accept? Certainly the folks who disagree do have their opportunity to post at RC.
I tend to watch GISS and HadCrut, not NOAA. Both those show that the temperature trend is going back up. Why the trend from one year to the next is of interest for a forcing that takes place over decades and centuries remains a bit of a mystery to me. I reckon that in a couple of years we’ll be able to look back at now and say “yup, it flattened out a bit there” or “no, that was a statistical outlier, just like 1998 was”. There is nothing in ANY of the data that leads me to believe that the short term is of any interest whatsoever in detecting climate change.
Swanson was a guest at RC, that is the article you’re referring to, and it mostly discusses natural decadal variability.
A flat decade would, if the internal variability of the systems caused such (it appears unlikely to me) let people stop measures to address AGW. That is a worry because the forcings are still in place. The scientists I know are 90-95% certain of the outcome.
BJ
Vote:July 21st, 2009 at 2:23 pm
bj: “Certainly the folks who disagree do have their opportunity to post at RC.”
Most have given up because their posts are either blocked or edited in order to ridicule them.
I spent a day or two on RC once and was so utterly sickened at the disgusting prostitution of science to ad hominem attacks and one-sided debates I went looking for better sources and found them. There is now no good reason in my opinion to visit RC which was created as PR venture for the AGW cause and remains dedicated to that rather than to science.
Which is probably why Climate Audit and WattsUpWithThat have successively been voted “Best Science Weblogs”.
No, recent trends are not meaningless. They occur in a period in which CO2 forcing has been at unprecedented levels. The climate has failed to respond as predicted by climate models. Clearly natural factors and feedbacks are neither properly understood nor are they overwhelmed by the effects of increased atmospheric CO2.
Vote:July 21st, 2009 at 2:32 pm
You really are an ignorant fool bjchip, very sad.
This is correct bjchip, which is why two decades of warming from 1980 to 2000 does not lead rational people to your fantasy land.
Take a look at the last million years temperature records BJ.
Something more powerful than human industialisation caused temperatures to drop from 1940 to 1980.
Vote:July 21st, 2009 at 2:48 pm
Funny Andrei – my hysterics..
I worked on the Laser Airborne Depth Sounder project under contract with the CSIRO and I worked at NASA JPL.
http://www.hydro.gov.au/aboutus/lads/lads-technical.htm
Both manage to do a very nice job of measuring stuff. You measure from the reference geoid, usually WGS84. You can use a variety of measures to take out both tides and waves.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geoid
It is remarkably, even possible to measure the wind speed over the ocean by measuring the ripples on the surface.
So to answer your question, I actually know a little bit about this topic. I don’t know enough to claim to be a scientist, just an Engineer, but I know how Kalman filtering can be used to figure out where the mean surface is.
http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/mgg/bathymetry/predicted/explore.HTML
…and el-nino has an effect here too.
http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/ENSO.htm
… and none of that is really pertinent to the real problem.
In terms of worrying about climate change the paleoclimate shows that in periods of slower CO2 growth we got temperature rises of several degrees and rates of change that are more like 1-2 meters per century than the 0.3 we currently observe. That was the end of an ice-age. We aren’t at the end of an ice-age now but we are seeing temperature change that looks a lot like it in terms of the rate of change, and CO2 changes that are 50 times as fast. The more rapid sea rise is the last thing to happen. If we get methane release from the deep clathrate deposits or from the tundra it will be out of our hands, and those will happen first.
The expected rates makes sense if you consider that the WAIS is simply Ice that is grounded below sea level, and Greenland is slipping. 2 meters by the end of the century is quite reasonable to expect if we don’t do something NOW to keep from tripping a positive feedback. Once again, to go back to the last time we had CO2 like this WE weren’t around. We didn’t evolve in those conditions.
Those rates do NOT make sense if you linearly extrapolate from the present. I don’t think the results in the paleoclimate indicate that linear responses should be expected.
respectfully
Vote:BJ
July 21st, 2009 at 2:55 pm
Andrei – bjchip just ate your heart.
Vote:July 21st, 2009 at 2:57 pm
BJ: “I don’t think the results in the paleoclimate indicate that linear responses should be expected.”
I don’t think the results in the paleoclimate indicate that any response should be expected. CO2 increase followed temperature increase, not the reverse as you imply.
Vote:July 21st, 2009 at 3:14 pm
Alan… arguing the quality of the science based on the opinions of people who vote about weblogs doesn’t make a lot of sense.
Arguing about the quality of the science based on the ACTUAL quality of a blog doesn’t make a lot of sense either.
I don’t know what gets edited on RC, I am just a peon at this point. I have certainly seen contrarian arguments buried in reality often enough.
You are arguing that the debate is one sided. Perhaps that is because the truth is more on one side than the other?
Certainly Gareth Morgan did a reasonable job of investigating it. Consider buying his book rather than Wishart’s drivel.
“No, recent trends are not meaningless. They occur in a period in which CO2 forcing has been at unprecedented levels. The climate has failed to respond as predicted by climate models.”
I see the natural variation at a different timescale than you seem to understand it, and I don’t expect the climate to monotonically increase in temperature in lockstep with CO2. I DO expect temperature and variability to increase over the longer term, and it has been doing exactly that.
I think we disagree on this, and will not resolve the disagreement. In a few years we will know the truth… and if it turns out that I and the scientific community got it right but we did nothing, we’re toast.
Because this (the 40% target of the OP) is also about risk management, and as near as I can tell, very little consideration of that is being taken, at least not with respect to the what I see as the risks.
You and Andrei are the only ones who haven’t resorted to ad-hominems. Maybe there is hope for civilization.
…. naaaahhhh
respectfully
Vote:BJ
July 21st, 2009 at 3:31 pm
I don’t think the results in the paleoclimate indicate that any response should be expected. CO2 increase followed temperature increase, not the reverse as you imply.
How long did the temperature go up ~ 5000-6000 years.
When did the CO2 go up ~ 800 years after the temperature STARTED to go up.
The most you can say is that the CO2 did not cause the first 800 years worth of warming. After that you simply do not know, and the science asserts that it is a feedback AND a forcing at the end of an glacial period.
But of course this is NOT the end of a glacial period and neither was the last time 3 million years ago, when the CO2 was this high. We have indications that the temperature was then 3 degrees higher and more definite evidence that the ocean was 25 meters deeper. All in accordance with the established CO2 sensitivity… to the extent that anything is actually known about 3 million years ago.
So the CO2 is going up because of us… the isotopes prove that even if you remain sceptical.
And the CO2 is definitely a Greenhouse gas, this is basic physics that nobody questions at all.
Theory predicts and fact obliges.
This is perhaps the most basic mistake that the blogosphere makes in the science of Global Warming.
Vote:respectfully
BJ
July 21st, 2009 at 3:55 pm
bj, I don’t do ad hominems when debating with anyone who knows what they’re talking about. I haven’t read Wishart and I doubt I’ll read Morgan either since the TV discussion on it presented only one scientific side. I prefer to read scientists.
If CO2 is truly forcing with the power claimed then planet heat storage must increase monotonically subject only to natural variability of other forcings. Surface temperature should be subject only to local heat distribution changes. In my view it is clear unknown factors override this on multi-decadal timeframes.
I have never expressed scepticism about human contributions to rising CO2. My scepticism is that the present climate model feedbacks are correct even in direction let alone magnitude.
As you seem to be confirming in a muddled way, the paleoclimate record is of no assistance to resolving these matters.
“Theory predicts and fact obliges.”
Vote:It certainly does when the AGW High Priests are in charge of measuring temperature.
July 21st, 2009 at 4:12 pm
But although a geoid can be determined precisely the average sea level at any particular location can vary widely from it – again in the order of meters so its not very helpful in distinguishing sea level rises in the order of millimeters
Nor in the real world is a geoid surface constant in time – like everything else on this planet of ours it changes with time, sometimes quite quickly e.g a major earthquake will bring about local changes.
Satellite measurements are fraught too – although they are fairly good, as I recall a revision had to be made at one point to take into account orbital decay which had been neglected in the original calculations. What is needed here is an independent method of assessment to establish the veracity of the methodology.
Surely you must know all this and likewise if you are looking at paleo climates also know that climate change has always been occurring – long before there were people. And arguments about time scale don’t cut it either. Consider the Younger Dryas, a period of climate collapse that developed over a period of decades and lasted 500 years or so, a far more threatening scenario than the marginal amount of warming that has allegedly taken place in our times.
Vote:July 22nd, 2009 at 12:21 am
Well, I didn’t say it was easy
You are right that the satellite orbits have to be tracked closely and the geoid is not smooth. All that said, I am confident that the increases we are seeing are factual increases. The results match well with the thermal load the oceans are carrying.
… and it is true that the paleoclimate indicates that there have been large changes in climate with and without human intervention. This is well accepted and understood, and the natural causes of all those changes are sought out to see if there is any explicative power in them for the current situation. Mostly what we see is events that unfold much more slowly than what we have been doing to the CO2. It is rising 50 times faster than at any time we know of and is now higher than it has been in 3 million years. The only comparable events in terms of rate of CO2 release would be the Deccan traps or a major meteor impact. Basically extinction events.
The younger Dryas is thought to be from the shutdown of the thermohaline current. If this is true it was not a global event of the sort of scale we are concerning ourselves with here. It certainly was abrupt, but if it was driven by a shutdown of the current, it would have had to be abrupt… but not global. Perhaps even as depicted in that outstandingly stupid movie whose name I don’t want to remember
Which gives us another long-shot possible outcome. We are destabilizing a complex system.
=========
What is uncertain is whether the “power of the CO2 forcing” is overwhelming on short time scales. I have always regarded it as a rather gentle but constant thing, always moving the base in one direction but not overwhelming all the other forcings all the time. It makes the lows higher and the highs higher over a long period of time. To call it overwhelming one has to look at long periods.
The tide doesn’t seem like much compared with the wave-height. It raises the peaks and the troughs of the the waves imperceptibly over time and yet if one is careless in placing the beach-towel at low tide, the need to move it will be apparent within a few hours.
Time frames are exceptionally important, and humans are notoriously bad at comparing the effects of things at vastly different timescales.
I think the Levitus data is pretty convincing – that there is substantial heat content being continually stored in the oceans. It certainly appears to be less in the 2006-2008 region and Pielke isn’t happy with that characterization but insists that the differences are statistically indistinguishable from noise in that time frame. Yet the time frame is so short in the data set that it would be difficult for the differences to be anything but noise.
The question of the direction of the feedbacks is one that can be examined simply. If the sign is wrong (as Spencer et.al. sometimes assert) then the current greenhouse would not stand at the roughly 33 degrees it does, and the paleoclimate would not show the temperatures it shows for the last time we had this much CO2. I may be incorrect to use such a blunt instrument on this issue, but it is the one I have access to, and it avoids bringing yet more references to the scientific papers into the discussion.
All the data indicate that there was a decline in the rate of temperature increase in 2007-2008, with a very deep solar cycle and a la-nina coinciding. This does not look to be a continuing condition in 2009. GISS, Hadcrut and NOAA all indicate a strong rebound of temperatures and the el-nino is returning as well.
If the forcing of CO2 were not in play, it would have been even colder… but CO2 doesn’t overwhelm the short term changes, it simply lifts the mean around which they oscillate. In the long term, it is larger. Not on short time scales.
I didn’t mean for this to be so long. I rather wished to leave it but well reasoned questions are always compelling.
I can be wrong (though I don’t think I am) and you can be correct. The weight of evidence seems (IMHO) to favor AGW, but there is still plenty to be learned, particularly about the sort of internal decadal variation that Swanson et.al. was discussing.
We disagree and I think we leave it at that. I don’t think that the deceased equine will respond to additional physical abuse.
respectfully
Vote:BJ