Another Climate Change Perspective

[ken]

In the climate change debate, believers and skeptics alike have vastly different opinions based on widely divergent facts.

That was illustrated by Wednesday's release of "Climate Change Reconsidered II," a study by the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change, which draws its conclusions from thousands of peer-reviewed papers, and which finds global warming to be an entirely manageable, if not beneficial, change in the climate.

The report stands in stark contrast to the U.N.'s latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report of March 31, which predicts "severe impacts" from climate change, but which was toned down from earlier IPCC reports that predicted an array of global catastrophes resulting from the proliferation of greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere.

The IPCC reports have, through the years, stood as the unassailable foundation for the Obama administration regulatory policy on global warming. "The debate is settled. Climate change is a fact," Obama said in his 2014 State of the Union Address.

"The dirty little secret is , we are now at 17 years and 8 months of no global warming," says Roger Pilon, Vice President for Legal Affairs at the Cato Institute. "Their models have failed year in and year out, " he says of the scientists who comprise the 97 percent consensus the administration frequently cites.

The NIPCC report finds:

-- That warming from greenhouse gases will be so small as to be indiscernible from natural variability.

-- The impact of modestly rising CO2 levels on plants, animals and humans has been mostly positive.

-- The costs of trying to limit emissions vastly exceed the benefits.

The NIPCC report was immediately assailed by administration supporters. The website Media Matters reported that the NIPCC study was published by the conservative Heartland Institute, which previously denied the science demonstrating the dangers of tobacco and secondhand smoke. (In fact, Heartland's denial of the dangers of second hand smoke was re-affirmed by a large scale 2013 study in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute which found "no statistically significant relationship between lung cancer and exposure to passive smoke.")

Yet, the administration and its supporters seem unbowed by any contrary findings of the dangers of global warming. Just this week, in testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Secretary of State John Kerry said of global warming, "All of the predictions of the scientists are not just being met, they're being exceeded."

Speaking in Portland, Oregon Tuesday night, former secretary of state and potential Democratic presidential candidate,Hillary Clinton said to vigorous applause, "Climate change is a national security problem, not just an environmental problem."

Skeptics believe those statements are demonstrably false. They point to observable data, not computer modeling, to prove their point. "Carbon dioxide does not cause weather to become more extreme, is not causing polar ice and sea ice to melt, is not causing sea level rises to accelerate," Joseph Bast of the Heartland Institute said at a Washington event in which the NIPCC report was released.

All of this is leading Congressional doubters to further question an array of EPA regulations the president has unleashed to maneuver around Congressional resistance to cap and trade and other carbon-mitigating legislation.

In a Senate Appropriations Committee hearing Wednesday, Senator Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, told EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy, "The sheer number of proposed rule makings, coupled with cost of compliance with the vast array of regulations already on the books...is very, very frustrating."

Longtime climate change skeptic Sen. Jim Inhofe, R-Okla., introduced legislation last week that would tackle the administration's regulatory end-run around Congress. It would prevent the EPA from issuing any final rule until it conducts an economic analysis as required under the Clean Air Act.

www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/04/09/climate-change-fiercely-debated-with-widely-divergent-facts/?intcmp=latestnews

[stevec]

Yup, it sure is another perspective. Problem is my flood insurance provider in RI isn't listening to them. Flood insurance, separate from homeowner's, was $5000. In the previous 20 years to 2010 water levels came dangerously high 0 times. In the last 3 years - 2 times.

Here's the rub, I believe most of our greenhouse emissions are originating from 3rd World Countries, Eastern Europe, Russia, and China. I'm going try to confirm that info, but for now that's just speculation.

[Flitzerbiest]

Apr 10, 2014 6:13:18 GMT -6 ken said:

In the climate change debate, believers and skeptics alike have vastly different opinions based on widely divergent facts.

That was illustrated by Wednesday's release of "Climate Change Reconsidered II," a study by the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change, which draws its conclusions from thousands of peer-reviewed papers, and which finds global warming to be an entirely manageable, if not beneficial, change in the climate.

The report stands in stark contrast to the U.N.'s latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report of March 31, which predicts "severe impacts" from climate change, but which was toned down from earlier IPCC reports that predicted an array of global catastrophes resulting from the proliferation of greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere.

The IPCC reports have, through the years, stood as the unassailable foundation for the Obama administration regulatory policy on global warming. "The debate is settled. Climate change is a fact," Obama said in his 2014 State of the Union Address.

"The dirty little secret is , we are now at 17 years and 8 months of no global warming," says Roger Pilon, Vice President for Legal Affairs at the Cato Institute. "Their models have failed year in and year out, " he says of the scientists who comprise the 97 percent consensus the administration frequently cites.

The NIPCC report finds:

-- That warming from greenhouse gases will be so small as to be indiscernible from natural variability.

-- The impact of modestly rising CO2 levels on plants, animals and humans has been mostly positive.

-- The costs of trying to limit emissions vastly exceed the benefits.

The NIPCC report was immediately assailed by administration supporters. The website Media Matters reported that the NIPCC study was published by the conservative Heartland Institute, which previously denied the science demonstrating the dangers of tobacco and secondhand smoke. (In fact, Heartland's denial of the dangers of second hand smoke was re-affirmed by a large scale 2013 study in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute which found "no statistically significant relationship between lung cancer and exposure to passive smoke.")

Yet, the administration and its supporters seem unbowed by any contrary findings of the dangers of global warming. Just this week, in testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Secretary of State John Kerry said of global warming, "All of the predictions of the scientists are not just being met, they're being exceeded."

Speaking in Portland, Oregon Tuesday night, former secretary of state and potential Democratic presidential candidate,Hillary Clinton said to vigorous applause, "Climate change is a national security problem, not just an environmental problem."

Skeptics believe those statements are demonstrably false. They point to observable data, not computer modeling, to prove their point. "Carbon dioxide does not cause weather to become more extreme, is not causing polar ice and sea ice to melt, is not causing sea level rises to accelerate," Joseph Bast of the Heartland Institute said at a Washington event in which the NIPCC report was released.

All of this is leading Congressional doubters to further question an array of EPA regulations the president has unleashed to maneuver around Congressional resistance to cap and trade and other carbon-mitigating legislation.

In a Senate Appropriations Committee hearing Wednesday, Senator Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, told EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy, "The sheer number of proposed rule makings, coupled with cost of compliance with the vast array of regulations already on the books...is very, very frustrating."

Longtime climate change skeptic Sen. Jim Inhofe, R-Okla., introduced legislation last week that would tackle the administration's regulatory end-run around Congress. It would prevent the EPA from issuing any final rule until it conducts an economic analysis as required under the Clean Air Act.

www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/04/09/climate-change-fiercely-debated-with-widely-divergent-facts/?intcmp=latestnews

So, just to be clear, you're going with the guys who think that second hand smoke is not carcinogenic and against an exceptional strong (97%) consensus of scientists regarding climate?

Other than your preferred news outlet, why?

[ken]

Apr 10, 2014 13:00:21 GMT -6 Flitzerbiest said:

Apr 10, 2014 6:13:18 GMT -6 ken said:

In the climate change debate, believers and skeptics alike have vastly different opinions based on widely divergent facts.

That was illustrated by Wednesday's release of "Climate Change Reconsidered II," a study by the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change, which draws its conclusions from thousands of peer-reviewed papers, and which finds global warming to be an entirely manageable, if not beneficial, change in the climate.

The report stands in stark contrast to the U.N.'s latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report of March 31, which predicts "severe impacts" from climate change, but which was toned down from earlier IPCC reports that predicted an array of global catastrophes resulting from the proliferation of greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere.

The IPCC reports have, through the years, stood as the unassailable foundation for the Obama administration regulatory policy on global warming. "The debate is settled. Climate change is a fact," Obama said in his 2014 State of the Union Address.

"The dirty little secret is , we are now at 17 years and 8 months of no global warming," says Roger Pilon, Vice President for Legal Affairs at the Cato Institute. "Their models have failed year in and year out, " he says of the scientists who comprise the 97 percent consensus the administration frequently cites.

The NIPCC report finds:

-- That warming from greenhouse gases will be so small as to be indiscernible from natural variability.

-- The impact of modestly rising CO2 levels on plants, animals and humans has been mostly positive.

-- The costs of trying to limit emissions vastly exceed the benefits.

The NIPCC report was immediately assailed by administration supporters. The website Media Matters reported that the NIPCC study was published by the conservative Heartland Institute, which previously denied the science demonstrating the dangers of tobacco and secondhand smoke. (In fact, Heartland's denial of the dangers of second hand smoke was re-affirmed by a large scale 2013 study in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute which found "no statistically significant relationship between lung cancer and exposure to passive smoke.")

Yet, the administration and its supporters seem unbowed by any contrary findings of the dangers of global warming. Just this week, in testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Secretary of State John Kerry said of global warming, "All of the predictions of the scientists are not just being met, they're being exceeded."

Speaking in Portland, Oregon Tuesday night, former secretary of state and potential Democratic presidential candidate,Hillary Clinton said to vigorous applause, "Climate change is a national security problem, not just an environmental problem."

Skeptics believe those statements are demonstrably false. They point to observable data, not computer modeling, to prove their point. "Carbon dioxide does not cause weather to become more extreme, is not causing polar ice and sea ice to melt, is not causing sea level rises to accelerate," Joseph Bast of the Heartland Institute said at a Washington event in which the NIPCC report was released.

All of this is leading Congressional doubters to further question an array of EPA regulations the president has unleashed to maneuver around Congressional resistance to cap and trade and other carbon-mitigating legislation.

In a Senate Appropriations Committee hearing Wednesday, Senator Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, told EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy, "The sheer number of proposed rule makings, coupled with cost of compliance with the vast array of regulations already on the books...is very, very frustrating."

Longtime climate change skeptic Sen. Jim Inhofe, R-Okla., introduced legislation last week that would tackle the administration's regulatory end-run around Congress. It would prevent the EPA from issuing any final rule until it conducts an economic analysis as required under the Clean Air Act.

www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/04/09/climate-change-fiercely-debated-with-widely-divergent-facts/?intcmp=latestnews

So, just to be clear, you're going with the guys who think that second hand smoke is not carcinogenic and against an exceptional strong (97%) consensus of scientists regarding climate?

Other than your preferred news outlet, why?

Flitz, you are the expert in the field:

Heartland's denial of the dangers of second hand smoke was re-affirmed by a large scale 2013 study in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute which found "no statistically significant relationship between lung cancer and exposure to passive smoke."

Aa the expert here, are you telling me that the Journal of the National Cancer Institute and their large scale study is not to be trusted?

[Flitzerbiest]

Touche Ken. No, what I am saying in my typical, abbreviating style is that the lack of statistical connection between SHS and cancer is being used by industry-funded activists to deny that SHS is a harmful indoor pollutant, and one whose regulation is necessary on a number of fronts independent of whether or not it is positively linked to lung cancer.

BTW, the process is the same on anthropogenic climate change. There is, as even the article states, broad scientific consensus that it is real. Some want to construe areas of relatively minor uncertainty to throw out the whole concept. And these same people tend to be already predisposed against business regulation. Want a debate on the extent to which business should be subject to regulation? Fine, but why does this mean one has to first assert that the moon is made of cheese?

[ken]

Apr 10, 2014 14:45:47 GMT -6 Flitzerbiest said:

Touche Ken.

I'm batting 1 out of 100

No, what I am saying in my typical, abbreviating style is that the lack of statistical connection between SHS and cancer is being used by industry-funded activists to deny that SHS is a harmful indoor pollutant, and one whose regulation is necessary on a number of fronts independent of whether or not it is positively linked to lung cancer.

BTW, the process is the same on anthropogenic climate change. There is, as even the article states, broad scientific consensus that it is real. Some want to construe areas of relatively minor uncertainty to throw out the whole concept. And these same people tend to be already predisposed against business regulation. Want a debate on the extent to which business should be subject to regulation? Fine, but why does this mean one has to first assert that the moon is made of cheese?

I understand your position.  One that is fair.


I believe it is equally true on the other end... a power and control grab.  Probably the truth is somewhere in the middle of the two extremes. (personal viewpoint)

[Flitzerbiest]

That's just the thing, Ken. If you paint both sides as extremes, you can adopt some sort of climate agnosticism and feel reasonable about it. I'm not saying this is wrong, but don't you think the scientific consensus arises from something other than groupthink?

[showmedot]

I have mild asthma easily managed by avoiding triggers, tonacco smoke of any sort being one. It is therefore an ongoing joy to be able to eat in a restaurant or fly without starting to wheeze due to bits of smoke wafting from the smoking section. There's one reason why smoking bans are bliss.

People intent upon giving themselves various cancers linked to smoking can go find some secluded area in which to kill themselves slowly. Preferably without any drift in my direction or anyone else's who has similar respiratory problems.

I have NO sympathy for smokers who whine because it's more difficult to find somewhere to light up and pollute my air. That it is is society's gentle hint to QUIT.

[ken]

Apr 10, 2014 22:46:10 GMT -6 Flitzerbiest said:

That's just the thing, Ken. If you paint both sides as extremes, you can adopt some sort of climate agnosticism and feel reasonable about it. I'm not saying this is wrong, but don't you think the scientific consensus arises from something other than groupthink?

With the obvious manipulation of data that we have read about, there is reason for the lack of consensus.  If it were so obvious right, I don't think there would be such an uproar.

As we know, "Absolute power absolutely corrupts".  I'm sure it is the power that people gain and have that is the root of the one extreme.

[ken]

Apr 11, 2014 4:36:40 GMT -6 showmedot said:

I have mild asthma easily managed by avoiding triggers, tonacco smoke of any sort being one. It is therefore an ongoing joy to be able to eat in a restaurant or fly without starting to wheeze due to bits of smoke wafting from the smoking section. There's one reason why smoking bans are bliss.

People intent upon giving themselves various cancers linked to smoking can go find some secluded area in which to kill themselves slowly. Preferably without any drift in my direction or anyone else's who has similar respiratory problems.

I have NO sympathy for smokers who whine because it's more difficult to find somewhere to light up and pollute my air. That it is is society's gentle hint to QUIT.

I agree that it is irritating.  Since my dad, sister and brother currently smoke, I've learned to just live with it.  They are conscientious enough to not smoke in my house or try not to let others be "down wind".

[Jim]

Apr 10, 2014 22:46:10 GMT -6 Flitzerbiest said:

That's just the thing, Ken. If you paint both sides as extremes, you can adopt some sort of climate agnosticism and feel reasonable about it. I'm not saying this is wrong, but don't you think the scientific consensus arises from something other than groupthink?

My perspective is slightly different.  I am convinced, based upon enough reading, that AGW is both real and detrimental.  I'm not sure about the more "doomsday" type predictions that are repeated in the popular press, because I am also convinced that this issue has also been exploited politically and in certain quarters exploited financially. That's too bad because political co-opting of a science/engineering issue and the resulting polarization decreases the chance for any serious change.

Ultimately though, I am highly skeptical that the US has the will to do anything locally, plus as Steve suggested, the largest CO₂ generator currently is China, and they aren't likely to do anything about the problem.  link Our reliance upon carbon based fuel is profound and possibly unshakable.  So, to a large extent I am a fatalist on this issue.  If the more dire predictions prove to be true, we are screwed and there is not much we will do to stop it.

Ironically, I blame the democrats and environmentalists for this no-can-do state of affairs as much as I blame the republicans and coal companies.  Prius ownership is only helpful if the electricity used to charge the car is generated without CO₂ emissions.  I work extensively in solar and wind technologies. Although I love solar and wind energy production, these sources can not easily be scaled to replace coal and gas in most parts of the world.  To effectively replace fossil fuel, nuclear must be a large part of the answer in my opinion, in summary, we could follow France's lead. link 

Most unfortunately, Nuclear is dead on arrival in the states.  At least for the time being.

Jim

[Flitzerbiest]

Apr 11, 2014 9:30:11 GMT -6 Jim said:

Prius ownership is only helpful if the electricity used to charge the car is generated without CO₂ emissions.

I'm finding it hard to figure out what you are saying here. The electricity to charge a hybrid is generated from the momentum of the vehicle, which is otherwise wasted. This does, in fact, lower the carbon footprint of the vehicle. What I think you must be referring to is one of two things. The first is that the carbon footprint of plug-ins (hybrid and pure electric) which do depend on the energy source to which they are connected. Someone driving an electric car in an area dependent on coal-fired plants has a much higher footprint than someone driving the same car in an area generating from nuclear or alternative sources. The second is the energy cost of production for the various types of cars, which again, depends largely on the grid from which they pull.

 I work extensively in solar and wind technologies. Although I love solar and wind energy production, these sources can not easily be scaled to replace coal and gas in most parts of the world.  To effectively replace fossil fuel, nuclear must be a large part of the answer in my opinion, in summary, we could follow France's lead. link 

Apr 11, 2014 9:30:11 GMT -6 Jim said:

Most unfortunately, Nuclear is dead on arrival in the states.  At least for the time being.

Agreed. Sane energy policy depends on a number of things, but heavily on how you power your country more so than how you power your car.

carbon footprint by energy type

Liberals are culpable on nuclear energy. Conservatives are culpable on urban planning, public transportation, and to some extent, alternative fuels. There is plenty of blame to go around. Unfortunately the cost of fatalism might be very, very high in the long term. I wouldn't be so negative on China, by the way. They are experiencing significant public health costs from pollution, and they are in the early stages of getting religion on green energy. If nothing else, consider what they plowed into the Three Gorges Dam.

[Jim]

Apr 11, 2014 13:28:16 GMT -6 Flitzerbiest said:

Apr 11, 2014 9:30:11 GMT -6 Jim said:

Prius ownership is only helpful if the electricity used to charge the car is generated without CO₂ emissions.

I'm finding it hard to figure out what you are saying here. The electricity to charge a hybrid is generated from the momentum of the vehicle, which is otherwise wasted. This does, in fact, lower the carbon footprint of the vehicle. What I think you must be referring to is one of two things. The first is that the carbon footprint of plug-ins (hybrid and pure electric) which do depend on the energy source to which they are connected. Someone driving an electric car in an area dependent on coal-fired plants has a much higher footprint than someone driving the same car in an area generating from nuclear or alternative sources. The second is the energy cost of production for the various types of cars, which again, depends largely on the grid from which they pull.

 I work extensively in solar and wind technologies. Although I love solar and wind energy production, these sources can not easily be scaled to replace coal and gas in most parts of the world.  To effectively replace fossil fuel, nuclear must be a large part of the answer in my opinion, in summary, we could follow France's lead. link 

I can see why that would be confusing.  I was thinking of the "plug in" aspect, so I should have cited a non-hybrid plugged into a dirty grid.  Not all of the momentum of a car is wasted too.  Momentum in a gas engine car can either be dissipated as heat by the brakes, be lost to friction or tend to keep the car in motion, reducing the load on the engine while maintaining speed.  Clearly, the momentum lost in the brakes is recaptured to some extent by a hybrid.   But the friction losses would be the same for similarly sized cars.  I don't know enough about hybrid control systems to know if the generator charging the batteries causes the engine to work incrementally harder when maintaining cruising speeds.  I'm sure that the reduction in carbon footprint is well quantified for Priuses (Prii?) though, and I am not denying that they are nice efficient cars.

J

[Flitzerbiest]

There is one other potential advantage to electrics: energy choice. We sit on huge reserves of natural gas, which (sometimes: see "fracking") carries a smaller footprint than other petroleum sources. We don't need to import it from the Middle East and we can process it exclusively within our boundaries. And, IMO, NG is our second to worse local option. Nuclear, solar and wind (in that order) offer genuine alternatives with upside potential. These resources must be developed. We won't stop going to war over energy until there is an excess of it, and petroleum does not offer that prospect.

[Flitzerbiest]

I don't think I'd want fracking on a high-tension fault-line like the San Andreas, but I refuse to get too worked up about this one:

hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_GAS_DRILLING_EARTHQUAKES?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

Right now, my calculus is that even though domestic NG is not easy to reach, the downside is lower than transglobal imports and heavy economic entanglements with unstable states. Ultimately, we can not power the globe by burning it, but it will take some time to convert to fully renewable sources. Incidentally, my favorite is tidal turbines. Very predictable, and increasingly feasible.