Fun with CO2. Enter your best guesses and the MAGICC climate model simulator developed by the EPA funded National Center for Atmospheric Research and find out the effect of CO2 cuts by the US and/or the rest of the industrialized countries of the world (OECD90) have on the global average temperature in both 2050 and 2100. For example (using the IPCC estimate of climate sensivity of 3) if the US cut CO2 emissions by 40% by 2050 the effect on the global average temperature would be minus 0.044 deg C in 2100. If the industrialized countries followed the US lead the effect on the global average temperature would be minus 0.149 deg C in 2100. http://www.cato.org/blog/current-wi...ndy-carbon-tax-temperature-savings-calculator
No, that's not what I'm saying. Plug in the numbers - climate sensitivity of 4.5 (Hansen's very high value) and all OECD90 countries completely converted from fossil fuels by 2050 (no way is that possible). That results in a minus 0.352 C global average temperature reduction. The IPCC projected temperature rise is 2.619 deg C between 2010 and 2100 using a sensitivity of 3.0. However real world data indicates that the sensitivity is really ~ 1.5. There for the projection would be ~ 2 deg C. This will not destroy the earth. The best policy would be to maximize economic global growth, monitor temperature, and adapt continuously. The economic growth will provide the wealth accumulation to do so. Taxing fossil fuels will reduce the wealth creation rate and the ability to adapt while doing effectively nothing to limit temperature increase.
If only every science agency on the planet agreed with you then you might have something. But I guess I should ignore all them and believe you.....right?
Don't believe me - what is wrong with the MAGICC analysis. What do you believe is the magnitude of the rapid incline in global temperatures ?? What do you believe will be the effect of the Paris agreements on reduction of the global average temperature ?? Who is funding those agencies ??
Why do you believe that YOU figured out something that the best scientists all over the world can't figure out? Massive worldwide conspiracy? It is laughable.
Consider his source. The Cato Institute is an American libertarian think tank headquartered in Washington, D.C. It was founded as the Charles Koch Foundation in 1974 by Ed Crane, Murray Rothbard, and Charles Koch, chairman of the board and chief executive officer of the conglomerate Koch Industries PolitiFact.com and Scientific American have criticized Cato's work on global warming. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cato_Institute#On_environmental_policy
My source is the MAGICC climate model simulator developed by the EPA funded National Center for Atmospheric Research. What specifically has PolitiFact and Scientific American criticized Cato for ?? Who wrote the Wiki article ?? Why does the Obama administration not publish the temperature reduction to be realized from their new Paris COP21 agreement ??
The calculations were performed using the MAGICC climate model simulator developed by the EPA funded National Center for Atmospheric Research. I didn't figure out anything.
That is right. You didn't figure anything out. Has every major science agency declared this simulator valid?
What is a major science agency ?? I haven't found any sources critical of the MAGICC climate model simulator developed by the EPA funded National Center for Atmospheric Research, have you ?? Here is the US commitment from the Paris COP21 below. Why is there not a specification of the global temperature reduction which will accrue if this goal is met ?? Do you know what the reduction is ?? Does anybody know what that reduction is ?? http://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2015/12/11/what-is-the-u-s-commitment-in-paris/
What is a major science agency??? NASA, NOAA, IPCC or how about the national science academies of every major country on the planet
So the EPA funded National Center for Atmospheric Research would be a major science agency then. But again, why no temperature specification in the US Paris COP21 commitments ??
Why are we committing to a policy to reduce CO2 emissions without a temperature specification ?? National Science Foundation: https://ncar.ucar.edu/
To avoid situations like this: The cost of meeting the Paris COP21 commitments have been calculated to be $1.5T per year by the Climate Change Business Journal,. The benefits have been calculated by Bjorn Lomborg to be optimistically 0.170 C and pessimistically 0.048 C. Does that seem worth it ?? Best case (if every country meets their commitments) is 1/6 of a deg C for a cost to the world economy of (ignoring inflation) $126 Trillion Dollars. So "nothing" gained for the $126T spent. http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/11/30/twelve-reasons-paris-climate-talks-total-waste/ http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1758-5899.12295/full
I have an issue with ANYTHING that comes from the CATO institute - founded and supported by Koch brothers - rapists of the environment
:Bjorn Lomberg??? Really???? Really really? First it was Cato http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Cato_Institute And now it is Lomberg http://www.desmogblog.com/bjorn-lomborg Now - how about quoting someone who actually knows something about climate science instead of quoting political hacks who have a vested interest in denying it
Ahem America was not the only signatory of the Paris agreement Neither is America the only country with scientists who are working in climate science and who are concerned For a conspiracy to defraud to occur it has to be supported by every science foundation and academy throughout the world That is tens of thousands of people
I think you are misrepresenting the results of this calculator. It does not say that by cutting CO2, global temperature in 2100 will be less than it is today. It is saying that global temperature in 2100 will be that much less than the 2-4 °C increase we'll see if we do nothing to cut CO2. What this calculator does show us is that we need to work with other industrialized countries if we are going to have a significant effect.
Please read the article and post #3. What the calculator shows is that even with the worst assumptions of CO2 sensitivity and best assumptions of international cooperation the maximum temp reduction is 0.352 Deg C at a cost greater than $1.5T per year globally. - - - Updated - - - Genetic fallacy.
Lomborg is an economist who actually favors a small carbon tax to fund research on alternative energy sources and techniques to mitigate and adapt to climate change. He has also contributed and edited the book "Smart Solutions to Climate Change." What do your sources say about the effects and costs of implementing the Paris COP21 commitments ??
Climate change is big business. The US spends ~ $22B annually on global warming and ~ $1B annually on research.
You could not buy every reputable science agency on the planet even with trillions. Your conspiracy fails on the face of it.
