http://judithcurry.com/2013/10/10/the-stadium-wave/

latest 'peer reviewed' article about 'the pause'.

To me this is not an endorsement for AGW, rather a glaring fact that these 'models' are still missing quite a bit of the whole picture.

Yes I didn't say it would be easy.

But that's beside the point. It's possible and it's realizable.

It doesn't have to happen instantly. There can be a timetable, for example one of 50 years where changes are made gradually.

It won't even have to cost too much if it's done in a coordinated manner.

The only thing in the way here, is national pride and politicians... oh and the voters who're told not to worry about anything by the same politicians they voted for. But hey that's just politicians, they're paid to make you feel comfortable and not to worry about anything, as long as you'll vote for them again. You're not going to vote for some politician that says: hey, those scientists may be on to something, maybe the world really is coming down, maybe we should do something about it!

That's wishful thinking.

Technology also evolves, making carbon-resources easier to reach and exploit.

For the forseeable, carbon will be the easiest, low-tech solution, easiest to access and maintain, for the forseeable future and for the development of countries.

You can't really expect a developing nation to start building nuclear fusion plants right... they don't exist yet and even if they are proven to work in 50 years from now, the technology will be daunting and no developing nation will be able to build it or afford it. They'll rather build their own coal plants, that's a lot cheaper and easier.

The world is already poor and destroying itself on so many levels - emptying the oceans, polluting the environment, a population growth that is completely out of control. We can handle one more problem, since unlike the other things, it will help solve other problems. Extensive use of solar panels might reduce unemployment for example.

Really... it's national pride that protects local industries, local laws and implementations.

In order to make an alternative like solar panels affordable, we've to get rid of all those exceptions and come up with "one product to fit all".

Otherwise yes... then it will truly be unaffordable.

So what do we need:

- no protection of copyrights. The tech is free for everyone.

- mining of resources for panels should be open for everyone, no exceptions and no special deals.

- software for communication between electricity grids should be standardized

- hardware for panels should be standardized to allow for optimal competition. No exceptions!

True. But we can show the way and we can convince them that it's affordable if they really want to.

We can do the investments and work out all the bugs in the system. Then it'll be easier for them.

They certainly don't want to start first.

And as a side-note, I've taken another look at some of the paleo-data (which people can download and inspect) and there's a lot of conflict between the numbers. Some give low levels of CO2, others give high levels of CO2.

So while the paleo-data give a fairly clear idea about how CO2 build-up is associated with extinction events, it's not yet possible to put exact numbers on them. Is a rise to an 600 ppm level already enough to cause minor extinctions or is a rise to 1,000 ppm needed for that? Is a rise to 2,000 ppm CO2 needed to cause major extinctions, or is it a rise to 4,000 ppm or even higher?

However, considering the rate of increase in CO2 emissions it will only take us a century to reach a worst-level case for minor extinctions. And it will only take us another 2 centuries of continued misbehaviour to reach a worst-case scenario for the major extinctions.

And is a rise to 400 ppm enough to reduce the ice sheets of Antarctica to nothing, or do we need a rise to 600 ppm?

Whatever the case, we're producing so much CO2 that we've to find a solution on a historically short timeframe.

Do we want to prevent major oceanic rise? Then we've to start now.

Do we want to prevent a minor extinction event? Then we've to start within 50 years, with another 50 years of major economic changes.

Do we find a sea level rise and a minor extinction event acceptable? Then we can wait for a few centuries and enjoy the hot weather.

Think about it and good day.

Glad to hear

I will use a nice metaphore, or something here (I am not that good in literature and it's words).

Think of mankind as a train carrying passengers and some goods. This train is going faster and faster. The machinist cannot see what is ahead of the train because of fog. Many passengers say a strong curve is coming and we will derail if we don't slow down. Some say we are not sure, and slowing down would only cause loss of money for everyone for an uncertain thing that is not even sure to exist, as time is money, and they will get less salary if they are late. The machinist currently votes for going fast, but has some doubts about it.

Would you risk derailing the train causing several deaths and huge loss of money? Wouldn't it be safer to slow down to a level that is sustainable?

Though this derailing would destroy the rails as well, I guess we will destroy the planet's surface in the process.. Many countries still have nuclear weapons and if they run out of clear water they will not be afraid to use them..

Maybe not the best metaphore but I think you may understand what I want to say.

But it will only reveal itself in the future, and if we really can do something to save the future, why not then?

SERIOUSLY. Who the f*ck cares about how global economy will react to these changes towards a liveable future. Another reason for me to hate current form of capitalism. Any cost will be better than completely ruining the planet.. Prevention is always better than handling the caused problems (1. we keep the planet in a liveable state 2. we don't give a damn about anything and later we will terraform it back..). We are living in a world that is not acceptable. We are using more Earths than we currently have.. And we are going to end up like the grasshoppers near desert regions. Live up everything and disappear in no time. Tell me honestly, wouldn't it be better to ensure this planet will be a home for our children, grandchildren, and their descendants too? Do we really want to risk ruining the planet even if we could live sustainably?

OK I know having a cellphone, computer, car, house, television, more food than you need and etc is not easily given up. But we must think about what happens this way to the ones living 50 years later. I am 22 years old, and I don't want climate wars to happen in my life.. But as I see it will happen..

I believe in 1 and 2 of your possibilities. We could solve every problem in the world if all of us suddenly realised how stupid we are, and everyone needs to forget money. Money is not a god, and you cannot eat it or hug it. You cannot buy anything that really matters in life (love, friends, health etc). But capitalism is one though idiot and does not realise that all it does today, constantly destroys profit in the future.

I too believe in the evolution of technology, though I hope it won't be too late when we research the techs needed to solve problems.

I think fusion power is the future, we are not far from making the breakthrough and actually summon more energy than it is currently needed to maintain the process.

Ha ha, that's funny. You still don't understand that the way we live today, is not sustainable. We cannot destroy rainforests, poison air and water and soil, destroy thousands of species without severe consequencies. We are producing so much unnatural substances we are soon going to drown in it.

Things MUST BE CHANGED. And the more we wait, changes need to be more drastical.

BTW I hope no alien race will find us soon, if they do they surely won't like what they'll see.. And will not be  uhm.. friendly towards a warmongering race who destroys everything around it.

This is a good explanation of the 'rub'.  It's not 'denialism' - it's applying common sense from the other side of the argument.

They'll roam again some day.

Yes capitalism is about money.

In terms of money:

- Is moving a few hundred coastal cities inland because of sea level rise cheaper than prevention?

- Is the loss of a thousands of square km of farmland and the associated rise in food prices cheaper than prevention?

- Is the loss of thousands of species cheaper than prevention? Is this even quantifiable?

- Is the increased outbreak of diseases and the costs of their treatment and loss of labor at high latitudes cheaper than prevention?

- And in an extreme case: is an unlivable equatorial zone and fall-out from massive decays in anoxyc oceans cheaper than prevention?

And so on.

Of course there is another question: do we really have to wait until things get so bad, that we the costs are higher than the cost of prevention?

As far as I can see, we'll have to change the economy at some point anyway. Why not now, why wait and let a few generations live in relative wealth before we have to make the same measures that we would have to take now?

I suppose it's because some silly notion that perhaps magically some tech pops up which makes it cheap to change the economy.

I wonder what kind of tech... and why it would be easy and cheap.

Take a nuclear power plant: the tech has matured for 50 years or so, and it's not cheap.

A fusion power plant is an incredibly complex machine, and complex machines are NEVER cheap no matter how you put it.

Solar panels are already affordable and fairly matured, they might be cheaper when mass-produced, why wait another century or so before mass-producing them?

We'll also face more difficult resource problems by that time. More people, more demand will drive up the prices of all resources, making things like solar panels not any cheaper than they're now, probably more expensive even. And you'll need more of them, because the economy will be bigger by then, the replacement problem will just grow and grow and grow.

I'd have to start writing about them before leaving them out of it...

Please avoid trying to tell me what I do and don't understand.  It just makes you sound stupid and makes me not care about what else you have to say. 

I understand perfectly well the necessity and scarcity of resources to how we live.  I also understand that progressives and their enviro-enablers have been screaming about "peak oil" since the 1930s, that before we were all going to cook to death due to global warming we were actually all going to freeze to death from global cooling and I understand that Malthususianism is dead, entirely, because technological breakthroughs kicked its ass.  

Several things here.  

You say who cares about the global economy and then you list a bunch of comfort items as what you're willing to give up.  Without the global economy and the progress it generates you don't just lose a bunch of comfort items.  You possibly lose life altering items we already have and you certainly lose (or delay) life altering items that will show up in the near future.  You potentially stall society's efforts to cure cancer, for example.  Cancer research is funded in HUGE part due to charitable donations from the wealthy and the first world middle class.  Make the world poorer, even slightly so and people become less willing to donate thereby starving all sorts of causes (like various forms of cancer research) of their funding.  Now that's not to say you shouldn't still do it.  But don't pretend that it's an easy choice.  That reeks of "belief" and not rational thought.  I'm skeptical of AGW and it's vague, never actually defined solutions precisely BECAUSE it's a difficult choice.  I've spent years of my life in various parts of the third world and have no desire to see my home go in that direction.  Would it happen?  Probably not, but what do you think happens if the global economy stalls, we slip back into recession and this time, since we've already got the money printing flood gates wide open, we have no ability to pump our way out?  The recession becomes a depression.  Then what?  Do you know anything about the Great Depression?  If not, read up on it and then extrapolate how bad that would get in an even more interconnected and resource dependent world.  

The choices isn't "fix AGW and sunshine and roses or the planet is engulfed in flames next Tuesday".  AGW proponents need to acknowledge that and admit the gravity of what they are proposing (as vague and ill defined as it is) in order for me to even take them seriously.  Some have, even in this thread, but most have not.  They pretend like we have a world wide referendum, their vague plan passes, Santa bangs his magic fucking hammer on the ground and problem solved. 

Second thing.  You are ASSUMING that life as we know it will end.  40 years ago the "Experts" were certain global cooling was going to bring about the next ice age.  If they had taken measures to make the world warmer in response to what they believed, we'd be even more fucked now.  Well, since the science isn't settled and since even those who think it is settled can't agree on what that means or what will happen or how much time we have I'm comfortable waiting until we have more information before jumping off the god damn cliff.  

And as for:

This is just vapid nonsense that belongs on /r/politics or some thoughtless place that doesn't actually have discussion.  Money, as an instrument of capitalism and wealth transfer over time, has created every single bit of prosperity and progress we enjoy in this world.  EVERY SINGLE BIT.  There is a reason that the dark ages started ending pretty much the day after modern banking was invented.  The ability to take on larger and more demanding projects is tied directly to the fact that such projects are not worth it if you can only be paid in trade.  Without money, I'm not able to work at my job and then give my friend a loan to help start his new business, which then generates more money and jobs and repeats the process.  

There are problems with capitalism, certainly, and problems with our bastardized version of it (corporatism) but pretending that if money went away tomorrow the world would be better off is ludicrous. 

Edit:  And yet again, I see no proposed solution.  The only one I've seen here is Geoman's vague talk them into one.

Tough call when there's a 50% chance that doing nothing will actually save our asses.  We have no idea what might happen if AGW fixes were somehow implemented successfully.  "Well it could be really bad if we're wrong" is a very tenuous appeal to fear, not really a rational argument in favor of something.  My bias is to believe that we are likely to be more successful, at drastically lower societal cost, gradually adapting to actual change than pulling out all the stops, at great societal cost, in hopes of preventing potential change.  It appears I have greater confidence in our species' survival capabilities than the doomsayers do.  As various incremental technological solutions or mitigants become economically feasible in their own right, without necessitating massive wealth transfers, we not only ought to adopt them, they will be adopted.

We may need to thank our lucky stars for AGW.  You just never know.

I can't get past the image of a bloke in a Saville Row suit and a Beemer leading his flock to the promised land of light and cute furry animals....

Where did I say that money should disappear? I only said that money should not be the new god of mankind, and I have severe doubts about the rightness of capitalism and that pure capitalism will save the world.

Why? I don't think we can use fossil energy sources till the end of the universe comes.. Why sould I be stupid because of it? Do you think we can continue to live this way for additional centuries without any consequencies? Are you.. American?

Warning. Major mistake here. Liberalism and humanism DOES NOT EQUAL capitalism. Liberalism and capitalism are just only friends. Capitalism has nothing to do with the rising of the whole society.. These are contemporary processes, liberalization of the society and rising of capitalism. I doubt capitalism wanted freedom for everyone. You still can see slavery in our modern world too, and capitalism still exploits workers.

1800-1900. There was free capitalism around that era in the west. The world could see how free capitalism is working. It ended up exploiting workers, even children to work in brutal circumstances, and it wasn't capitalistic forces that changed this.. Was that era that good? If you were a worker around that era you wouldn't say this.. Oh and the massive monopolies that rise from free capitalism show that capitalism is not self controlling and cannot even solve it's own problems (states must limit monopolistic processes, but capitalism can not do it).

Sigh. Where to start. You believe money will solve everything, and money is the only thing that could solve every problem. It seems to me from your comments. But how do you explain capitalism is not saving rainforests, and capitalism is not doing anything to reduce environmental pollution? It is not the capitalist forces that want changes in this field.. Capitalism does not want to be environment friendly, states and international institutions FORCE THEM to do something about it. Where is your money now? Do you think the removal of the entire rainforest region is still tolerable for the ecosystem of the planet? Or the major pollution of oceans? Or the soil? What iss CAPITALISM doing to to meliorate the situation? Installing new oil platforms around the Arctic? Continuing the overfishing of almost every sea? Continuing to destroy rainforests without having the slightest idea about what will it do to the planet? In tens of millions of years the planet always had rainforests..

PLEASE, tell me how capitalism saves the environment, as I am really interested.

And again, please quote me where I said it will be an easy choice giving up the increase in global economy and switching to a sustainable growth model. I am learning Geography (and already finished the bachelor degree), we are thought to understand the major processes of the world, environment society and economy as well. I consider myself to be a good geographer who can see what is happening in the world, and consider my professors to be good ones.

Noone said the developed world needs to end up like the poor countries in Africa. Please quote where I said that.

What I imagine of changes to be sustainable at the individual level.

Not using plastic materials this intensively, as they are poisonous and unnatural. Seriously, using only a stronger bag for a longer time would be this difficult instead of using multiple plastic bags each day?

Buying products made in your region to avoid huge transport pollution. This way you help the small farmers around you, and local economy will get better if you avoid stupid supermarkets.

If you can afford, buy electronical devices that do not use that much electricity, this is an investment that will pay itself back in some years because of the lower energy bills. Turn off stuff you are not using currently, switch of TV if you are doing something on your computer.

If you have the money, and live in a good place for this, you may install solar panels or geothermic energy. This is a risky thing as it is very expensive today, so state help would be needed.

(I feel stupid as I forgot many of these nice English words for many things)

Use a bicycle instead of a car if you are going to meet your neighbour or someone relatively close. Or use public transport. Bicycle is better as this even makes you somewhat healthier.

Governments should invest MUCH MORE money in renewable energy sources. I play several strategy games and seeing what happens in the world seems nonsense to me. Relying on the sources of others while producing almost no energy is stupid. Every country should try to become independent, to build wind or sun power plants, or to build nuclear ones if the other two is not a good solution there. I support nuclear power plants though the radioactive waste they produce is a bit.. problematic, though much better than the smoking power plants that use coal or other fossil stuff. I admit, these are all very expensive choices, BUT, I really think they are worth it, to ensure you are independent from the major oil producers, and can provide energy for your citizens even when we really run out fossil sources. And are environmental friendly as well.

Death penalty to those who cut down a single tree around the Equator. There is no other solution. Every single company interested in cutting those trees don't give the slightest amount of fuck what teh consequencies of their work will be. The rainforests MUST BE RESTORED, even if it requires everyone to get the fuck out of the equatorial region. We are part of the planet's ecosystem, and the planet is not there to serve our greedy needs.

Stop polluting the environment, completely. It is a bit complex thing I do not really want to say more about this.

Every country should restore x% of their territory to the natural state (or near natural), as not we are the only race that inhabits this world, and we really shouldn't be this selfish to think of Earth as our place. Almost every other race was here before us.. We shouldn't destroy them just because we can.

Well, poverty is a difficult thing to manage, you can see I have no idea what to do with it.. I guess the next Nobel prize of peace will go to the person solving this problem once and for all..

I don't think these research projects will suffer that much.. These are just guess from you and me. Noone knows what would happen if we started transforming the global economy towards a sustainable one.

I think decreases and cuts are needed in the productive areas, to produce more durable stuff, not things that only last a year or two. Science and social expenses should never get decreased funding.

QFT.

And today capitalism is blocking major (scientific) breakthroughs. Making the new Apple 5S is not a breakthrough.. Not even near it.

Today companies are terrified of radically new things. Tell me 1 thing that radically changed our lives  like the invention of cars or planes or computers. Can you think of major inventions after 1990? and no, IPhones and friends are not major inventions, these are just mobiles for the rich. There is no high chance of profit in radically new things, everything is just evovólving slowly, new car, new laptop, new mobile, etc. But nothing radically new, and only the smaller companies try to make something new, large ones like to stick to existing things.

This current time is not the era of inventions..