Do the math

[Vergent]

[PhillipS]

Thank you for sharing that video. It's a powerful and sobering piece but I wonder whether it will have much impact. Those who have studied the science already understand how serious the problems we face are.

And those who deny science and reality will simply declare it to be alarmist propaganda. If they even bother to watch it.

[skierinvermont]

Awful and misleading video. Extremely manipulative of some statistics.

For the record, I do agree with the <2C target utilized in the video, but outside of that the video is manipulative.

1) They make it sound like the increase in U.S. natural disasters from 50 to 200 is entirely attributable to climate change when the vast majority is due to population increase, moving into disaster prone areas, land value increase etc. Any increase due to climate change is very very slight, (maybe 10%??) and mostly in the category of increased drought and heatwave. I haven't seen definitive proof of an increase in U.S. flooding, although as climate change progresses this will probably become evident.

2) It claims 400,000 deaths/year directly due to climate change. However, it neglects the very large uncertainty associated with this estimate. For example, it attributes 20,000 malaria deaths to CC despite the fact that malaria mortality and the endemic range of malaria is at the lowest levels ever and other studies dispute such estimates.

3) It makes it sound like Sandy is directly attributable to climate change, while in reality any link is weak and speculative.

4) It adds up the cost of oil exploration and compares this cost to the cost of achieving the 2C target (1% of GDP annually) and concludes that it is less expensive to achieve the 1% target than it is to stay on fossil fuels. This is a false comparison. The 1% of GDP cost of mitigation estimate already includes cost savings from reduced oil exploration and development. It assumes that these resources are instead directed towards wind, solar, efficiency etc. Even after saving all this money on fossil fuel exploration and development, the cost is still 1% of GDP. This is a reflection of the fact that carbon neutral energy is more expensive than fossil fuels. They are essentially counting the fossil fuel savings twice. Secondly you only get to save ALL that money on oil exploration and development if you stop ALL oil exploration TODAY, which would be too rapid of a transition. In short, it is a false comparison that counts the fossil fuel savings twice.

5) It is true that the world has large fossil fuel subsidies, but most of these actually come from the developing world where governments try to make fossil fuels affordable to their citizens. Nevertheless, such subsidies are wasteful economically and bad for climate change. Iran recently undertook major reductions in subsidies. In the developed world, the U.S. is a leader in subsidies due to its shear size. However, these "subsidies" for fossil fuels, are really just tax breaks that any major corporation can take and are not specific to the fossil fuel industry. GE gets these same "subsidies" as Exxon-Mobil.

[aslkahuna]

Skier, valid points. Unfortunately they are not likely to impress those who believe that the video is gospel.

[Vergent]

Skier, valid points. Unfortunately they are not likely to impress those who believe that the video is gospel.

Validity requires both truth and soundness. Skier had neither, rather he pulled from where the sun never shines. The gospel in question is "to do or not to do?" Skier is a " not to do" and will make things up to support his position. I think he is well paid, but not well paid enough to support his rants with footnotes.

[skierinvermont]

Validity requires both truth and soundness. Skier had neither, rather he pulled from where the sun never shines. The gospel in question is "to do or not to do?" Skier is a " not to do" and will make things up to support his position. I think he is well paid, but not well paid enough to support his rants with footnotes.

Actually, as I've said hundreds of times on this forum I am for aggressive action to curb emissions and keep AGW below 2C.

Who's pulling **** from their ass now?

I'm just for not manipulating facts in an attempt to scare the public into action. It's not right, and it won't work. The sources for almost everything I said are either in the video itself, or have already been well discussed on this forum. Besides, what do you care about sources? You're perfectly happy disregarding all of the peer-reviewed literature and expert opinion saying arctic sea ice will melt around 2030-2050.. not 2015.

[Vergent]

Actually, as I've said hundreds of times on this forum I am for aggressive action to curb emissions and keep AGW below 2C.

Who's pulling **** from their ass now?

I'm just for not manipulating facts in an attempt to scare the public into action. It's not right, and it won't work. The sources for almost everything I said are either in the video itself, or have already been well discussed on this forum. Besides, what do you care about sources? You're perfectly happy disregarding all of the peer-reviewed literature and expert opinion saying arctic sea ice will melt around 2030-2050.. not 2015.

"There's a sucker born every minute"

P. T. Barnum

[SVT450R]

Actually, as I've said hundreds of times on this forum I am for aggressive action to curb emissions and keep AGW below 2C.

Who's pulling **** from their ass now?

I'm just for not manipulating facts in an attempt to scare the public into action. It's not right, and it won't work. The sources for almost everything I said are either in the video itself, or have already been well discussed on this forum. Besides, what do you care about sources? You're perfectly happy disregarding all of the peer-reviewed literature and expert opinion saying arctic sea ice will melt around 2030-2050.. not 2013.

Fixed

[csnavywx]

While it's pretty clear to this forecaster that the 2050 sea ice-free target will bust hard (and probably the 2030 target as well), I agree that the video does not reflect reality pretty much from the "1 percent" point onwards. Glossing over and outright fudging the costs of renewable energy will not help solve the problem.

Though inherently unsustainable as prices continue their long term rise, fossil fuel subsidies by countries shield the cost of high price oil from their respective citizens. Without these, we would see a rather severe contraction in those economies virtually overnight. Even relatively modest cuts have caused unrest recently (Nigeria as an example).

Furthermore, as conventional crude+condensate production heads into terminal decline in a few years (its been on an undulating plateau since 2005), we risk falling into a sort of "energy trap". More information/discussion on that here.

More realistic discussion about renewables on the same site. (A real "Do The Math" site.)

[TerryM]

It may help to remember that if we have 3 more years identical to the last 3 years - we're out of ice

Peer reviewed literature written prior to last August didn't have all the facts & is now hopelessly dated.

Quick confession - I haven't watched the video.

Terry

[csnavywx]

It may help to remember that if we have 3 more years identical to the last 3 years - we're out of ice

Peer reviewed literature written prior to last August didn't have all the facts & is now hopelessly dated.

Quick confession - I haven't watched the video.

Terry

Maslowski's approach of regional modeling (NAME) seems to do a better job. I may be a little biased due to being a former Navy man, though.

[skierinvermont]

While it's pretty clear to this forecaster that the 2050 sea ice-free target will bust hard (and probably the 2030 target as well), I agree that the video does not reflect reality pretty much from the "1 percent" point onwards. Glossing over and outright fudging the costs of renewable energy will not help solve the problem.

Though inherently unsustainable as prices continue their long term rise, fossil fuel subsidies by countries shield the cost of high price oil from their respective citizens. Without these, we would see a rather severe contraction in those economies virtually overnight. Even relatively modest cuts have caused unrest recently (Nigeria as an example).

Furthermore, as conventional crude+condensate production heads into terminal decline in a few years (its been on an undulating plateau since 2005), we risk falling into a sort of "energy trap". More information/discussion on that here.

More realistic discussion about renewables on the same site. (A real "Do The Math" site.)

That's probably the worst lie in the video - making it sound like you actually would save money by switching from fossil fuels to renewables.

I do agree that oil subsidies in developing countries should be phased out but you can't just eliminate them as the video implies. In the long-run it's not good for their economies to reduce or eliminate them. Oil subsidies in the United States are not actually specific to the oil industry and are just general corporate subsidies. We could do away with most corporate subsidies altogether, or just exclude the fossil fuel industry from such subsidies.

Also making it sound like the increase in disasters from 50 to 200 is due to CC is a pretty black and white lie. If you read the Munich Re report it says population growth is also a factor. And to anybody that knows the slightest thing about weather history it doesn't even pass the smell test.