“he isn’t opposed to a different energy policy, just not one whose primary justification is reducing climate impacts on human”

So what if we come to the same conclusions for different reasons? Politics is all about building coalitions of people who think differently but choose to act alike. It is not about getting everyone to think the exact same.

Thanks for highlighting my 2002 Congressional testimony. Your readers might also be interested in my views offered in testimony in 2006 as well:

http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/ admin/ publication_files/ resource-2466-2006.09.pdf

Yes I think my views are defensible, and yes I appreciate that other people think differently about these issues. And I think that is OK.

I can’t see why one would go to the trouble of stabilizing at 450 ppm if not to avoid catastrophic climate impacts. I wouldn’t cut U.S. emissions 80% in four decades for any other reason. I can’t imagine most people or policymakers would otherwise.

But I’m glad we’ve clarified our differences.

Until they can counter serious work like Sterns (who upped the ante on the cost of a changing climate last week) with something more than mere assertions, they should not be taken seriously. Until they address how we can get to 450ppm and what we can do while we’re waiting for their miracle technologies, they should not be taken seriously. Until they peddle something other than the siren song of “learn to love it,” or cross your fingers and spend, they should not be taken seriously.

BI, Pielke and Lomborg seem to have tapped into a lucrative field — climate iconoclasts who have a knack for appearing to be rational. The press positively craves such folk. So do many politicians and ordinary citizens. No one wants to believe that they can’t simply go on as they have. People who play to this tendency are dangerous in the extreme, even if they are sincere in their beliefs.

” So Joe, you admit that our policy preferences are similar, but that our reasons for them are different:

“he isn’t opposed to a different energy policy, just not one whose primary justification is reducing climate impacts on human”

So what if we come to the same conclusions for different reasons? Politics is all about building coalitions of people who think differently but choose to act alike. It is not about getting everyone to think the exact same.”

then the main difference is that anyone who 1. claims to care only about “impacts on human” society, and 2. doesn’t want ANY change in energy policy, can legitimately cite Roger in defense of such do-nothingism.
That’s certainly a big difference.

Oh my… Already in the “people dangerous in extreme” phase. I wonder how much we will wait to see the “shall be punished” phase. Oh wait… I think some people in the USA already suggested something similar against denialists, punishing those who downplay the IPCC reports. This is becoming so similar to a religious fundamentalism. Spread fear. Don’t let the others talk. Blame the infidels for any catastrophe. Punish the infidels.

And all of this comes BEFORE any of the actually predicted terrible consecuences show even a little bit. The sea level rise, which exists, is really far from causing even the smallest of the problems, and even if it started to speed up, it would be nothing that can’t be dealt with, given the very long time scale of the process. Same goes with temperatures or the melting of ice. Yes, it is happening (10 years lapse), and no, it is not a problem, so far, and also there is no definitive proof that all of it is because of us. But fundamentalists want us to change all of our lifestyle, or else. And there is no glimpse of the else.

You alarmists are not the owners of the destiny of mankind nor are your views any more valid than anyone else’s. It is one of the basic principles of democracy. You cannot stop someone for saying anything just because you think he is wrong, and no matter how sure you think you are that he is wrong. You can only try to convince more people of your views. If your point is strong enough, it will prevail. If it is not, and if you do worse than your opponent and people sides with him, then say hardluck, and find a good place for yourselves to face what, in your opinion, is to come.

If something I am sure about is that, may the global warming be as terrible as predicted here, none of you would be among the most damnified, much in the same way that I am sure that I will survive any energy policies that could be implemented in the future because of AGW alarmism. At this level, and as far as we are concerned, we are only discussing what will be less unconfortable in the short-middle-long term. Your catastrophic views of the future mostly affects the third world. Considering that you think that one of our biggest problems is that the world is largely overpopulated, that should be more of a concern for us denialists than for you alarmists.

CO2 emission rates will go down, willy nilly, due to Peak Oil and Peak Coal.

To mitigate GHGs in a serious manner will require paying more money upfront either in investments, rates, energy prices and/or through tax revenues. This will require some sacrifice, though it is definitely affordable for people in the developed world and will eventually pay off in more and better jobs, investments, a cleaner environment. Efficiency investments already pay for themselves within a short time in many cases but still require getting up off the couch and working out the details.

Daily routines may change which for some is a challenge and for others an opportunity.

In any case, there is a big qualitative difference between Joe’s call to action (and my own position that we should pay more through targeted electric rates to scale up renewable generators in addition to a carbon price) and that of the people that he most often criticizes who are telling people that they justifiably should sit back and let the scientists do the work.

Yes, mitigating GHGs will require paying more money upfront either in investments, rates, energy prices and/or through tax revenues.

1. because arguing with Breakthrough reminds me of arguing with my conservative father - always redefining and shifting directions in mid-argument, an intellectual game and a supremely illogical one at that….a devilish carrousel. Ultimately not very productive.

2. Put out your solution Joe! Let’s see the wedges - they have no wedges, no plan.

3. I’d suggest in the spirit of equanimity to just put in the $30 billion for R&D or whatever the amount is that Breakthrough wants - into your solution. It is a trivial amount in the scheme of things and it isn’t “the answer” one way or the other.

4. Let’s argue about the ground game. Breakthrough can yell about how a Hail Mary is the only way to win the game now - but it’s just the two minute warning right now. If I’m betting on the way to win I don’t just start throwing for the end zone. I want to see a strong ground game.

Amelioration infers that an effort is being made to correct or at least make more acceptable conditions that are difficult to endure.

The word “amelioration” is compounded from the Latin “ad”,-”, to or toward + “”melior”, better = toward better = improvement.

Using amelioration accepts that there will be major damage.

Second, Pielke refuses to accept that there are huge procrastination penalties to be paid if his advice is followed. He and the “I want a pony for Christmas” BI are the current leading advocates of the lay back and enjoy it school of climate policy.

The difference between Joe’s attitude and Pielke/BI’s attitude is like night and day…not an inane discussion. Joe sometimes picks on small details of their differences which I think distracts from his overall message.

Go over to the Breakthrough Institute website and click around a bit….you get the distinct impression from these folks that there is not such a great deal of urgency and if there is any urgency at all, it is in the matter of how much money goes into scientific research. Ted Nordhaus, when he posts comments here starts to seem a little more…worried…but that is as far as it goes. It’s basically scientists and inventors that are going to do the heavy lifting, not policy makers or people in their daily lives making changes. Yes, they have an association with the Apollo Alliance which has some good ideas but BI seems to be focused on small subset of what the Apollo Alliance proposes.

Joe on the other hand gives readers here a distinct sense of the urgent need for action on many levels, not just in the area of research. I don’t agree with every prescription he makes in terms of policy but he is basically right on most issues, in my book.

The reason why this difference in tone and prescriptions for action makes such a difference is that given the choice, most people who don’t spend much time and effort in this area are going to go with inertia. If supposedly climate-savvy experts are telling them “wait for the good, cheap future technologies” most people will take that option.

Many believe that all the observed climate impacts are primarily driven by man-made greenhouse gas emissions. I believe that there are real observed global warming impacts but I do not ascribe to the “primarily driven by man-made greenhouse gas emissions” reason. GHG concentrations are part of the problem but I suspect that climatic cycles could be part of the reason. However, I am convinced that man-made land use changes are at least as important as GHG concentrations as the driver of global warming impact observations.

Because I don’t believe that GHG concentrations are the cause of all the global warming observations I cannot expect that energy policy is going to eliminate those impacts. Even if I do believe it then the cold facts of energy use indicate that trying to reduce specific impacts by the draconian measures needed to turn around global energy use fairly (e.g. US has to reduce much more than other countries) then the costs are so high that adaptation and mitigation solutions to specific impacts are more cost effective.

Nonetheless people like me can believe that a long-term energy policy that reduces fossil-energy use, promotes energy conservation and energy efficiency and specifically encourages renewable energy sources is a good thing.

The first calculation of warming from CO2 in the atmosphere was done in 1896 by Svante Arrhenius. Obviously this is long before computers, so while the calculations may have been tedious, they were based upon basic physics. There were unresolved issues with Arrhenius’ calculations (e.g. whether the absorption bands of CO2 and H2O overlapped, the fact that he ignored changes in cloud cover from increasing temperature, and how quickly the oceans would absorb CO2), but those issues were later resolved (the absorption bands have distinct components and the oceans take a long time to absorb CO2). In 1952 Kaplan did computer calculations that showed that in the upper atmosphere, adding more CO2 must change the balance of radiation significantly. In 1956 Plass extended the Kaplan’s result to the lower atmosphere. In 1955 Suess used carbon isotope data to indicate that fossil carbon is not immediately taken up by the ocean, and later with Revelle, Bolin, and Eriksson the ocean rates were clarified. At this point Keeling started his measurements of CO2, and we could begin to see exactly how quickly CO2 was increasing. Radiation balance suggests immediately that temperature should increase. In the 1960s then climate science started to have everything it needed to more accurately make calculations, and there was a flurry of activity and reports by the National Academy of Sciences and such groups. In the 1970s came still more accurate computer models. In the 1980s came the ice core data, showing the clear relationship of CO2 and temperature oscillating at approximately a 100,000 rate (CO2 went from about 180 ppm to 280 ppm), related to tiny variations in the Earth’s orbit called Milankovitch cycles. (With current CO2 levels at 383 ppm due to fossil combustion, and rising at 2 ppm per year, we’re far outside of the 1,000,000 year pattern.) Because the Milankovitch cycles are so small, there had to be an amplifying effect. This was later found to be CO2temperature feedback. Small changes in temperature increase CO2, which increases temperature, which increases CO2, and so on around the loop until the feedback dies out (which it does if the feedback coefficient is

The disconnect is between predictions and observations of particular weather events and the greenhouse effect. My experience with atmospheric models (by the way I am a meteorologist with over 30 years of experience) is that the fact that we have more variables than equations means that someone has to parameterize a whole lot of relationships that can affect the results. I am uncomfortable with the GCM results because they cannot resolve the factors that affect weather particularly well. For example could global warming cause more La Nina events than “normal” and what would that mean to climatic averages.

Now consider a particular weather event such as the latest high temperature record at your local airport. Let’s say the new record high is 90 and the old record was 85. How much of the increase was caused by global warming? No question that it is in there but how much is due to normal observational statistics (the longer the observation period the higher the expected value at some statistical level), and how much is due land use changes (e.g., urban growth around your local airport).

Nonetheless, I believe that that a long-term energy policy that reduces fossil-energy use, promotes energy conservation and energy efficiency and specifically encourages renewable energy sources is a good thing for many reasons and one (but not the primary reason to do it) is because it will reduce any negative impacts of GHG emissions and the greenhouse effect.

On land use changes, you might check out
http://www.skepticalscience.com/urban-heat-island-effect.htm
and the references it cites. However, I think that was a side point you were making, and not the main thrust.

I would like to return to my original point, which I may have put too flippantly. The global average temperature should not be much affected by weather, as it is primarily a radiation balance issue. An analogy might be a sealed container. The average pressure is determined by the equation PV = nRT. One can change the average pressure by changing an external parameter: temperature. Now if the container is large enough, nothing says it cannot have local variation in pressure (analogous to weather). These variations could be very chaotic, but they would not affect the average pressure.

My analogy is oversimplified, as weather can in fact affect radiation balance in the short term (e.g. a hurricane can change the albedo of a region). However, I hope I’ve given some basis to consider that a global average temperature might be more predictable than you might have thought.