The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

http://www.yaleclimatemediaforum.org/2013/09/examining-the-recent-slow-down-in-global-warming/

Haha

Alexander says:   
September 10, 2013 at 9:50 am   

I would like to point out that some of the factors indicated in this article as causes of the warming slowdown–solar activity, decadal cycles, volcanic eruptions, water vapor, etc.– are all potential contributing factors that were completely dismissed, with a sense of derision and mockery, by the “AGW alarmist” community when they were raised by critics of the AGW hypothesis to question the more catastrophic climate change predictions and the idea that all of the climate change was the fault of humans only.

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

http://www.yaleclimatemediaforum.org/2013/09/examining-the-recent-slow-down-in-global-warming/

Straight to the bottom:

There have been a number of new papers that use recent atmospheric, ocean, and surface temperature observations to argue that climate sensitivity may be lower than previously estimated (e.g. closer to 2 C than 4 C). These studies tend to be rather sensitive to the time period chosen, and a future warm decade could considerably change the picture. As with many things in science, there is still significant uncertainty surrounding climate sensitivity, and different approaches can obtain fairly different results. However, the longer the current slow-down continues, the more questions will arise about whether GCMs are getting either multi-decadal variability or climate sensitivity wrong.

What is clear is that there is still much we don’t understand about the many different factors impacting Earth’s climate system, especially over periods as short as a decade.

Al Gore: The Science is Settled. Now shut the eff up, raise your taxes, and invest in my green energy companies.

[Emo EMAW]

Let's just assume for a second that industrialized man is causing (or at least contributing in a significant manor) global climate change.  What do we do about it?  What must be done to have a large enough affect to a) stop the trend of change, and b) reverse it to pre-industrialization times?  Will a world effort be required, or is the US/Canada and western Europe enough?  Will products/services from non-conforming countries be charged a steep tariff or embargoed all together? 

[sys]

i posted a proposed solution a while back in the thread.  basically some smart economist types modeled that a worldwide carbon tax would solve the problem at little to no cost.

tax neutral, so you cut other taxes by the same amount as you institute the carbon tax.  credits to poor, so not regressive.  not really that difficult of a problem, other than (still!) not having a world govt.

[OregonSmock]

sys is correct.  A global carbon tax would be the best solution, but it would be incredibly hard to enforce. 

Another viable solution I've recently read about is the "stratoshield."  It's a geo-engineering concept that basically lowers the Earth's surface temperature by emitting sulfur dioxide into the stratosphere, essentially mimicking the function of a super volcano.  It would be relatively cheap to install two of these at each pole (probably a few billion dollars or so).  This idea played out naturally in 1991 with eruption of Mount Pinatubo, which sent sulfur dioxide pouring into the stratosphere, and measurably cooled the Earth for around two years (by about 0.5 degrees F).

[sonofdaxjones]

sys is correct.  A global carbon tax would be the best solution, but it would be incredibly hard to enforce. 

Another viable solution I've recently read about is the "stratoshield."  It's a geo-engineering concept that basically lowers the Earth's surface temperature by emitting sulfur dioxide into the stratosphere, essentially mimicking the function of a super volcano.  It would be relatively cheap to install two of these at each pole (probably a few billion dollars or so).  This idea played out naturally in 1991 with eruption of Mount Pinatubo, which sent sulfur dioxide pouring into the stratosphere, and measurably cooled the Earth for around two years (by about 0.5 degrees F).

Shorten growing seasons, that'll be a huge help.

[OregonSmock]

sys is correct.  A global carbon tax would be the best solution, but it would be incredibly hard to enforce. 

Another viable solution I've recently read about is the "stratoshield."  It's a geo-engineering concept that basically lowers the Earth's surface temperature by emitting sulfur dioxide into the stratosphere, essentially mimicking the function of a super volcano.  It would be relatively cheap to install two of these at each pole (probably a few billion dollars or so).  This idea played out naturally in 1991 with eruption of Mount Pinatubo, which sent sulfur dioxide pouring into the stratosphere, and measurably cooled the Earth for around two years (by about 0.5 degrees F).

Shorten growing seasons, that'll be a huge help.

The "stratoshield" concept is obviously only necessary in the case that the Earth's surface temperature continues to increase to unsustainable levels.  Under that scenario, shortened growing seasons will be the least of our concerns.

[Emo EMAW]

i posted a proposed solution a while back in the thread.  basically some smart economist types modeled that a worldwide carbon tax would solve the problem at little to no cost.

tax neutral, so you cut other taxes by the same amount as you institute the carbon tax.  credits to poor, so not regressive.  not really that difficult of a problem, other than (still!) not having a world govt.

Which page?  I'd like to read it.

[sonofdaxjones]

sys is correct.  A global carbon tax would be the best solution, but it would be incredibly hard to enforce. 

Another viable solution I've recently read about is the "stratoshield."  It's a geo-engineering concept that basically lowers the Earth's surface temperature by emitting sulfur dioxide into the stratosphere, essentially mimicking the function of a super volcano.  It would be relatively cheap to install two of these at each pole (probably a few billion dollars or so).  This idea played out naturally in 1991 with eruption of Mount Pinatubo, which sent sulfur dioxide pouring into the stratosphere, and measurably cooled the Earth for around two years (by about 0.5 degrees F).

Shorten growing seasons, that'll be a huge help.

The "stratoshield" concept is obviously only necessary in the case that the Earth's surface temperature continues to increase to unsustainable levels.  Under that scenario, shortened growing seasons will be the least of our concerns.

But too much cooling will trump too much warming nearly every time.  Cool/Cold is almost certain death.   

[OregonSmock]

sys is correct.  A global carbon tax would be the best solution, but it would be incredibly hard to enforce. 

Another viable solution I've recently read about is the "stratoshield."  It's a geo-engineering concept that basically lowers the Earth's surface temperature by emitting sulfur dioxide into the stratosphere, essentially mimicking the function of a super volcano.  It would be relatively cheap to install two of these at each pole (probably a few billion dollars or so).  This idea played out naturally in 1991 with eruption of Mount Pinatubo, which sent sulfur dioxide pouring into the stratosphere, and measurably cooled the Earth for around two years (by about 0.5 degrees F).

Shorten growing seasons, that'll be a huge help.

The "stratoshield" concept is obviously only necessary in the case that the Earth's surface temperature continues to increase to unsustainable levels.  Under that scenario, shortened growing seasons will be the least of our concerns.

But too much cooling will trump too much warming nearly every time.  Cool/Cold is almost certain death.

No crap, Sherlock.  That's why this "stratoshield" device is essentially a long, thin pipe that stretches up to the stratosphere and can be turned on/off. 

[sonofdaxjones]

sys is correct.  A global carbon tax would be the best solution, but it would be incredibly hard to enforce. 

Another viable solution I've recently read about is the "stratoshield."  It's a geo-engineering concept that basically lowers the Earth's surface temperature by emitting sulfur dioxide into the stratosphere, essentially mimicking the function of a super volcano.  It would be relatively cheap to install two of these at each pole (probably a few billion dollars or so).  This idea played out naturally in 1991 with eruption of Mount Pinatubo, which sent sulfur dioxide pouring into the stratosphere, and measurably cooled the Earth for around two years (by about 0.5 degrees F).

Shorten growing seasons, that'll be a huge help.

The "stratoshield" concept is obviously only necessary in the case that the Earth's surface temperature continues to increase to unsustainable levels.  Under that scenario, shortened growing seasons will be the least of our concerns.

But too much cooling will trump too much warming nearly every time.  Cool/Cold is almost certain death.

No crap, Sherlock.  That's why this "stratoshield" device is essentially a long, thin pipe that stretches up to the stratosphere and can be turned on/off.

Don't cancel your subscription to Popular Science

[sys]

Which page?  I'd like to read it.

it was a planet money podcast.  easier to link it again than find my post.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2013/07/12/201502003/episode-472-the-one-page-plan-to-fix-global-warming

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

sys is correct.  A global carbon tax would be the best solution, but it would be incredibly hard to enforce. 

Another viable solution I've recently read about is the "stratoshield."  It's a geo-engineering concept that basically lowers the Earth's surface temperature by emitting sulfur dioxide into the stratosphere, essentially mimicking the function of a super volcano.  It would be relatively cheap to install two of these at each pole (probably a few billion dollars or so).  This idea played out naturally in 1991 with eruption of Mount Pinatubo, which sent sulfur dioxide pouring into the stratosphere, and measurably cooled the Earth for around two years (by about 0.5 degrees F).

  I think plan B is earth shaped ray bans

So stupid

[Stupid Fitz]

sys is correct.  A global carbon tax would be the best solution, but it would be incredibly hard to enforce. 

Another viable solution I've recently read about is the "stratoshield."  It's a geo-engineering concept that basically lowers the Earth's surface temperature by emitting sulfur dioxide into the stratosphere, essentially mimicking the function of a super volcano.  It would be relatively cheap to install two of these at each pole (probably a few billion dollars or so).  This idea played out naturally in 1991 with eruption of Mount Pinatubo, which sent sulfur dioxide pouring into the stratosphere, and measurably cooled the Earth for around two years (by about 0.5 degrees F).

Yes this seems perfect.  A bunch of dudes building a tube that will put sulfur dioxide in the air at each pole.  What could possibly go wrong with this.  I really don't want to live forever (maybe I do , but I would love to be able to look back from the future and see what a bunch of dumbasses we all were.

Pretty chilly today for this time of year btw. 

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

I would love to be able to look back from the future and see what a bunch of dumbasses we all all were.

Please don't lump me or other conservatives in with the klimate krazies. Anyway, you don't have to wait for the future. You can laugh at them right now.

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

sys is correct.  A global carbon tax would be the best solution, but it would be incredibly hard to enforce. 

Another viable solution I've recently read about is the "stratoshield."  It's a geo-engineering concept that basically lowers the Earth's surface temperature by emitting sulfur dioxide into the stratosphere, essentially mimicking the function of a super volcano.  It would be relatively cheap to install two of these at each pole (probably a few billion dollars or so).  This idea played out naturally in 1991 with eruption of Mount Pinatubo, which sent sulfur dioxide pouring into the stratosphere, and measurably cooled the Earth for around two years (by about 0.5 degrees F).

Yes this seems perfect.  A bunch of dudes building a tube that will put sulfur dioxide in the air at each pole.  What could possibly go wrong with this.  I really don't want to live forever (maybe I do , but I would love to be able to look back from the future and see what a bunch of dumbasses we all were.

Pretty chilly today for this time of year btw.

All you need to do is go back to the 70's and the coolers fear mongering. They were planning on covering the polar ice caps with coal dust to heat things up. The same morons are still at work.

[sys]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323665504579032934293143524.html?mod=WSJ__MIDDLENexttoWhatsNewsForth

[OregonSmock]

I love how I get attacked by the crazy nut jobs for simply mentioning an alternative solution to climate change.  These morons are completely averse to anything that comes from outside of their little right wing bubble.  So sad.

[OregonSmock]

sys is correct.  A global carbon tax would be the best solution, but it would be incredibly hard to enforce. 

Another viable solution I've recently read about is the "stratoshield."  It's a geo-engineering concept that basically lowers the Earth's surface temperature by emitting sulfur dioxide into the stratosphere, essentially mimicking the function of a super volcano.  It would be relatively cheap to install two of these at each pole (probably a few billion dollars or so).  This idea played out naturally in 1991 with eruption of Mount Pinatubo, which sent sulfur dioxide pouring into the stratosphere, and measurably cooled the Earth for around two years (by about 0.5 degrees F).

Yes this seems perfect.  A bunch of dudes building a tube that will put sulfur dioxide in the air at each pole.  What could possibly go wrong with this.  I really don't want to live forever (maybe I do , but I would love to be able to look back from the future and see what a bunch of dumbasses we all were.

Pretty chilly today for this time of year btw.

All you need to do is go back to the 70's and the coolers fear mongering. They were planning on covering the polar ice caps with coal dust to heat things up. The same morons are still at work.

There are extremists on both sides of the debate.  The Earth was cooling back in the 70's and a lot of it had to do with CFCs and aerosols that were polluting the atmosphere.  The Montreal Protocol eliminated the use of CFCs for the most part and here we are today with a warmer climate. 

The extremists on the denial side of the debate don't believe that humans have any sort of affect on our environment, and a significant portion of those people believe that the Earth is only 6000 years old.  That's why this debate is going nowhere and the special interest groups on the denier side have so much more leverage than they really should.

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

sys is correct.  A global carbon tax would be the best solution, but it would be incredibly hard to enforce. 

Another viable solution I've recently read about is the "stratoshield."  It's a geo-engineering concept that basically lowers the Earth's surface temperature by emitting sulfur dioxide into the stratosphere, essentially mimicking the function of a super volcano.  It would be relatively cheap to install two of these at each pole (probably a few billion dollars or so).  This idea played out naturally in 1991 with eruption of Mount Pinatubo, which sent sulfur dioxide pouring into the stratosphere, and measurably cooled the Earth for around two years (by about 0.5 degrees F).

Yes this seems perfect.  A bunch of dudes building a tube that will put sulfur dioxide in the air at each pole.  What could possibly go wrong with this.  I really don't want to live forever (maybe I do , but I would love to be able to look back from the future and see what a bunch of dumbasses we all were.

Pretty chilly today for this time of year btw.

All you need to do is go back to the 70's and the coolers fear mongering. They were planning on covering the polar ice caps with coal dust to heat things up. The same morons are still at work.

There are extremists on both sides of the debate.  The Earth was cooling back in the 70's and a lot of it had to do with CFCs and aerosols that were polluting the atmosphere.  The Montreal Protocol eliminated the use of CFCs for the most part and here we are today with a warmer climate. 

The extremists on the denial side of the debate don't believe that humans have any sort of affect on our environment, and a significant portion of those people believe that the Earth is only 6000 years old.  That's why this debate is going nowhere and the special interest groups on the denier side have so much more leverage than they really should.

sounds like we need to put CFCs back in aerosols.

[Rage Against the McKee]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323665504579032934293143524.html?mod=WSJ__MIDDLENexttoWhatsNewsForth

This was a really good article, sys.

[OregonSmock]

sys is correct.  A global carbon tax would be the best solution, but it would be incredibly hard to enforce. 

Another viable solution I've recently read about is the "stratoshield."  It's a geo-engineering concept that basically lowers the Earth's surface temperature by emitting sulfur dioxide into the stratosphere, essentially mimicking the function of a super volcano.  It would be relatively cheap to install two of these at each pole (probably a few billion dollars or so).  This idea played out naturally in 1991 with eruption of Mount Pinatubo, which sent sulfur dioxide pouring into the stratosphere, and measurably cooled the Earth for around two years (by about 0.5 degrees F).

Yes this seems perfect.  A bunch of dudes building a tube that will put sulfur dioxide in the air at each pole.  What could possibly go wrong with this.  I really don't want to live forever (maybe I do , but I would love to be able to look back from the future and see what a bunch of dumbasses we all were.

Pretty chilly today for this time of year btw.

All you need to do is go back to the 70's and the coolers fear mongering. They were planning on covering the polar ice caps with coal dust to heat things up. The same morons are still at work.

There are extremists on both sides of the debate.  The Earth was cooling back in the 70's and a lot of it had to do with CFCs and aerosols that were polluting the atmosphere.  The Montreal Protocol eliminated the use of CFCs for the most part and here we are today with a warmer climate. 

The extremists on the denial side of the debate don't believe that humans have any sort of affect on our environment, and a significant portion of those people believe that the Earth is only 6000 years old.  That's why this debate is going nowhere and the special interest groups on the denier side have so much more leverage than they really should.

sounds like we need to put CFCs back in aerosols.

They are mainly HCFCs now, and they're found mostly in refrigerants.  The biggest problem is that they do a ton of damage to the ozone layer, not that they cool the Earth necessarily.

[sys]

This was a really good article, sys.

grantham is a really smart man.

[sonofdaxjones]

Golly, which elite goEMAW poster has been talking about the control of the resource rich Central Asian (and it's periphery which would include North Africa) region of the world, and trying to explain to you folks that the U.S.'s 'rent-a-mob' aka Al Quada is really just excuse for the United States to exert hegemony, topple regimes, destabilize regions, (which when needed lessons state control over natural resources) and bolster other regimes (despite their horrible human rights track records).   

While Morocco has been off my personal radar, it's time to start doing some research to find out if the Constitutional Monoarchy of Morocco will stand the test of time in the, dare I say, new world order.   Or will they get Libya'd, Syria'd, Balkanized or Iraq'd??

[OregonSmock]

This was a really good article, sys.

grantham is a really smart man.

Yes he is.  Thanks for sharing.  This part pretty much echoes what I've been saying on this board for years now:

 

Q: Why is this problem so hard for us to deal with? You've railed against short-termism.

A: A career politician has a very short horizon. They're not really interested in problems that go out five or 10 years. Secondly, you have what they call the discount-rate effect, which is a dollar in 10 years has a much lower value to a corporation than a dollar today. So they're only interested, at the corporate level, in the short term. And politicians, in the very short term. And you have a vested-interest effect. In other words, it's very hard to get change when the people who are benefitting very nicely, thank you, from the current situation don't want it. If the oil industry is making a bundle, which they are, they don't want to change to a system that recognizes climate change and the need to have a tax on carbon. And they can fund right-wing think tanks, and they do.

So you have vested interests fighting like mad to keep the situation the way it is. And that's always the case. So change is difficult, and with our politicians with the short-term election problems, it's nearly impossible. And when they depend so much on campaign contributions, and they find the campaign contributions come so much from the vested interests, the financial world, but more particularly the energy world, it's a bloody miracle anything gets done.