If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(LA Times)   Global warming actually good for fighting against global warming. Suck it, manbearpig   (latimes.com) divider line 62
    More: Interesting  
•       •       •

1552 clicks; posted to Geek » on 22 Jun 2007 at 2:12 AM (7 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



62 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2007-06-21 11:08:53 PM
Regionally, sure. I'd like to see some actual modeling done before I buy that this will have a significant impact on global CO2 concentrations. If so, awesome.
 
2007-06-22 03:44:11 AM
Premise: if we spent the same amount of money and effort on carbon sequesterization as we do on reducing carbon emissions, global warming would be on its way to being solved.

Discuss.
 
2007-06-22 04:08:05 AM
If everyone just switched from 20 mpg cars to 30 mpg cars, I bet the global impact on CO2 reduction would be higher than iceberg contribution.
 
2007-06-22 04:12:02 AM
Are you serial?
 
2007-06-22 05:13:14 AM
I thought it was a pigbearman?
 
2007-06-22 06:53:34 AM
srtpointman

No, you silly goose. it's "manbearpig"!
 
2007-06-22 07:31:37 AM
img504.imageshack.us
 
2007-06-22 07:35:18 AM
Jon Snow: Modeling? Why?

Models are just that, models. The problem is that they are firstly often inadaquate as models for such a complex system. Secondly, even if the model is accurate, there is not a significant sample size for data input, so as the old saying goes, garbage in, garbage out.

The truth is that we have no conclusive data pointing either way on the climate debate. Does this mean we should waste energy *of any type*? Absolutly not, that is just inefficient. *glares at socer mom driven SUV*.

But more seriously, we only have short term fluxuation in climate over certian data points on the earth, being where we measrure temperature. We do not have accurate long term data that shows us historical short term fluxuation. All those ice cores and other historical temperature estimates people go ga-ga over are mostly accurate, but will not show any short term historical fluxuation. There could have been temperature swings just as "big" as we see now, and we wouldn't know it. In addition, we do not have the data that shows what this swing is due to, other than natural variation.

The climate is not a static thing. It will change. You'll get over it. Just don't be stupid and dump chemicals into the ground, that's just gross.

/The more you know
 
2007-06-22 07:53:15 AM
To continue in Lato's vein:

None of the current models account for the Medieval Warming Period. This was a temperature fluctuation that took place between about 1100 and 1400 AD. It resulted in farms in Greenland which are currently under glaciers. If the models can't 'predict' what has actually already happened, how can we possibly trust them to predict the future?

And, of course, how does the man-made global warming hypothesis account for rising temperatures on other planets due to increased solar output?
 
2007-06-22 08:07:07 AM
TFA is worthless. Nothing about pirates or ninja.
 
2007-06-22 08:26:44 AM
nooooooooo. homeostasis is IMPOSSIBLE! We MUST stop doing SOMETHING, or we will ALL DIE!
 
2007-06-22 08:42:58 AM
Lato and overCee, you are employing logic in your discussion of climate change.

Al Gore does not approve. His eco-warriors have been alerted and are moving to your location.
 
2007-06-22 09:12:37 AM
It's always interesting to hear thread warriors bash Al Gore for trying to improve our planet by relying on the best scientific knowledge we have.
 
2007-06-22 09:45:51 AM
blah blah, run around in circles. Same bs, different day. Here's a tip, drive less, drive more efficient cars, take public transit, telecommute, don't use wasteful packaging, etc...

Regardless of the "discovery de jour" a lot of the simple solutions remain relevant.

Tom
 
2007-06-22 09:55:59 AM
Lato: The truth is that we have no conclusive data pointing either way on the climate debate.

*Yawn* At least try a new talking point.
 
2007-06-22 09:57:04 AM
Solution to global warming:

Kill all the hippies and burn them for fuel.
 
2007-06-22 09:58:12 AM
Lato: Models are just that, models. The problem is that they are firstly often inadaquate as models for such a complex system. Secondly, even if the model is accurate, there is not a significant sample size for data input, so as the old saying goes, garbage in, garbage out.

The scope, drawbacks to, and progress made in modeling are addressed in the IPCC reports. If you have a specific criticism with any or all of the models that you've studied that you don't feel has been addressed, please share it with me. You are making a sweeping generalization and providing so evidence to support it.

What leads you to believe that it would be hard to incorporate estimates based on these findings into current and upcoming models? CO2 output by the new organisms, CO2 abosrption by same, albedo changes (if any) due to unforseen shifts in ice, etc.

overCee: None of the current models account for the Medieval Warming Period.i>

That is a flat out lie. Absolute bullshiat. The so-called Medieval Warm Period is certainly included. And for future reference, the MWP and little Ice Age were regional phenomena, not global.

And, of course, how does the man-made global warming hypothesis account for rising temperatures on other planets due to increased solar output?

This talking point has been addressed time, and time again. Do you honestly want the explanation, or are you just happy to regurgitate what someone else told you?
 
2007-06-22 10:01:17 AM
Ugh, trying again:

Lato: Models are just that, models. The problem is that they are firstly often inadaquate as models for such a complex system. Secondly, even if the model is accurate, there is not a significant sample size for data input, so as the old saying goes, garbage in, garbage out.

The scope of, drawbacks to, and progress made in modeling are addressed in the IPCC reports. If you have a specific criticism with any or all of the models that you've studied that you don't feel has been addressed, please share it with me. You are making a sweeping generalization, and providing no evidence to support it.

What leads you to believe that it would be hard to incorporate estimates based on these findings into current and upcoming models? CO2 output by the new organisms, CO2 absorbtion by same, albedo changes (if any) due to unforseen shifts in ice, etc.

overCee: None of the current models account for the Medieval Warming Period.

That is a flat out lie. Absolute bullshiat. The so-called Medieval Warm Period is certainly included. And for future reference, the MWP and little Ice Age were regional phenomena, not global.

And, of course, how does the man-made global warming hypothesis account for rising temperatures on other planets due to increased solar output?

This talking point has been addressed time, and time again. Do you honestly want the explanation, or are you just happy to regurgitate what someone else told you?
 
2007-06-22 10:02:03 AM
overCee: And, of course, how does the man-made global warming hypothesis account for rising temperatures on other planets due to increased solar output?

The climate research community has been accounting for solar forcings for a long time, and while it's something to include, it's a very small player relative to greenhouse forcings.

Here is NOAA satellite data summarizing decades of irradiance. Note that there is a small cyclic fluctuation of magnitude +/- 0.5 W/m2 out of 1370 or so. Note that in the most recent years, irradiance declines somewhat. Note that there is no significant overall trend over the last few decades.

Here is a summary of how mean global temperature has changed over the last few decades. Note a steady upward climb.

Here is what carbon dioxide measurements have looked like over the last several decades. Note a steady upward climb. Even the staunchest of climate change deniers admit that this carbon dioxide increase is anthropogenic in nature.

Given the three data sets above, how can you claim that solar activity is driving the recent temperature increase? Solar activity is steady, temperature is increasing.

Here is a semi-technical discussion of solar
forcing data relative to other forcings, with primary references
linked. Summary excerpt:

"Regardless of any discussion about solar irradiance in past centuries, the sunspot record and neutron monitor data (which can be compared with radionuclide records) show that solar activity has not increased since the 1950s and is therefore unlikely to be able to explain the recent warming."


Temperatures have been rising on some other solar system objects and falling on others. Orbital variations do that.
 
2007-06-22 10:06:20 AM
Lato: Models are just that, models.

And facts are just that, facts. But you so arrogantly avoid thinking about them, don't you? Just go ahead and live in your own void of stupidity.

Secondly, even if the model is accurate, there is not a significant sample size for data input, so as the old saying goes, garbage in, garbage out.

You understanding nothing about statistical analysis, apparently. Ever heard of sampling? This is not one study, or two, or ten, or 100. How about a thousand studies? You are also ignoring the fact that the studies use different, varying types of input, and yet they come to the same conclusion. Interesting.

The truth is that we have no conclusive data pointing either way on the climate debate.

You understand nothing about science, do you? Or you work for big oil or something. Just go sit in a corner with a dunce hat. Just because your lazy mind is 'bored' reading all of the stories about climate change doesn't mean it isn't happening. Completely ignoring what every rational person on earth is starting to come to terms with, is an entirely different story.
 
2007-06-22 10:09:17 AM
*sigh*

Nowhere in my rant did I say we should waste energy, burn fuel, or do anything stupid. Burning an excessive amount of fuel to power your SUV is often wasteful. Dumping chemicals into soil is bad.

This is not a talking point, but pollution is bad, we should not be doing certain things.

That being said, we should still be rational about what we do and do not. For instance, RoHS causes more waste than it "reduces". In my industry, we have far more waste, between early failures and manufacturing waste than we did before RoHS. Is that good? Well, it is the result of the European environmentalists.

Now to clarify, I was pointing out what overCee continued, that our models, in my opinion, are inadequate. We do not know what our environment will do next.

Now to fend off the flamewar, WE SHOULD NOT BE WASTING ENERGY, AS THERE IS NO FREE ENERGY!!! (oops, thats another battle) Solar, Wind, and other "clean" energies still require massive amounts of manufacture, which is dirty, and in the case of solar, use of some nasty chemicals to make the cells.

/Nuclear power is the only way
//Well, either that or use less energy
///We'll never use less, so nuclear
 
2007-06-22 10:13:02 AM
MmmBadEggs: Lato and overCee, you are employing logic in your discussion of climate change.

No, they're applying lies and anecdotes. Scroll up a couple posts for actual data and logical conclusions.

For example, if Lato says we have "no conclusive data pointing either way on the climate debate", and I cite a meta-analysis of the primary literature demonstrating hundreds of studies which show that climate change is real, significant, and caused by man (against none claiming the opposite)..... logic would compel you to realize that Lato is, to use the technical term "talking out his ass".
 
2007-06-22 10:16:01 AM
Wow, bdub77. Amazing how easily you miss my practical statements.

The studies are all done with the same missing data, which is actual historical temperature data.

Honestly, in my industry (not anything chemical related for the tin foil hat crowd), if I were to make claims supported similarly to these climate debates, they would be destroyed. The sample size relative to the problem at hand is inadequate to make such large assumptions.

Now, should we burn more oil? No. Drive a reasonable size car. Turn off your lights when you're not around, etc etc etc. Should we ban CFCs? um, ok, a CarbonFluroCarbon, which is heavier than air, is going to somehow magically get to the upper atmosphere and destroy the ozone....

/All I ask for is some critical thinking, is that too much
//oh wait, this is the internet, nevermind
 
2007-06-22 10:19:48 AM
chimp_ninja: Maybe I am talking out of my ass, however, just because everyone jumps off a cliff, doesn't mean you should too.

Yes, many studies come to that conclusion, that we are going to see an impending doom unless, guess what, these studies get more money. Hasn't it ever occurred to you that if these studies did not make such fantastic claims, we'd never fund them?

I have nothing against any scientist who can get money to study our environment, as we should be spending money to understand the world around us. But honestly, if you follow the money, "climate change" is just the latest buzzword that convinces people to spend money on science, as most people cannot comprehend pure research for it's own sake.

/sigh, this will probably be misinterpreted too
//why try?
 
2007-06-22 10:22:27 AM
Lato: For instance, RoHS causes more waste than it "reduces". In my industry, we have far more waste, between early failures and manufacturing waste than we did before RoHS. Is that good?

Now to clarify, I was pointing out what overCee continued, that our models, in my opinion, are inadequate. We do not know what our environment will do next.


Please support your claim that the models are inadequate.

/Nuclear power is the only way

It's not the only way. There is no silver bullet, but rather a myriad of solutions that will be adapted to specific scenarios.

And despite all of the propaganda you hear to the contrary, environmentalists (excluding the crazies, which have more in common with flat eartherers than other environmentalists) are not inherently againstnooclear power. Show me a solid nuclear design that factors in waste disposal and safety, I will be happy to consider it.

The studies are all done with the same missing data, which is actual historical temperature data.

We have historical temperature data, unless you are discounting all data produced by proxies. Are you flat out refuting the legitimacy of inferred data?
 
2007-06-22 10:23:28 AM
Lato: The studies are all done with the same missing data, which is actual historical temperature data.

It's amazing that people continue to be published in Science, Nature, and the like despite statistics that do not measure up to your personal standards. It's equally amazing that NOAA, NASA, and similar organizations lack the knowledge of the "real" temperature data. Perhaps you should pen a letter to the major scientific journals refuting the published work-- it's the easiest way to score a big-name publication.

Can you cite evidence for your claims from a reputable source?

Should we ban CFCs? um, ok, a CarbonFluroCarbon, which is heavier than air, is going to somehow magically get to the upper atmosphere and destroy the ozone....

While you're writing, you should write the Nobel Committee, and inform them that the 1995 Nobel Prize in Chemistry was mistakenly awarded to Paul Crutzen, Mario Molina, and Sherwood Rowland for their work on upper atmosphere ozone chemistry. Apparently, all the work they did on CFC chemistry was incorrect because there are no CFCs in our atmosphere, which consists of neatly density-sorted concentric shells of static gases.
 
2007-06-22 10:23:28 AM
Lato

So it's a conspiracy by scientists to drum up funding?
 
2007-06-22 10:26:30 AM
Lato: Yes, many studies come to that conclusion, that we are going to see an impending doom unless, guess what, these studies get more money. Hasn't it ever occurred to you that if these studies did not make such fantastic claims, we'd never fund them?

Ever written a grant to the NSF or similar organization? Should I point out how many ways that was the dumbest paragraph in the thread?

Psst. There's a lot more money to be made pandering to the interests of the energy industry. There's just no data to support that side.

Double psst. I can find you many papers on gravity or electricity in scientific journal that all agree with one another's conclusions too. Does that mean they're both funding conspiracies too? Same evidence, after all.
 
2007-06-22 10:31:36 AM
Jon Snow: Less conspiracy, more "they want money"

If I were in their shoes, studying climate change, with what I believe (you can see my beliefs in my posts). I WOULD SAY THE SAME THINGS!

Why? Because science needs money, and guess what, no one funds science unless you give a compelling reason to. The "end of the world if you don't change" is a very good reason to fund, isn't it?

chimp_ninja: I'm not saying they don't deserve the praise, as we should understand that CFCs do to other chemicals. I'm pointing out that while CFCs will break down Ozone, CFCs would have a very difficult time in the real world getting high enough in the atmosphere to do so.
 
2007-06-22 10:35:48 AM
I believe what Lato is saying is that science that gets in the news gets more money. Scientists need money, because they always think the research they are doing is important(otherwise, they wouldnt do it). So to get more money, some scientists make claims that are not strictly valid from the data they have. Not a conspiracy, just human nature.

I don't deny that the climate is changing or that we should change our behavior. I take issue with the shrill alarmism. If we know that other things besides ourselves are influencing the climate, maybe we should not have it drilled into our heads that "we"(while an implication of everyone, it always seems to be taken personally) are destroying nature. We can stop polluting and driving inefficient cars, but hey, it is a free country and if you don't wish to change, that is your right.
 
2007-06-22 10:36:44 AM
Lato: Less conspiracy, more "they want money"

If I were in their shoes, studying climate change, with what I believe (you can see my beliefs in my posts). I WOULD SAY THE SAME THINGS!

Why? Because science needs money, and guess what, no one funds science unless you give a compelling reason to. The "end of the world if you don't change" is a very good reason to fund, isn't it?


1. I am going to go out on a limb and say that you don't understand how research funding works.
2. Short of theoretical scenarios involving a runaway greenhouse effect, I am not aware of this "end of the world" conclusion in scientific studies that you keep mentioning. Economic consequences? Certainly. Humanitarian consequences? Certainly. "End of the world"? Not familiar with those studies. Could it be that you are confusing media hype with scientific studies?
 
2007-06-22 10:36:55 AM
Lato: I'm not saying they don't deserve the praise, as we should understand that CFCs do to other chemicals. I'm pointing out that while CFCs will break down Ozone, CFCs would have a very difficult time in the real world getting high enough in the atmosphere to do so.

Uh, they were awarded the Nobel Prize for measuring the effects of CFC chemistry in the upper atmosphere. Again, please feel free to contact the Nobel Committee and ask them to correct their egregious mistake. Tell them that the laws of diffusion have been repealed, that the atmosphere layers contain no currents, and that all gases neatly sort by density, which is why there is no nitrogen near the surface, only carbon dioxide and CFCs.
 
2007-06-22 10:37:03 AM
chimp_ninja: You're right that there is money from the energy industries, do you know where it is going? To make more money. How do they do that? By making more energy to sell, therefore making more money. How do they make more energy to sell? They find new ways to make energy.

None of the above includes mass amounts of money for climate change, believe it or not. Industry has something called shareholders to worry about, and funding a study is often not in the shareholders interest.

Another point, no one ever goes into a study without their conclusions already drawn up. To believe otherwise is very naive. Sadly, we do not live in a world of rational people, and irrational people do not want to be proven wrong, so the study will of course find them right.

I can chart climate change vs number of pirates in the world if you like. The correlation is there, and says the world needs more pirates. I believe it was Mark Twain who once said there are lies, damned lies, and statistics.

Look, believe what you want, but read everything about what you believe and understand it for yourself, you do no good by reading a conclusion and not understanding how it was drawn.
 
2007-06-22 10:40:02 AM
chimp_ninja

I'm pretty sure you could find data to support big oil. Big tobacco did it for years. It is not so much the data, but how you interpret it.
 
2007-06-22 10:40:08 AM
bglove25: We can stop polluting and driving inefficient cars, but hey, it is a free country and if you don't wish to change, that is your right.

No, it isn't. If you get caught dumping a gallon of mercury into your local river, you face legal action. You can't claim "free country" regarding actions that impact others. Right to swing your arm, ends at another man's nose, blah blah blah.

Government regulation of fuel efficiency already exists. The proposed legislation would merely involve changing the numbers a bit.
 
2007-06-22 10:40:57 AM
Lato: //why try?

This might be your best question of the day.

Lato: Why? Because science needs money, and guess what, no one funds science unless you give a compelling reason to. The "end of the world if you don't change" is a very good reason to fund, isn't it?

Ahh the paranoid conspiracy approach. What a load of BS. Who is feeding you this sh*t? Rush Limbaugh? I'm sure the entire scientific community isn't doing this for the general good, or because they enjoy the challenge. No it's because they know they'll be paid well and so they conspire this thing called 'climate change' so they can make money. Give me a break.

I'm not saying they don't deserve the praise, as we should understand that CFCs do to other chemicals. I'm pointing out that while CFCs will break down Ozone, CFCs would have a very difficult time in the real world getting high enough in the atmosphere to do so.

CFCs don't break down on their own and CFC 11 and 12 are not water soluble so water doesn't absorb them. The atmosphere mixes with 'heavier chemicals' and weather balloons have proven CFCs exist at higher altitudes sufficient enough to be sucked into the troposphere. Same reason CO2, which is much heavier than air, isn't layered evenly on the ground. This isn't fourth grade chemistry.
 
2007-06-22 10:45:03 AM
Lato: I can chart climate change vs number of pirates in the world if you like. The correlation is there, and says the world needs more pirates. I believe it was Mark Twain who once said there are lies, damned lies, and statistics.

Look, believe what you want, but read everything about what you believe and understand it for yourself, you do no good by reading a conclusion and not understanding how it was drawn.


I have a doctoral degree in the relevant fields. I have read a number of the primary articles, and there is a consistent trend in the measured data. This is backed by a coherent theoretical model, tying into various fields of chemistry, physics, geology, and the like. The 'greenhouse effect' isn't exactly rocket science. I'm happy to answer any specific questions you may have, as I did above with the "OMG! The Sun!" canard.

Now, that method of learning about the world is called the "scientific method". It's how rational people learn about the world. you're proposing to replace it with "making things up", like pretending that there are no CFCs in the upper atmosphere, or that no one has measured climate data, or whatever else. That makes you "ignorant".
 
2007-06-22 10:46:15 AM
Err, "a relevant field". I only have one. Grad school was fun and all, but no way I'm going back for more of that, unless they quintuple the stpiends or so.
 
2007-06-22 10:49:32 AM
LadoAnother point, no one ever goes into a study without their conclusions already drawn up. To believe otherwise is very naive. Sadly, we do not live in a world of rational people, and irrational people do not want to be proven wrong, so the study will of course find them right.

Right. So above, when you made unsupported claims that climate change was all the sun, and I cited direct satellite measurements to the contrary, backed by concurrent global temperature and atmospheric concentration data, which one of us is the rational person?
 
2007-06-22 10:50:19 AM
bglove25: I believe what Lato is saying is that science that gets in the news gets more money. Scientists need money, because they always think the research they are doing is important(otherwise, they wouldnt do it). So to get more money, some scientists make claims that are not strictly valid from the data they have. Not a conspiracy, just human nature.

That theory, that scientists are making unscientific claims invalid based upon their data in order to get "money" doesn't hold water for a number of reasons.

1. It assumes that those performing peer review are allowing this to happen, and thus participating in a conspiracy. Applying this theory to the scale of climatological studies supporting ACC means that you have an international conspiracy theory larger than those surrounding the Kennedy assassination.
2. You are assuming that funding, or whatever amount of funding that you feel these scientists want, is only available to some sort of orthodixcal stance on climate change. We know that the pertochemical industries are offering money to people to commission studies debunking ACC.
3. The amount of money from a research grant pales in comparison to the amount of money someone blowing the whistle on this conspiracy would receive book sales, speaking engagements, etc. Even if the person is not interested in personal gain, that money could then be used to fund studies that are removed from the conspiracy.

I can chart climate change vs number of pirates in the world if you like.

Red Herring.

Look, believe what you want, but read everything about what you believe and understand it for yourself, you do no good by reading a conclusion and not understanding how it was drawn.

How much reading have you done on the scientific basis of ACC? Honestly? How much do you think chimp_ninja has done? Or I have done?

You're tossing about NOTHING of substance, only opinion and talking points. If there is an evidenciary basis for your claims, please present it. If not, please acknowledge that it is you who are believing what you want, and reading a conclusion and you do not understand how it was drawn.
 
2007-06-22 10:51:56 AM
The second and third quotes were Lato's, not bglove25's. Sorry.
 
2007-06-22 10:54:40 AM
chimp_ninja

Point taken on the "fire in a crowed theatre" limitation on rights. It is just a more difficult arguement legally than say, mercury in the water. Mercury= poisonings, death, easy to trace. Greenhouse gas release=temperature increase of a degree centagrade=unknown consequences. It is just a little fuzzier in terms of how it will effect others. It could mean lots of different things. And since there are sometimes legitmate reasons to use trucks and other less efficient cars, the unintended consequences of restrictive legislation could outweigh the potential enviromental benefit.

Also, since they are changing how they measure fuel efficiency, manufacturers will be scrambling to create more fuel-effienct cars anyway. The hybrid cars get outrageous scores because they are specifically engineered to do well on the old test. Consumers want(on the whole) more fuel efficiency, so I think we will see continued development of more fuel efficient cars based on the market, no extra legislation required.
 
2007-06-22 10:54:49 AM
bglove25: I'm pretty sure you could find data to support big oil. Big tobacco did it for years. It is not so much the data, but how you interpret it.

Big Tobacco manufactured their own data, but they couldn't pull on studies from the publicly-available, peer-reviewed journals. The cross-checking involved in the publishing process would kill all their hypotheses.

It's why those journals are the reputable place to find scientific data. If it makes you feel better, I wouldn't trust data source only from an environmental advocacy group either. Got a real study? Publish it in Science, Nature, or one of the other big players, and I'm happy to read it.

The point of the meta-analysis I cited above is that when you tune out the lobbyists on both sides, and restrict yourself to these more reputable sources, all you find is data supporting the general idea that climate change is real, significant, and caused by man.
 
2007-06-22 11:01:08 AM
Lato: I'm not saying they don't deserve the praise, as we should understand that CFCs do to other chemicals. I'm pointing out that while CFCs will break down Ozone, CFCs would have a very difficult time in the real world getting high enough in the atmosphere to do so.

And because I'm a nice guy, two of the papers with the groundbreaking measurements showing CFC levels in the upper atmosphere below. Note that this data is now 30 years old, and was still reputable enough after the passage of time to be cited among the reasons for the 1995 Nobel. Plan a trip to the library, Lato. You're way behind the curve.

Molina, M.J., and F.S. Rowland, Stratospheric Sink for Chlorofluoromethanes: Chlorine Catalysed Destruction of Ozone, Nature, 249, 810-814 (1974).

Lovelock, J.E., R.J. Maggs, and R.J. Wade, Halogenated Hydrocarbons in and over the Atlantic, Nature, 241, 194-196 (1973).
 
2007-06-22 11:01:36 AM
chimp_ninja

Is there any consensus on how much of a "cause" man is? I don't know, having not read the meta-analysis. I know we influence it, but how much? I guess the implication of "cause" is that we should then immedietly stop what causes the problem. However, since doing things like burning coal for power is cheap and provides necessary power to millions, how do we stop it? Could the possible drawbacks outweigh the positive gain? just wondering what your thoughts are on the matter.
 
2007-06-22 11:12:12 AM
bglove25, I don't know that anyone has said X% of the warming is due to anthropogenic CO2 emissions.

But the two major non-anthropogenic factors, radiative forcing and volcanic aresols, are estimated to have been negatively forcing temperature for the last two, and possibly the last four decades.

I guess the implication of "cause" is that we should then immedietly stop what causes the problem. However, since doing things like burning coal for power is cheap and provides necessary power to millions, how do we stop it? Could the possible drawbacks outweigh the positive gain?

We don't need to immediately stop CO2 emissions. We don't need to stop C02 emissions completely at all. The plan is to limit future CO2 production to prevent atmospheric concentrations of CO2 from reaching around 450 ppmv. By our best estimates, that will prevent the worst effects of ACC, and will be cheaper to achieve than the cost of remedying the consequences of allowing the negative effects to occur.

chimp can correct me if I'm wrong.
 
2007-06-22 11:27:57 AM
bglove25: Is there any consensus on how much of a "cause" man is? I don't know, having not read the meta-analysis. I know we influence it, but how much? I guess the implication of "cause" is that we should then immedietly stop what causes the problem. However, since doing things like burning coal for power is cheap and provides necessary power to millions, how do we stop it? Could the possible drawbacks outweigh the positive gain? just wondering what your thoughts are on the matter.

I agree the economics are important to the problem, and that no one should be making policy recommendations without taking that into account. The most comprehensive cost-benefit analysis on the topic is the Stern Report. That's a weighty tome, but the Executive Summary is more concise and highly readable, even to an economics layman such as myself. The key conclusion of the report is that it is projected to be cheaper to take reasonable steps to mitigate climate change, relative to the costs of living with its consequences. Excerpt:
...the Review estimates that if we don't act, the overall costs and risks of climate change will be equivalent to losing at least 5% of global GDP each year, now and forever. If a wider range of risks and impacts is taken into account, the estimates of damage could rise to 20% of GDP or more. In contrast, the costs of action - reducing greenhouse gas emissions to avoid the worst impacts of climate change - can be limited to around 1% of global GDP each year.
 
2007-06-22 11:30:51 AM
So given the goal is to limit CO2 emmision, how do we provide proper incentive for this. I guess my biggest hurdle is that some measures (limiting SUV production) unneccessarily limit individual freedom. One person driving an SUV instead of a hybrid is a drop in the bucket. So if you limit SUV drivers, how do you justify letting some drive them while others are forced into something else? If it means limiting production of SUV's, it runs into some other problems.

SUVs are produced in such numbers because they sell. Limiting a business' ability to make money limits the growth a business can undergo. Lack of growth means loss of economic power, which usually leads to a loss of jobs. Nothing pisses off Americans like losing jobs. I guess I just get worried that the economy is shaky enough and some of the possible remedies may upset it, cause a small regressive period. Those are not fun. A lot of folks will not care about the Antartic ice sheet if they can't pay thier mortgage.
 
2007-06-22 11:39:45 AM
Well, I buy that preventative medicine is cheaper than trying to cure the disease after the fact. I just think it is a hard sell to the majority of the populace. Long term, protective tariffs hurt the economy and outsourcing is good. However, people only think short-term and keeping American jobs is always a point politicians claim to support. I think the global warming issue has the same problem. People choose to be penny smart and dollar dumb.

Now, granted the idea of prevention is the best, if the majority of people don't agree, where do we get off telling folks what to do? That resentment of the few telling the many how to behave is why so many people get pissed off about this. If only Al Gore wasn't rich and powerful, people would be more inclined to listen to him.
 
2007-06-22 11:47:15 AM
bglove25: I guess my biggest hurdle is that some measures (limiting SUV production) unneccessarily limit individual freedom.

I am not familiar with any proposed legislation limiting SUV production. Is this a hypothetical that you are worried about, or something that you have actually seen? Individual freedom as a point of law does not include choice of automotive vehicle in America. It never has. There are countless prohibitions determining what is and is not legal to drive on government roads on the books right now.


So if you limit SUV drivers, how do you justify letting some drive them while others are forced into something else?

You've lost me here. Please elaborate on this. In what way is anyone being forced to drive anything?

Limiting a business' ability to make money limits the growth a business can undergo.

We do not, thankfully, have an unrestricted free market. Regulation for public safety is an accepted (by pretty much everyone accept crypto-anarchists masquerading as libertarians) compromise between economic freedom and public safety. There are countless, non-global warming related restrictions on businesses already. This is nothing new.

The reason why there is such an uproar over these proposed regulations vs. regulations already on the books is because this issue has become politicized. Plain and simple. People up in arms about fuel efficiency standards completely ignore that we already have them People complaining about the effects businesses completely ignore that we do not have an unregulated free market economy, and ignore instances wherein regulation proved to be a benefit to the public, such as with lead, asbestos, etc.

They are against these things because they are persuaded to by people who have no understanding of the scientific or economic principles at work.
 
Displayed 50 of 62 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report