Climate Policy

[Jester]

How well does the seemingly linear temperature rise match the long wave solar minimums and maximums? Granted, there are scientists who have presented that the Sun has no effect on warming, and those that believe it does. I happen to side with the ones who believe the sun does in fact warm the Earth, and variations of solar activity have demonstrated a measurable impact on weather, and climate.

Can you name me a single climate scientist whose position is that solar variation has zero effect on climate? I think you're arguing with a strawman here. The question is "what's driving current warming", and if your answer is "predominantly, solar variation", then you're facing a rather long and uphill battle against current opinion, including ones you just linked to:

The role of the sun in the Earth’s climatic variations “is not inconsiderable,” but Vázquez pointed out that over the last 40 years solar activity has not increased, and has in fact remained constant or even diminished, which is why it is difficult to attribute a significant global warming effect to it, “the cause of which needs to be looked for in human activities.”

Sounds like sense to me, and it fits the data.

A question to ask yourself. Where does the heat come from if not from the sun? Might it be possible that solar maximums also have an impact on cloud formation? If so, could that play a role in contributing to raising temperature via greenhouse effect? I think it might.

So do climate scientists. But they haven't found evidence that it has anywhere near the effect of CO2 as a forcing, as opposed to a feedback. Using the sun to explain it fails in the same way as your article pointed out earlier: why is the earth warming dramatically in the last 30 years, when solar activity has been decreasing? Why would cloud cover increase dramatically under those circumstances, especially if water vapor content is determined largely by temperature?

I'm not used to science being described as "iron clad".

Really? In most fields, the core concepts are so well-established that it goes without saying that they are presumed correct. A theory which overturned our basic ideas about some fundamental piece of settled science, like general relativity, would be revolutionary. "Iron clad" does not mean utterly impervious in all senses, but it certainly does mean it's very, very secure.

Back in the day, scientists thought Newton had pretty much figured out that gravity thing

They were correct. Newton's basic approximations of gravity are more or less perfect for any terrestrial application, and pretty darn good even for most astronomical observations. When the theory was replaced, it wasn't because someone got uncomfortable with Newtonian politics. It was replaced because Einstein's theories explained the data better. Where's the equivalent theory that's supposed to overturn existing climate science? AFAIK, there isn't one.

What government should do is figure out how to serve the people, rather than endorsing scientific viewpoints. So, what does that mean? I think it means we hedge our bets. We acknowledge that there is a strong possibility that human activity may irreparably damage the climate (and in fact it might be too late). We should therefore devise a direct action plan to convert our fossil fuel burning mechanisms toward renewable sources as quickly as is economically feasible. I think the government should start with the largest or oldest generating plants first, and work with their owners to fully rebuild them as renewable generation with the first conversions occurring in five years and the rest as quickly as is economically feasible after that.

Hey, that sounds great. I'm in.

Carbon credits is not a direct action plan, and will only result in carbon offset fraud. Meaning, people will pay more for energy because huge producers will need to buy credits, and due to the dearth of green projects, billions will be spent on projects that fail to sequester the carbon they claim. So, let's just do it the direct route, and skip the trading of fictitious nonsense.

It isn't fictitious nonsense. It may be difficult to verify the precise savings of CO2 emissions from carbon offset projects, but it's not like the entire scheme does nothing. Regulation can help monitor the effectiveness of various projects. I would agree with the need to move towards a better system of carbon monitoring, but I think offsets are going to be a helpful part of any plan going forward. Just because the system is second-best, doesn't mean it isn't useful.

I believe some people are jumping to conclusions about things that are difficult to model, and even more difficult to prove. I am an advocate for moving away from fossil fuels, but just not an advocate for running around all crazy because there is 100ppm more CO2 in the air over the past few hundred years. So, I say, "Let's get together and form a win-win plan for everyone."

TANSTAAFL. If you want to seriously alter behaviour, you have to pay for it. There isn't a painless route to mitigating climate change. Obviously, we should pick the less painful methods, but this isn't going to happen easily.

-Jester