DreamTheaterForums.org Dream Theater Fan Site
General => Archive => Political and Religious => Topic started by: Super Dude on August 13, 2011, 06:52:31 AM
-
Because GP asked for it. :P
We are all going to die. Discuss. Nah, jk...or am I?
-
I'd say that if you live in India, Bangladesh, or sub-Saharan Africa, your odds aren't great.
-
I know, sad, sad; misery, misery.
BUT JUST ATTEMPT TO COMPREHEND THE MASSIVE AGRICULTURAL POTENTIALS THAT ALASKA COULD VERY WELL POSSESS!
C'MON, GUYS! IT'S NOT AN EVERYDAY OCCURRENCE FOR ALASKA TO BE USEFUL FOR SOMETHING BEYOND A MASSIVE OIL SURPLUS THAT WE AREN'T EVEN ALLOWED TO USE!
-
Do we really need this thread?
-
It can just be the thread that all new discussion goes into. We get threads related to the topic once or twice a month, and putting it all in one thread makes sense.
-
It can just be the thread that all new discussion goes into. We get threads related to the topic once or twice a month, and putting it all in one thread makes sense.
This. There's no reason not to have a thread like this, and I think more P/R threads should actually be issue-centered news and discussion dumps.
-
Global Warming................so it's "official" now? *yawn* :biggrin:
Please continue.
-
Global Warming................so it's "official" now? *yawn* :biggrin:
Please continue.
You know, for someone who (rightfully) derides 9/11 conspiracy theories, you're quite eager to buy into others.
-
Global Warming................so it's "official" now? *yawn* :biggrin:
Please continue.
You know, for someone who (rightfully) derides 9/11 conspiracy theories, you're quite eager to buy into others.
:lol :rollin :lol :rollin
-
Global Warming................so it's "official" now? *yawn* :biggrin:
Please continue.
You know, for someone who (rightfully) derides 9/11 conspiracy theories, you're quite eager to buy into others.
:lol :rollin :lol :rollin
That's bullshit. What? Are you going to list the more than 1,000 scientists that the IPCC has lied about? Constantly the anthro camp uses red herrings, failed logic, and unsupported or debunked facts to support the POLITICIZED AL Gore manufactured kool-aid. It's not a fucking football game. "Let's see the score is 2,105 to 2,102- WE WIN!!"
I can't even bring myself to even debate this shit with some of you. It's like arguing with people who refuse to believe the Earth is round. Soundbites from the Keith Olbermann show, or Al Gore's bullshit movie (which has been discredited about 9 ways to Sunday) doesn't make it so. I used to want to believe in the anthro model, but I talked to people. I've studied research from those who have studied it. The data doesn't add up. Computer models only extrapolate the data that you start with. It's all bullshit. You might as well believe in the fucking Easter Bunny. Is the planet warming? Yes. Is it man's fault? Fuck no.
From what I remember of your opinions (and a couple of the posts I was able to find via the search function) you seem to hold the position that scientists are deliberately backing faulty or known to be false research, either for professional or personal gain.
I'd say that's a conspiracy theory.
-
Watching algor's breakdown was hilarious:
https://www.ibtimes.com/articles/194767/20110809/disturbed-al-gore-uses-cursed-words-for-global-warming-skeptics-aspen-institute-in-colorado-former-b.htm
-
So?
-
You'd start cussing too if you had to talk to a wall.
-
You'd start cussing too if you had to talk to a wall.
Doesn't matter, the fact that he didn't keep calm is proof that his entire theory is wrong.
-
Global Warming................so it's "official" now? *yawn* :biggrin:
Please continue.
You know, for someone who (rightfully) derides 9/11 conspiracy theories, you're quite eager to buy into others.
:lol :rollin :lol :rollin
That's bullshit. What? Are you going to list the more than 1,000 scientists that the IPCC has lied about? Constantly the anthro camp uses red herrings, failed logic, and unsupported or debunked facts to support the POLITICIZED AL Gore manufactured kool-aid. It's not a fucking football game. "Let's see the score is 2,105 to 2,102- WE WIN!!"
I can't even bring myself to even debate this shit with some of you. It's like arguing with people who refuse to believe the Earth is round. Soundbites from the Keith Olbermann show, or Al Gore's bullshit movie (which has been discredited about 9 ways to Sunday) doesn't make it so. I used to want to believe in the anthro model, but I talked to people. I've studied research from those who have studied it. The data doesn't add up. Computer models only extrapolate the data that you start with. It's all bullshit. You might as well believe in the fucking Easter Bunny. Is the planet warming? Yes. Is it man's fault? Fuck no.
From what I remember of your opinions (and a couple of the posts I was able to find via the search function) you seem to hold the position that scientists are deliberately backing faulty or known to be false research, either for professional or personal gain.
I'd say that's a conspiracy theory.
:lol :rollin :lol
-
Five posts before the thread turned into a shitstorm...we may have reached a new P/R record.
-
Indeed new record. There is hope to get back on topic if we all just move right along
-
Global Warming................so it's "official" now? *yawn* :biggrin:
Please continue.
You know, for someone who (rightfully) derides 9/11 conspiracy theories, you're quite eager to buy into others.
:lol :rollin :lol :rollin
That's bullshit. What? Are you going to list the more than 1,000 scientists that the IPCC has lied about? Constantly the anthro camp uses red herrings, failed logic, and unsupported or debunked facts to support the POLITICIZED AL Gore manufactured kool-aid. It's not a fucking football game. "Let's see the score is 2,105 to 2,102- WE WIN!!"
I can't even bring myself to even debate this shit with some of you. It's like arguing with people who refuse to believe the Earth is round. Soundbites from the Keith Olbermann show, or Al Gore's bullshit movie (which has been discredited about 9 ways to Sunday) doesn't make it so. I used to want to believe in the anthro model, but I talked to people. I've studied research from those who have studied it. The data doesn't add up. Computer models only extrapolate the data that you start with. It's all bullshit. You might as well believe in the fucking Easter Bunny. Is the planet warming? Yes. Is it man's fault? Fuck no.
From what I remember of your opinions (and a couple of the posts I was able to find via the search function) you seem to hold the position that scientists are deliberately backing faulty or known to be false research, either for professional or personal gain.
I'd say that's a conspiracy theory.
:lol :rollin :lol
Is that an ":lol you're right" or ":lol I'm wrong"?
-
I think it's an " :lol I think you're stupid and I'm going to be really cocky about it."
-
Well, he is objectively correct on the issue, while the overwhelming majority of the scientific community is not. And that's just by "researching it on his own," not even through decades of post-graduate work, research, and publishing of articles, so that clearly speaks to his superior intellect. He's obviously justified in his condescension.
-
Okay I agree with you, but let's still try to keep things civil. Or else I'm going to request a lock...on the global warming thread, fuck me.
-
OK, on topic. Here's a post from RealClimate about that Roy Spencer article that created some discussion a few weeks ago:
“Misdiagnosis of Surface Temperature Feedback”
Filed under:
Climate Science
— mike @ 29 July 2011
Guest commentary by Kevin Trenberth and John Fasullo
The hype surrounding a new paper by Roy Spencer and Danny Braswell is impressive (see for instance Fox News); unfortunately the paper itself is not. News releases and blogs on climate denier web sites have publicized the claim from the paper’s news release that “Climate models get energy balance wrong, make too hot forecasts of global warming”. The paper has been published in a journal called Remote sensing which is a fine journal for geographers, but it does not deal with atmospheric and climate science, and it is evident that this paper did not get an adequate peer review. It should not have been published.
The paper’s title “On the Misdiagnosis of Surface Temperature Feedbacks from Variations in Earth’s Radiant Energy Balance” is provocative and should have raised red flags with the editors. The basic material in the paper has very basic shortcomings because no statistical significance of results, error bars or uncertainties are given either in the figures or discussed in the text. Moreover the description of methods of what was done is not sufficient to be able to replicate results. As a first step, some quick checks have been made to see whether results can be replicated and we find some points of contention.
The basic observational result seems to be similar to what we can produce but use of slightly different datasets, such as the EBAF CERES dataset, changes the results to be somewhat less in magnitude. And some parts of the results do appear to be significant. So are they replicated in climate models? Spencer and Braswell say no, but this is where attempts to replicate their results require clarification. In contrast, some model results do appear to fall well within the range of uncertainties of the observations. How can that be? For one, the observations cover a 10 year period. The models cover a hundred year period for the 20th century. The latter were detrended by Spencer but for the 20th century that should not be necessary. One could and perhaps should treat the 100 years as 10 sets of 10 years and see whether the observations match any of the ten year periods, but instead what appears to have been done is to use only the one hundred year set by itself. We have done exactly this and the result is in the Figure..
[ed. note: italics below replace the deleted sentence above, to make it clearer what is meant here.]
SB11 appears to have used the full 100 year record to evaluate the models, but this provides no indication of the robustness of their derived relationships. Here instead, we have considered each decade of the 20th century individually and quantified the inter-decadal variability to derive the Figure below. What this figure shows is the results for the observations, as in Spencer and Braswell, using the EBAF dataset (in black). Then we show results from 2 different models, one which does not replicate ENSO well (top) and one which does (second panel). Here we give the average result (red curve) for all 10 decades, plus the range of results that reflects the variations from one decade to the next. The MPI-Echam5 model replicates the observations very well. When all model results from CMIP3 are included, the bottom panel results, showing the red curve not too dis-similar from Spencer and Braswell, but with a huge range, due both to the spread among models, and also the spread due to decadal variability.
Consequently, our results suggest that there are good models and some not so good, but rather than stratifying them by climate sensitivity, one should, in this case, stratify them by ability to simulate ENSO. In the Figure, the model that replicates the observations better has high sensitivity while the other has low sensitivity. The net result is that the models agree within reasonable bounds with the observations.
To help interpret the results, Spencer uses a simple model. But the simple model used by Spencer is too simple (Einstein says that things should be made as simple as possible but not simpler): well this has gone way beyond being too simple (see for instance this post by Barry Bickmore). The model has no realistic ocean, no El Niño, and no hydrological cycle, and it was tuned to give the result it gave. Most of what goes on in the real world of significance that causes the relationship in the paper is ENSO. We have already rebutted Lindzen’s work on exactly this point. The clouds respond to ENSO, not the other way round [see: Trenberth, K. E., J. T. Fasullo, C. O'Dell, and T. Wong, 2010: Relationships between tropical sea surface temperatures and top-of-atmosphere radiation. Geophys. Res. Lett., 37, L03702, doi:10.1029/2009GL042314.] During ENSO there is a major uptake of heat by the ocean during the La Niña phase and the heat is moved around and stored in the ocean in the tropical western Pacific, setting the stage for the next El Niño, as which point it is redistributed across the tropical Pacific. The ocean cools as the atmosphere responds with characteristic El Niño weather patterns forced from the region that influence weather patterns world wide. Ocean dynamics play a major role in moving heat around, and atmosphere-ocean interaction is a key to the ENSO cycle. None of those processes are included in the Spencer model.
Even so, the Spencer interpretation has no merit. The interannual global temperature variations were not radiatively forced, as claimed for the 2000s, and therefore cannot be used to say anything about climate sensitivity. Clouds are not a forcing of the climate system (except for the small portion related to human related aerosol effects, which have a small effect on clouds). Clouds mainly occur because of weather systems (e.g., warm air rises and produces convection, and so on); they do not cause the weather systems. Clouds may provide feedbacks on the weather systems. Spencer has made this error of confounding forcing and feedback before and it leads to a misinterpretation of his results.
The bottom line is that there is NO merit whatsoever in this paper. It turns out that Spencer and Braswell have an almost perfect title for their paper: “the misdiagnosis of surface temperature feedbacks from variations in the Earth’s Radiant Energy Balance” (leaving out the “On”).
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/07/misdiagnosis-of-surface-temperature-feedback/
-
I mean, all I can really say to this is "Derp!" Sounds like as rapid anthropogenic climate change is becoming more accepted in the mainstream, more people are trying to come out and debunk it. It's like what they say about the battle with religion: they speak the loudest because they're on the losing side. I dunno, that's my take on it.
-
Global Warming................so it's "official" now? *yawn* :biggrin:
Please continue.
You know, for someone who (rightfully) derides 9/11 conspiracy theories, you're quite eager to buy into others.
:lol :rollin :lol :rollin
That's bullshit. What? Are you going to list the more than 1,000 scientists that the IPCC has lied about? Constantly the anthro camp uses red herrings, failed logic, and unsupported or debunked facts to support the POLITICIZED AL Gore manufactured kool-aid. It's not a fucking football game. "Let's see the score is 2,105 to 2,102- WE WIN!!"
I can't even bring myself to even debate this shit with some of you. It's like arguing with people who refuse to believe the Earth is round. Soundbites from the Keith Olbermann show, or Al Gore's bullshit movie (which has been discredited about 9 ways to Sunday) doesn't make it so. I used to want to believe in the anthro model, but I talked to people. I've studied research from those who have studied it. The data doesn't add up. Computer models only extrapolate the data that you start with. It's all bullshit. You might as well believe in the fucking Easter Bunny. Is the planet warming? Yes. Is it man's fault? Fuck no.
From what I remember of your opinions (and a couple of the posts I was able to find via the search function) you seem to hold the position that scientists are deliberately backing faulty or known to be false research, either for professional or personal gain.
I'd say that's a conspiracy theory.
:lol :rollin :lol
now, see, if one of us had posted that, we'd have been excoriated immediately
But tempus vox is above the law
-
This is the second notice to move on.
-
I think this is a very interesting topic especially as it pertains to how people misinterpret other peoples arguments.
What GW people say: This is a major event happening and we should start planning on how to deal with it so that future generations don't have to suffer.
How anti-GW people interpret that: OMG THE WORLD IS ENDING LETS TAX MORE PEOPLE!!!!!!!!!!
What anti-GW people are saying: I'll admit that there is a climate shift, but I don't think it's as extreme as you and I don't think humans are to blame.
How GW people interpret that: THERE IS NO GLOBAL WARMING EVERYTHING IS COOL DRILL DRILL DRILL!
-
To be quite frank, it's a topic that's beyond the province of anyone here on DTF. Now, when most people don't have a good deal of knowledge on a scientific issue, or special insight to the larger scientific community, they don't go around pretending that they are better informed, and know the real "truth" in fields that millions of people have dedicated their professional lives to working and researching in.
The reason people deny global warming, or evolution, rather than other commonly accepted scientific theories is typically because they have political or religious beliefs that override these. One has to approach the issue from a skewed angle to conclude that the weight of evidence is against global warming; I suppose the exception would be if one is only exposed, or initially exposed, to a one-sided representation. I think that people who ignore the political basis for their beliefs are being fundamentally dishonest with themselves and others.
-
To be quite frank, it's a topic that's beyond the province of anyone here on DTF. Now, when most people don't have a good deal of knowledge on a scientific issue, or special insight to the larger scientific community, they don't go around pretending that they are better informed, and know the real "truth" in fields that millions of people have dedicated their professional lives to working and researching in.
The reason people deny global warming, or evolution, rather than other commonly accepted scientific theories is typically because they have political or religious beliefs that override these. One has to approach the issue from a skewed angle to conclude that the weight of evidence is against global warming; I suppose the exception would be if one is only exposed, or initially exposed, to a one-sided representation. I think that people who ignore the political basis for their beliefs are being fundamentally dishonest with themselves and others.
I 100% agree.
-
So?
Honestly, I hope it leads to his marginalization. He's not a scientist nor a particularly informed lay person; he's just a cheerleader for a cause. And if you notice, he didn't really engage his critics, except to call them "pseudo scientists." There's legitimate arguments against the mainstream view of climate change and they have nothing to do with volcanoes or sunspots. The truth is that he's probably unaware of Spencer's work, or that of any number of other publishing researchers who don't hold his views.
-
So?
Honestly, I hope it leads to his marginalization. He's not a scientist nor a particularly informed lay person; he's just a cheerleader for a cause. And if you notice, he didn't really engage his critics, except to call them "pseudo scientists." There's legitimate arguments against the mainstream view of climate change and they have nothing to do with volcanoes or sunspots. The truth is that he's probably unaware of Spencer's work, or that of any number of other publishing researchers who don't hold his views.
I wouldn't mind Gore's marginalization all that much. The presentation of global warming as an issue should come from the larger scientific community that is qualified to speak with some measure of authority on the topic.
There are arguments against mainstream views of global warming, but there are reasons why they aren't in the mainstream. As much as some people would like to pretend they aren't, the core hypotheses surrounding global warming are virtually unchallenged.
And more importantly, there's not even a scrap of a competing theory.
-
Global Warming................so it's "official" now? *yawn* :biggrin:
Please continue.
You know, for someone who (rightfully) derides 9/11 conspiracy theories, you're quite eager to buy into others.
:lol :rollin :lol :rollin
That's bullshit. What? Are you going to list the more than 1,000 scientists that the IPCC has lied about? Constantly the anthro camp uses red herrings, failed logic, and unsupported or debunked facts to support the POLITICIZED AL Gore manufactured kool-aid. It's not a fucking football game. "Let's see the score is 2,105 to 2,102- WE WIN!!"
I can't even bring myself to even debate this shit with some of you. It's like arguing with people who refuse to believe the Earth is round. Soundbites from the Keith Olbermann show, or Al Gore's bullshit movie (which has been discredited about 9 ways to Sunday) doesn't make it so. I used to want to believe in the anthro model, but I talked to people. I've studied research from those who have studied it. The data doesn't add up. Computer models only extrapolate the data that you start with. It's all bullshit. You might as well believe in the fucking Easter Bunny. Is the planet warming? Yes. Is it man's fault? Fuck no.
From what I remember of your opinions (and a couple of the posts I was able to find via the search function) you seem to hold the position that scientists are deliberately backing faulty or known to be false research, either for professional or personal gain.
I'd say that's a conspiracy theory.
:lol :rollin :lol
now, see, if one of us had posted that, we'd have been excoriated immediately
But tempus vox is above the law
REALLY PLM?? Really?? While it's no secret I disagree with the pro-GW "experts" on this board, I simply posted a wry comment and added a smiley emoticon (to show my attempt at humor). Then I'm called a Conspiracy Theorist by the Pig, and instead of taking the bait, I simply laugh. Then an old comment of mine is brought forward, again by the Pig (I guess he keeps tabs on these things), and again I laugh at the antics, and now I'm above the law?? Really! Hell I was even reported for not contributing anything to the thread. Apparently I didn't have too. Now my intent was not to derail the thread, and it still is not; and I refuse to be drawn into the same old tired arguments over this issue. But above the law? Not quite! I am not, nor do I assume or pretend to be. But the hate speak is really over the top here sometimes. Since I made my little harmless snide humorous remark, I will NOT act as a moderator in this issue, but name calling and then basically calling me and the mod staff out is really bad form. Don't ya think?
-
I think I missed the thread that preempted this one... But I do believe we have a climate shift. As far as what is the main cause, I have no idea.
-
**Big block o' text**
REALLY PLM?? Really?? While it's no secret I disagree with the pro-GW "experts" on this board, I simply posted a wry comment and added a smiley emoticon (to show my attempt at humor). Then I'm called a Conspiracy Theorist by the Pig, and instead of taking the bait, I simply laugh. Then an old comment of mine is brought forward, again by the Pig (I guess he keeps tabs on these things), and again I laugh at the antics, and now I'm above the law?? Really! Hell I was even reported for not contributing anything to the thread. Apparently I didn't have too. Now my intent was not to derail the thread, and it still is not; and I refuse to be drawn into the same old tired arguments over this issue. But above the law? Not quite! I am not, nor do I assume or pretend to be. But the hate speak is really over the top here sometimes. Since I made my little harmless snide humorous remark, I will NOT act as a moderator in this issue, but name calling and then basically calling me and the mod staff out is really bad form. Don't ya think?
For what it's worth, I think that there's a distinction to be had between people who consciously buy into a conspiracy theory (like PraXis, for example, or that other guy... InTheNameofGod? I think?) and people whose pattern of thinking mirrors that of a conspiracy theory. I think you're in the latter category. I found that interesting, considering your stance on 9/11 conspiracy theories.
-
I think I missed the thread that preempted this one... But I do believe we have a climate shift. As far as what is the main cause, I have no idea.
True. We have a climate shift. As we have had climate shifts throughout the course of history. We do not know the cause, and we will never know the cause. So, there is nothing we should do about it at all. The whole idea of carbon credits is absurd. Oil supplies are due to run out in a very short period of time anyway, and the problem will take care of itself. If there even IS a problem, which I do not believe at all. Climate changes and changes back. it's natural. Sea levels rise and fall over time. It's perfectly natural. Our job is not to invent explanations that enable some to curtail the freedom of others. Our job is to adapt to the new climate and figure out the new opportunities that will come about. Climate change can be GOOD. Let's embrace it and stop inventing new ways to stop progress and achievement.
-
I think I missed the thread that preempted this one... But I do believe we have a climate shift. As far as what is the main cause, I have no idea.
True. We have a climate shift. As we have had climate shifts throughout the course of history. We do not know the cause, and we will never know the cause. So, there is nothing we should do about it at all. The whole idea of carbon credits is absurd. Oil supplies are due to run out in a very short period of time anyway, and the problem will take care of itself. If there even IS a problem, which I do not believe at all. Climate changes and changes back. it's natural. Sea levels rise and fall over time. It's perfectly natural. Our job is not to invent explanations that enable some to curtail the freedom of others. Our job is to adapt to the new climate and figure out the new opportunities that will come about. Climate change can be GOOD. Let's embrace it and stop inventing new ways to stop progress and achievement.
So wait, the greenhouse effect doesn't exist?
-
I think I missed the thread that preempted this one... But I do believe we have a climate shift. As far as what is the main cause, I have no idea.
True. We have a climate shift. As we have had climate shifts throughout the course of history. We do not know the cause, and we will never know the cause. So, there is nothing we should do about it at all. The whole idea of carbon credits is absurd. Oil supplies are due to run out in a very short period of time anyway, and the problem will take care of itself. If there even IS a problem, which I do not believe at all. Climate changes and changes back. it's natural. Sea levels rise and fall over time. It's perfectly natural. Our job is not to invent explanations that enable some to curtail the freedom of others. Our job is to adapt to the new climate and figure out the new opportunities that will come about. Climate change can be GOOD. Let's embrace it and stop inventing new ways to stop progress and achievement.
Well this is definitely the first time I've seen anyone use the argument that climate change is a good thing and a sign of positive progression.
-
It's not for me. It's quite common.
It's one step down from outright denial that the temperature is going up. "Well, climate change can be good!" And it will be good (purely in economic terms: crop yields and access to Arctic resources, for example. But biodiversity would suffer a lot) to some; Canada and Russia especially.
Sure sucks about all those poor people in the third world. Their fault for not being rich, I guess.
-
It's not for me. It's quite common.
It's one step down from outright denial that the temperature is going up. "Well, climate change can be good!" And it will be good (purely in economic terms: crop yields and access to Arctic resources, for example. But biodiversity would suffer a lot) to some; Canada and Russia especially.
Sure sucks about all those poor people in the third world. Their fault for not being rich, I guess.
To be fair, they can easily stop being poor, they just don't want to.
-
Climate changes and changes back. it's natural. Sea levels rise and fall over time. It's perfectly natural.
The fact it has happened in the past is not evidence it will happen again. Especially considering the enviroment has been changed significantly since the last cycle ended.
-
I think I missed the thread that preempted this one... But I do believe we have a climate shift. As far as what is the main cause, I have no idea.
True. We have a climate shift. As we have had climate shifts throughout the course of history. We do not know the cause, and we will never know the cause. So, there is nothing we should do about it at all. The whole idea of carbon credits is absurd. Oil supplies are due to run out in a very short period of time anyway, and the problem will take care of itself. If there even IS a problem, which I do not believe at all. Climate changes and changes back. it's natural. Sea levels rise and fall over time. It's perfectly natural. Our job is not to invent explanations that enable some to curtail the freedom of others. Our job is to adapt to the new climate and figure out the new opportunities that will come about. Climate change can be GOOD. Let's embrace it and stop inventing new ways to stop progress and achievement.
Well this is definitely the first time I've seen anyone use the argument that climate change is a good thing and a sign of positive progression.
What's shocking to me is that staying on the same energy source we've been using for nearly a century, oil, is conversely considered indicative of progress.
-
I think I missed the thread that preempted this one... But I do believe we have a climate shift. As far as what is the main cause, I have no idea.
True. We have a climate shift. As we have had climate shifts throughout the course of history. We do not know the cause, and we will never know the cause. So, there is nothing we should do about it at all. The whole idea of carbon credits is absurd. Oil supplies are due to run out in a very short period of time anyway, and the problem will take care of itself. If there even IS a problem, which I do not believe at all. Climate changes and changes back. it's natural. Sea levels rise and fall over time. It's perfectly natural. Our job is not to invent explanations that enable some to curtail the freedom of others. Our job is to adapt to the new climate and figure out the new opportunities that will come about. Climate change can be GOOD. Let's embrace it and stop inventing new ways to stop progress and achievement.
Life forms have significantly altered the environment in the past. The first photosynthetic life nearly turned the earth into a giant snowball, incapable of sustaining life as we know it. Of course, we today have to be thankful for this... we wouldn't be around otherwise.
As for the skepticism if your argument, I agree. However, I think your position is wrong. I think it's fair to say that we as humans don't know what kind of effect we are having on the environment, in absolute terms. There are many factors involved, and we're starting to learn about all of them. However, the greenhouse effect is a very well proved theory regarding certain gases, and we know very well that we emit a lot of greenhouse gases because of our industry. Green energy is better in every way, and it's inevitable anyways. You have problems with carbon credits, but why not support direct investment in green technology? Use tax dollars for people to get solar panels, geothermal energy units, for more innovative wind farms, storage technologies (flywheels). As far as transportation, hydrogen is just around the corner, and if public transportation and government fleets move to those systems quickly, it helsp provide infrastructure for the free-market to kick into motion. The continued extraction of oil and natural gas can only happen at the cost of our environment, a cost which increases as these resources become harder and harder to extract.
You talk about progress and about thinking about the future... and I agree with you on that. If climate change is happening, regardless of why, we need to start preparing ourselves to move, abandon cities, and adapt to the new environment. Though, since I don't see any rational reason why green technology and innovations shouldn't be a huge part of this future. Why stall the future of technology because of the theories behind climate change/"global warming"?
-
As for the skepticism if your argument, I agree. However, I think your position is wrong. I think it's fair to say that we as humans don't know what kind of effect we are having on the environment, in absolute terms. There are many factors involved, and we're starting to learn about all of them. However, the greenhouse effect is a very well proved theory regarding certain gases, and we know very well that we emit a lot of greenhouse gases because of our industry. Green energy is better in every way, and it's inevitable anyways. You have problems with carbon credits, but why not support direct investment in green technology? Use tax dollars for people to get solar panels, geothermal energy units, for more innovative wind farms, storage technologies (flywheels). As far as transportation, hydrogen is just around the corner, and if public transportation and government fleets move to those systems quickly, it helsp provide infrastructure for the free-market to kick into motion. The continued extraction of oil and natural gas can only happen at the cost of our environment, a cost which increases as these resources become harder and harder to extract.
You talk about progress and about thinking about the future... and I agree with you on that. If climate change is happening, regardless of why, we need to start preparing ourselves to move, abandon cities, and adapt to the new environment. Though, since I don't see any rational reason why green technology and innovations shouldn't be a huge part of this future. Why stall the future of technology because of the theories behind climate change/"global warming"?
Good points, Scheavo.
-
Life forms have significantly altered the environment in the past. The first photosynthetic life nearly turned the earth into a giant snowball, incapable of sustaining life as we know it. Of course, we today have to be thankful for this... we wouldn't be around otherwise.
As for the skepticism if your argument, I agree. However, I think your position is wrong. I think it's fair to say that we as humans don't know what kind of effect we are having on the environment, in absolute terms. There are many factors involved, and we're starting to learn about all of them. However, the greenhouse effect is a very well proved theory regarding certain gases, and we know very well that we emit a lot of greenhouse gases because of our industry. Green energy is better in every way, and it's inevitable anyways. You have problems with carbon credits, but why not support direct investment in green technology? Use tax dollars for people to get solar panels, geothermal energy units, for more innovative wind farms, storage technologies (flywheels). As far as transportation, hydrogen is just around the corner, and if public transportation and government fleets move to those systems quickly, it helsp provide infrastructure for the free-market to kick into motion. The continued extraction of oil and natural gas can only happen at the cost of our environment, a cost which increases as these resources become harder and harder to extract.
You talk about progress and about thinking about the future... and I agree with you on that. If climate change is happening, regardless of why, we need to start preparing ourselves to move, abandon cities, and adapt to the new environment. Though, since I don't see any rational reason why green technology and innovations shouldn't be a huge part of this future. Why stall the future of technology because of the theories behind climate change/"global warming"?
I am not willing to allow disruption of the free market on the off chance that climate change caused by man "might" be happening. First of all I would need conclusive proof that it is in fact happening. We do not have that. At all. Second, I would need conclusive proof that once it is happening and is caused by the activities of man, that it is provably and imminently destructive to human life on the planet. Not in 100 or 1000 years. Next year.
I simply do not accept the cataclysmic predictions of the environmental movement. Meteorology and climatology are in their infancy, and climate scientists honestly don't really know their asses from a hole in the ground. That becomes obvious every time they miss a simple 5-day weather forecast, a more complex seasonal hurricane prediction, and everything in between. In other words, the environmental movement is willing to impose and curtail and blockade economic activity without solid proof of anything. That something "might" happen is good enough for them. It is not good enough for me. And it should not be good enough for any policy maker with a lick of common sense.
-
Radical climate change isn't something that happens over a 5-day period. Nor 100 or 1000 years. The major shifts over the course of the Earth's history happened over the course of millions. However, even the small differences that can be found in a 100 year period can have major effects upon humans and the environment around them. And regardless of what the weather's like next year, we ought to make efforts to reduce our impact upon the climate and adjust our ways to natural long-term changes in climate. If we do not, who's to say there will be a next year for humans 100 or 1000 years from now.
-
Life forms have significantly altered the environment in the past. The first photosynthetic life nearly turned the earth into a giant snowball, incapable of sustaining life as we know it. Of course, we today have to be thankful for this... we wouldn't be around otherwise.
As for the skepticism if your argument, I agree. However, I think your position is wrong. I think it's fair to say that we as humans don't know what kind of effect we are having on the environment, in absolute terms. There are many factors involved, and we're starting to learn about all of them. However, the greenhouse effect is a very well proved theory regarding certain gases, and we know very well that we emit a lot of greenhouse gases because of our industry. Green energy is better in every way, and it's inevitable anyways. You have problems with carbon credits, but why not support direct investment in green technology? Use tax dollars for people to get solar panels, geothermal energy units, for more innovative wind farms, storage technologies (flywheels). As far as transportation, hydrogen is just around the corner, and if public transportation and government fleets move to those systems quickly, it helsp provide infrastructure for the free-market to kick into motion. The continued extraction of oil and natural gas can only happen at the cost of our environment, a cost which increases as these resources become harder and harder to extract.
You talk about progress and about thinking about the future... and I agree with you on that. If climate change is happening, regardless of why, we need to start preparing ourselves to move, abandon cities, and adapt to the new environment. Though, since I don't see any rational reason why green technology and innovations shouldn't be a huge part of this future. Why stall the future of technology because of the theories behind climate change/"global warming"?
I am not willing to allow disruption of the free market on the off chance that climate change caused by man "might" be happening. First of all I would need conclusive proof that it is in fact happening. We do not have that. At all. Second, I would need conclusive proof that once it is happening and is caused by the activities of man, that it is provably and imminently destructive to human life on the planet. Not in 100 or 1000 years. Next year.
I simply do not accept the cataclysmic predictions of the environmental movement. Meteorology and climatology are in their infancy, and climate scientists honestly don't really know their asses from a hole in the ground. That becomes obvious every time they miss a simple 5-day weather forecast, a more complex seasonal hurricane prediction, and everything in between. In other words, the environmental movement is willing to impose and curtail and blockade economic activity without solid proof of anything. That something "might" happen is good enough for them. It is not good enough for me. And it should not be good enough for any policy maker with a lick of common sense.
You completely ignored my argument.
-
Life forms have significantly altered the environment in the past. The first photosynthetic life nearly turned the earth into a giant snowball, incapable of sustaining life as we know it. Of course, we today have to be thankful for this... we wouldn't be around otherwise.
As for the skepticism if your argument, I agree. However, I think your position is wrong. I think it's fair to say that we as humans don't know what kind of effect we are having on the environment, in absolute terms. There are many factors involved, and we're starting to learn about all of them. However, the greenhouse effect is a very well proved theory regarding certain gases, and we know very well that we emit a lot of greenhouse gases because of our industry. Green energy is better in every way, and it's inevitable anyways. You have problems with carbon credits, but why not support direct investment in green technology? Use tax dollars for people to get solar panels, geothermal energy units, for more innovative wind farms, storage technologies (flywheels). As far as transportation, hydrogen is just around the corner, and if public transportation and government fleets move to those systems quickly, it helsp provide infrastructure for the free-market to kick into motion. The continued extraction of oil and natural gas can only happen at the cost of our environment, a cost which increases as these resources become harder and harder to extract.
You talk about progress and about thinking about the future... and I agree with you on that. If climate change is happening, regardless of why, we need to start preparing ourselves to move, abandon cities, and adapt to the new environment. Though, since I don't see any rational reason why green technology and innovations shouldn't be a huge part of this future. Why stall the future of technology because of the theories behind climate change/"global warming"?
I am not willing to allow disruption of the free market on the off chance that climate change caused by man "might" be happening. First of all I would need conclusive proof that it is in fact happening. We do not have that. At all. Second, I would need conclusive proof that once it is happening and is caused by the activities of man, that it is provably and imminently destructive to human life on the planet. Not in 100 or 1000 years. Next year.
I simply do not accept the cataclysmic predictions of the environmental movement. Meteorology and climatology are in their infancy, and climate scientists honestly don't really know their asses from a hole in the ground. That becomes obvious every time they miss a simple 5-day weather forecast, a more complex seasonal hurricane prediction, and everything in between. In other words, the environmental movement is willing to impose and curtail and blockade economic activity without solid proof of anything. That something "might" happen is good enough for them. It is not good enough for me. And it should not be good enough for any policy maker with a lick of common sense.
On the "off chance?" Is it like 50/50 that we're vastly increasing the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere? Or is it 3:1 odds that the greenhouse effect actually is a phenomenon?
I'm studying for the LSATs right now, and the logical fallacies in your arguments are pretty massive.
Like, "if phenomenon 'X' can have natural causes, it cannot have anthropogenic causes." Or making baseless conclusions like "If scientific discipline 'Z' is younger than scientific discipline 'Q,' than the conclusions of the scientists working in discipline 'Z' are invalid."
Also, you compared predicting a five-day forecast to predicting climatic trends. Because that's obviously the same.
-
On the "off chance?" Is it like 50/50 that we're vastly increasing the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere? Or is it 3:1 odds that the greenhouse effect actually is a phenomenon?
I'm studying for the LSATs right now, and the logical fallacies in your arguments are pretty massive.
Like, "if phenomenon 'X' can have natural causes, it cannot have anthropogenic causes." Or making baseless conclusions like "If scientific discipline 'Z' is younger than scientific discipline 'Q,' than the conclusions of the scientists working in discipline 'Z' are invalid."
Also, you compared predicting a five-day forecast to predicting climatic trends. Because that's obviously the same.
There are thousands of arguments and counterarguments to the theory of climate change. The bottom line is many smart scientists believe arguments both for and against. Therefore, using logic, it would be illogical do curtail freedom and liberty until certainty is achieved.
The entire climate change movement is summarized in uncertainties: This might be happening. And since there is a good chance that it is happening, it may also be caused by the activities of man. If it is, which we are not sure of, but certainly for which there is a good probability, then this could result, after which disaster would certainly be a high probability. Therefore, since we are not sure, it is best to err on the side of caution and curtail, blockade, and cap. Just in case.
Do you see why this is bullshit?
And while it is attractive and even necessary to divorce the dismal track record of meterological prediction from that of climatological prediction, the two are intertwined, and both make extensive use of computer modelling that observe and predict similar phenomena. As we all know, climate is simply weather over time. And if you insist on divorcing meterological prediction from climate prediction, because one often fails and necessarily must discredit the other, let's go there. Man has NOT been successful at predicting climate, at all, in any way shape or form. When man is able to start showing a track record of accurate climate prediction, THEN we can start talking. But even then, the change has to be proven to be adverse to human life. There is a good chance that if global warming is one day proven to exist, it may be a good thing that we want more of.
-
The entire climate change movement is summarized in uncertainties: This might be happening. And since there is a good chance that it is happening, it may also be caused by the activities of man. If it is, which we are not sure of, but certainly for which there is a good probability, then this could result, after which disaster would certainly be a high probability. Therefore, since we are not sure, it is best to err on the side of caution and curtail, blockade, and cap. Just in case.
Our entire system of physics is based upon fundamentally uncertain forces; yet we're able to write laws of motions and energy which apply and are usuable.
-
On the "off chance?" Is it like 50/50 that we're vastly increasing the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere? Or is it 3:1 odds that the greenhouse effect actually is a phenomenon?
I'm studying for the LSATs right now, and the logical fallacies in your arguments are pretty massive.
Like, "if phenomenon 'X' can have natural causes, it cannot have anthropogenic causes." Or making baseless conclusions like "If scientific discipline 'Z' is younger than scientific discipline 'Q,' than the conclusions of the scientists working in discipline 'Z' are invalid."
Also, you compared predicting a five-day forecast to predicting climatic trends. Because that's obviously the same.
There are thousands of arguments and counterarguments to the theory of climate change. The bottom line is many smart scientists believe arguments both for and against. Therefore, using logic, it would be illogical do curtail freedom and liberty until certainty is achieved.
The entire climate change movement is summarized in uncertainties: This might be happening. And since there is a good chance that it is happening, it may also be caused by the activities of man. If it is, which we are not sure of, but certainly for which there is a good probability, then this could result, after which disaster would certainly be a high probability. Therefore, since we are not sure, it is best to err on the side of caution and curtail, blockade, and cap. Just in case.
Do you see why this is bullshit?
And while it is attractive and even necessary to divorce the dismal track record of meterological prediction from that of climatological prediction, the two are intertwined, and both make extensive use of computer modelling that observe and predict similar phenomena. As we all know, climate is simply weather over time. And if you insist on divorcing meterological prediction from climate prediction, because one often fails and necessarily must discredit the other, let's go there. Man has NOT been successful at predicting climate, at all, in any way shape or form. When man is able to start showing a track record of accurate climate prediction, THEN we can start talking. But even then, the change has to be proven to be adverse to human life. There is a good chance that if global warming is one day proven to exist, it may be a good thing that we want more of.
Well, there's not thousands of arguments and counterarguments, but I won't go into that because I don't want to talk about the nature of research and evidence.
All science is bounded by uncertainties. That doesn't prevent you from accepting gravity, or evolution. That some smart scientists don't believe that global warming is primarily due to anthropogenic causes, and therefore one should reject taking any action based on concluding one way or the other is again, poor logical reasoning. There are some smart people (and scientists) who think the Earth is less than 10,000 years old. That doesn't make holding a neutral ground on that issue intelligent, because the overwhelming majority of the scientific community thinks that the Earth is around four and a half billion years old.
Lol. Of course it's necessary to remove meteorology from climatology, because they don't concern themselves with the same things. Short-term variability that plagues weather forecasts is something that does not affect climatology at all. Predicting the average temperature of 2012 can be done with accuracy. Predicting the temperature of August 15, 2012, cannot be done with any accuracy. Confusing the two just displays your ignorance.
-
Here is the problem...
Climate change do to man is true and we do nothing: The earth is bombarded by natural disasters so frequent it will devastate our species. Civilization as we know it will be destroyed.
Climate change do to man is true and we do something: The earth is safe for however long. Sure economically it may be difficult for a while. But we now have renewable resources and civilization is still thriving, evolving and expanding.
Climate change do to man is false and we do nothing: We carry on usual..
Climate change do to man is false and we do something: The economy may collapse for a short while but we have renewable resources and are no longer polluting the environment.
When there is an overwhelming bank of evidence that supports climate change for the worst by man. Even if it is or isn't man that is causing it, we need to do something about it. If there is another ice age we need to learn to combat it and if the earth is going to join it's sister planet Venus we need to combat it. This whole we shouldn't do it because it isn't certain is a bullshit argument.
-
Do =/= Due
How does working towards renewable resources cause economic issues? It creates jobs and promotes the private sector. I would think that anything that works towards new ideas is a good thing.
-
Do =/= Due
How does working towards renewable resources cause economic issues? It creates jobs and promotes the private sector. I would think that anything that works towards new ideas is a good thing.
As long as private companies and individuals want to develop solutions, using their own money and expertise, I'm good with it. However I do not want tax dollars being diverted to these, or any other companies.
-
Do =/= Due
How does working towards renewable resources cause economic issues? It creates jobs and promotes the private sector. I would think that anything that works towards new ideas is a good thing.
As long as private companies and individuals want to develop solutions, using their own money and expertise, I'm good with it. However I do not want tax dollars being diverted to these, or any other companies.
Do you mean if your tax dollars go to help drill for oil?
-
All science is bounded by uncertainties. That doesn't prevent you from accepting gravity, or evolution. That some smart scientists don't believe that global warming is primarily due to anthropogenic causes, and therefore one should reject taking any action based on concluding one way or the other is again, poor logical reasoning. There are some smart people (and scientists) who think the Earth is less than 10,000 years old. That doesn't make holding a neutral ground on that issue intelligent, because the overwhelming majority of the scientific community thinks that the Earth is around four and a half billion years old.
Lol. Of course it's necessary to remove meteorology from climatology, because they don't concern themselves with the same things. Short-term variability that plagues weather forecasts is something that does not affect climatology at all. Predicting the average temperature of 2012 can be done with accuracy. Predicting the temperature of August 15, 2012, cannot be done with any accuracy. Confusing the two just displays your ignorance.
Gravity is certainty, not the result of an agenda-driven junk science campaign. Evolution is certainty, not the result of an agenda-driven junk science campaign. Global warming is completely theoretical, with no data whatsoever to back it up. It's based on hypotheticals, suppositions, random assumptions, wishful thinking, politically driven emotionalism, and fundamental hatred of achievement, not to mention that most unholy economic manifestation of human achievement: Capitalism.
The dirty secret of climate change is that no proof of global warming exists, and none is offered. The reason for that is the proponents of this nonsense are after a political agenda, and really could care less if global warming ever turns out to be true. As long as they get to exercise power and score lucrative government grants, and in the process stop the advance of civilization, all is good.
So, no. I do not want tax dollars wasted on this nonsense. I prefer that we do nothing with respect to global warming. I prefer that fossil fuels just run out in the next 200 years, as they inevitably must, and then cleaner alternatives will naturally take their place. However, I want this all to take place in a free market, with no coercion on the part of the agenda driven environmental movement which always seem to favor a collectivist-statist solution.
In the final analysis, if we are to live under the yoke of the Green movement and all of its compulsion and enslavement, the planet is better off overheating and self-destructing. Better Dead then Green. (Get it?).
-
Do you mean if your tax dollars go to help drill for oil?
No tax dollars should ever be utilized for oil drilling. That is a job for private companies. The important thing is removing government involvement in preventing oil drilling. We need more oil, more gas, more drilling, more fracking, and more high-tech methods of extraction.
-
There are a number of far greater threats to our well-being than the Green Movement.
Big oil, for example.
-
There's no evidence for freedom existing.
-
I don't know why I bother. Once someone has decided that they, one of the bold, intelligent few, has accumulated enough hours of perusing various right-wing blogs and therefore has greater insight than those of the scientific community, all hope is lost.
Though, I suppose WW came around on some things.
Gravity is certainty, not the result of an agenda-driven junk science campaign.
Our current explanation of gravity does not cover all the bases. It's definitely not certain.
Evolution is certainty, not the result of an agenda-driven junk science campaign.
Well, creationists would disagree with you on the latter point, and most would disagree with you on the former.
Global warming is completely theoretical, with no data whatsoever to back it up.
Huh. I could've sworn that temperatures were going up. Like 0.8 degrees over the last century or so. No, you're probably right.
It's based on hypotheticals, suppositions, random assumptions, wishful thinking, politically driven emotionalism, and fundamental hatred of achievement, not to mention that most unholy economic manifestation of human achievement: Capitalism.
Partly yes, partly yes, no, no (why would anyone want it to be happening? And doesn't this contradict your statement previously that climate change is good?), no, no (what a bizarre statement. I'm sure a bunch of climatologists in 1988 were all like "Boy, do we hate America. What's the best way to destroy it and it's achievements?").
The dirty secret of climate change is that no proof of global warming exists, and none is offered. The reason for that is the proponents of this nonsense are after a political agenda, and really could care less if global warming ever turns out to be true. As long as they get to exercise power and score lucrative government grants, and in the process stop the advance of civilization, all is good.
Wait. Are you sure global temperatures aren't rising? I heard all these wacky claims that 2010 was the warmest year on record.
And yes, I'm sure the larger scientific community are all politically motivated, and that's why they're obviously making up all this stuff to control the world. The Jews are probably involved somehow, too...
You, on the other hand, have not allowed your political ideology to influence your opinion at all.
-
On behalf of all jews, I can confirm that Global Warming is indeed a conspiracy, but we're not behind this one. This one is headed by those pesky lizard people.
-
You guys got the invite though, right?
-
You guys got the invite though, right?
We're not really .......in cahoots, we nod to each other on our way in and out of the world government building in Brazil, but it's usually kind of cold between us.
-
Major Thirteenth, while I applaud you for your rock-solid convictions (even though I may disagree with many of them), you need to quit the inflammatory, trolling language. You are not furthering discussion by dismissing arguments simply by attaching the label "junk science," or by dismissing what you would consider weak evidence by instead saying there is no evidence. If you can't have a civil discussion in a mature way by acknowledging other viewpoints besides your own and addressing them in a respectful manner, they you aren't participating properly in what a "discussion forum" is all about, and you will not be allowed to continue posting here.
To a lesser degree, others on the opposite side of the debate have been guilty of the same thing. That needs to stop.
(And, no, I'm not talking about the joke tangent in the last few posts. That literally made me lol and was nothing short of amazing)
-
About those lizards, why is it that when irate and uninformed people create highly improbable stories to explain issues that bother them but are not easily explained in one sweeping statement, they blame it on lizards, of all things?
What is so threatening about small, easily-scared reptiles?
Or Jews, for that matter? The Jews, on average, are very smart and hard-working people who do much good in society, much moreso than the average person, probably.
I mean, really, I thought everyone would realize by now that global warming was created as a source of fuel for the US gov.'s hurricane machine.
But seriously, when it comes to conspiracy theories, why is it always something pinned on something totally random, like The Green Movement?
And on topic, I think what the Green Movement needs is more huge companies backing it. The only reason big oil is so powerful is because it has the money to pay off Washington to make policies promoting its growth. If the Green Movement is able to gain more that amount of money to give to Washington, through giant companies participating, the gov would be Green in a flash, I bet.
-
About those lizards, why is it that when irate and uninformed people create highly improbable stories to explain issues that bother them but are not easily explained in one sweeping statement, they blame it on lizards, of all things?
Because the only other option is to blame the Jews, and some of them have guns. Besides, just look at them:
:V:
You just know they're up to something.
-
Well, those 3 white pixels that appear next to his arm in one of the frames of that animation are quite questionable.
-
I don't know why I bother. Once someone has decided that they, one of the bold, intelligent few, has accumulated enough hours of perusing various right-wing blogs and therefore has greater insight than those of the scientific community, all hope is lost.
Though, I suppose WW came around on some things.
Gravity is certainty, not the result of an agenda-driven junk science campaign.
Our current explanation of gravity does not cover all the bases. It's definitely not certain.
Evolution is certainty, not the result of an agenda-driven junk science campaign.
Well, creationists would disagree with you on the latter point, and most would disagree with you on the former.
Global warming is completely theoretical, with no data whatsoever to back it up.
Huh. I could've sworn that temperatures were going up. Like 0.8 degrees over the last century or so. No, you're probably right.
It's based on hypotheticals, suppositions, random assumptions, wishful thinking, politically driven emotionalism, and fundamental hatred of achievement, not to mention that most unholy economic manifestation of human achievement: Capitalism.
Partly yes, partly yes, no, no (why would anyone want it to be happening? And doesn't this contradict your statement previously that climate change is good?), no, no (what a bizarre statement. I'm sure a bunch of climatologists in 1988 were all like "Boy, do we hate America. What's the best way to destroy it and it's achievements?").
The dirty secret of climate change is that no proof of global warming exists, and none is offered. The reason for that is the proponents of this nonsense are after a political agenda, and really could care less if global warming ever turns out to be true. As long as they get to exercise power and score lucrative government grants, and in the process stop the advance of civilization, all is good.
Wait. Are you sure global temperatures aren't rising? I heard all these wacky claims that 2010 was the warmest year on record.
And yes, I'm sure the larger scientific community are all politically motivated, and that's why they're obviously making up all this stuff to control the world. The Jews are probably involved somehow, too...
You, on the other hand, have not allowed your political ideology to influence your opinion at all.
GP, I applaud you. A very effective rebuttal.
-
Well, it was a very good rebuttal, but something tells me it won't be all that effective.
-
Honestly I think you nailed your own point very well, although admittedly I'm more inclined to believe that skeptics are outright deniers. :P
-
Well, it would be easier if Major Thirteenth better articulated what he believed. Because I'm confused about what he means part of the time. When he says "there's no proof for global warming," for example, I don't know whether he means that temperatures aren't actually rising, that there's nothing to suggest that the the experienced warming is caused by humans (like if the greenhouse effect isn't actually a phenomenon), or whether the evidence presented is fabricated.
-
I don't know why I bother. Once someone has decided that they, one of the bold, intelligent few, has accumulated enough hours of perusing various right-wing blogs and therefore has greater insight than those of the scientific community, all hope is lost.
Are you aware that the scientific community is not in agreement that global warming exists?
Over 30,000 scientists, including over 9,000 Ph.D’s, have now signed the “Oregon Petition”. The petition says this:
“We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind. There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.”
So, I believe we should take a step back and just observe the planet for another 40 or 50 years and see what happens, if anything. Than we would have more data, which would be a good thing, no?
-
Here is a link to a "few" dissenters.
https://www.petitionproject.org/
Since there is no scientific consensus on global warming, I believe there should be no action on global warming. Especially any action that would increase taxation or curtail freedom.
-
I would like to know if those PHD's are in fields even remotely related to the study of climate change. I might look into it tomorrow. Something tell's me they are PHD's in Art or English or something.
-
I don't know why I bother. Once someone has decided that they, one of the bold, intelligent few, has accumulated enough hours of perusing various right-wing blogs and therefore has greater insight than those of the scientific community, all hope is lost.
Are you aware that the scientific community is not in agreement that global warming exists?
Over 30,000 scientists, including over 9,000 Ph.D’s, have now signed the “Oregon Petition”. The petition says this:
“We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind. There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.”
So, I believe we should take a step back and just observe the planet for another 40 or 50 years and see what happens, if anything. Than we would have more data, which would be a good thing, no?
Stating a number like 30,000 scientists is completely irrelevant without taking that number in context of how many scientists there are. Studies and surveys have shown a rather large consensus amongst scientists regarding the issue, and increasingly more in relevant fields.
-
Apparently it is fake.. lol I'll upload links in a minute.
-
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/kevin-grandia/the-30000-global-warming_b_243092.html (https://www.huffingtonpost.com/kevin-grandia/the-30000-global-warming_b_243092.html)
https://www.desmogblog.com/oregon-petition (https://www.desmogblog.com/oregon-petition)
https://debunking.pbworks.com/w/page/17102969/Oregon%20Petition (https://debunking.pbworks.com/w/page/17102969/Oregon%20Petition)
I would put the text in but the websites contain many sources to their claims, plus they are long.
-
Here is a link to a "few" dissenters.
https://www.petitionproject.org/
Since there is no scientific consensus on global warming, I believe there should be no action on global warming. Especially any action that would increase taxation or curtail freedom.
Name a major scientific organization that holds a contrary view on global warming. There is absolutely a consensus on global warming, and there has been (at least amongst climatologists, those whose opinions matter the most) for over 20 years..
Not even the American Association of Petroleum Geologists sides with you anymore.
-
Name a major scientific organization that holds a contrary view on global warming. There is absolutely a consensus on global warming, and there has been (at least amongst climatologists, those whose opinions matter the most) for over 20 years..
Not even the American Association of Petroleum Geologists sides with you anymore.
I'd rather deal with individual scientists. Organizations have a pesky way of pushing agendas, usually related to their funding.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming
As can be seen, there is lots of doubt among some incredibly well respected climatologists.
I know the urge is to discredit them, but they can't all be wrong. It is quite obvious that we need to take a time out and view the data over several more decades and see if a consensus develops. As of now, there is no consensus, and many highly decorated climatologists agree with me.
-
Name a major scientific organization that holds a contrary view on global warming. There is absolutely a consensus on global warming, and there has been (at least amongst climatologists, those whose opinions matter the most) for over 20 years..
Not even the American Association of Petroleum Geologists sides with you anymore.
I'd rather deal with individual scientists. Organizations have a pesky way of pushing agendas, usually related to their funding.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming
As can be seen, there is lots of doubt among some incredibly well respected climatologists.
I know the urge is to discredit them, but they can't all be wrong. It is quite obvious that we need to take a time out and view the data over several more decades and see if a consensus develops. As of now, there is no consensus, and many highly decorated climatologists agree with me.
Only 4 of those people doubt climate change. The others just aren't sure of the cause.
-
Hate to say it, but another 40 or 50 years of watch and wait might not end well. I'm not saying that there definitely is climate change (although I believe there is), but I am a firm believer in erring on the side of caution.
-
Only 4 of those people doubt climate change. The others just aren't sure of the cause.
But the cause is the only thing to fight about! If we aren't causing it, then the issue is moot and we can just return to our regularly scheduled programming.
But aside from that let's get back to all those others who "just aren't sure of the cause". That's my whole point! A veritable who's who of climatology is "not sure of the cause". And that is why we need to wait and continue gathering more data in a calm and rational manner. Not turn the world upside down and mess with economies and behaviors and freedom and individual liberty. Let's just continue monitoring and see what happens.
It is when we hear statements like "global warming is the key issue of our time" that I cringe. It is NOT the key issue of anything, and I just presented a list of respected climatologists who are as divided as anyone else. There is no consensus because there can be no consensus. We have not been observing the data for anywhere near long enough to draw any conclusions. We do not yet have 5% of the necessary modelling technology and power to even approach resolving the question to a logical conclusion.
In short, we need to do nothing. Immediately.
-
Dude, if there's an electrical fire in your house, you don't say "Well........I didn't cause it, no need to leave". You get the hell out and call the fire department.
Human beings don't need to be the cause of something that can drastically effect us.
-
Uncle. For tonight. I can no longer keep up. DT fans love to argue! Global warming, freeloaders, religion, I'm exhausted. I'm going to play some major 13ths as well as some other chords and just go to bed.
I have to wonder if this dialogue would take place on an Avenged Sevenfold forum. Probably not...
-
Uncle. For tonight. I can no longer keep up. DT fans love to argue! Global warming, freeloaders, religion, I'm exhausted. I'm going to play some major 13ths as well as some other chords and just go to bed.
I have to wonder if this dialogue would take place on an Avenged Sevenfold forum. Probably not...
That would be a NIGHTMAAAAAAREEE!
I'm sorry...
-
Only 4 of those people doubt climate change. The others just aren't sure of the cause.
But the cause is the only thing to fight about! If we aren't causing it, then the issue is moot and we can just return to our regularly scheduled programming.
And for a variety of reasons, the regularly scheduled programming should be just about the exact same as if we are causing global warming. Less CO2 is good for a variety of reasons, not just the greenhouse effect. The same goes for other green house gases.
Look at it this way; the US moving to solar, wind, geothermal, and hydrogen means less foreign dependence, less money going overseas, and the end of any justification to have our horrible empire in the middle east. We have the physical empire we have because of economic necessity, and oil. The end of this relationship would be immensely beneficial to our economy, and world peace. This would hardly be an economic catastrophy, it would be a great boon.
-
We have not been observing the data for anywhere near long enough to draw any conclusions.
So over 150 years (actually as of last year, 160 years) of solid confirming data is insufficient...interesting.
-
Name a major scientific organization that holds a contrary view on global warming. There is absolutely a consensus on global warming, and there has been (at least amongst climatologists, those whose opinions matter the most) for over 20 years..
Not even the American Association of Petroleum Geologists sides with you anymore.
I'd rather deal with individual scientists. Organizations have a pesky way of pushing agendas, usually related to their funding.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming
As can be seen, there is lots of doubt among some incredibly well respected climatologists.
I know the urge is to discredit them, but they can't all be wrong. It is quite obvious that we need to take a time out and view the data over several more decades and see if a consensus develops. As of now, there is no consensus, and many highly decorated climatologists agree with me.
I counted 40 scientists on that list. 10 were from the fields of atmospheric science (a little too general, but whatever), meteorology, and climatology.
Thousands of scientists were involved in writing the latest IPCC report. There are 14,000 people in the American Meteorological Society. There are ~2,650,000 American scientists. Do you see how small a number 40 is?
Your claims are incredibly inconsistent. You say that if 40 accredited scientists deny, to varying degrees, the theory of anthropogenic global warming, they cannot all be wrong. At the same time, you're claiming millions of other scientists are wrong.
Meanwhile, I'm sure if someone produced a list of scientists denying evolution (https://www.discoveringdesign.org/scientists.shtml) you would not claim "they can't all be wrong."
Your logic is quite confusing.
-
Uncle. For tonight. I can no longer keep up. DT fans love to argue! Global warming, freeloaders, religion, I'm exhausted. I'm going to play some major 13ths as well as some other chords and just go to bed.
I have to wonder if this dialogue would take place on an Avenged Sevenfold forum. Probably not...
That would be a NIGHTMAAAAAAREEE!
:clap: I think I love you.
On topic: I have to admit, whenever this subject comes up, I VERY rarely weight in because, personally, I am undecided on much of this. I am not taking side here, but feel compelled to back up Maj13th on something: While some of this conclusions may not appear to be the most well-reasoned, if I could restate part of his bigger point on this issue (for the last page or so at least), that there is not the almost-universal agreement on global warming/climate change that some would have us believe (i.e., that it is occuring to the degree some say, that it is harmful, that it is unnatural and can be curbed, etc.). Some of his facts may not be correct. And perhaps his ultimate conclusion, that we should just "wait and see" until there is more of a consensus before taking action, may not be the best. But his point that there are a sizable number of credible dissenters absolutely stands.
-
I counted 40 scientists on that list. 10 were from the fields of atmospheric science (a little too general, but whatever), meteorology, and climatology.
Thousands of scientists were involved in writing the latest IPCC report. There are 14,000 people in the American Meteorological Society. There are ~2,650,000 American scientists. Do you see how small a number 40 is?
Your claims are incredibly inconsistent. You say that if 40 accredited scientists deny, to varying degrees, the theory of anthropogenic global warming, they cannot all be wrong. At the same time, you're claiming millions of other scientists are wrong.
Meanwhile, I'm sure if someone produced a list of scientists denying evolution (https://www.discoveringdesign.org/scientists.shtml) you would not claim "they can't all be wrong."
Your logic is quite confusing.
My contention is there is dissent on global warming within the climatological community. The dissent I produced was the result of a quick search that took only trivial time and effort. Do you seriously not think that I could produce 50 links to thousands of scientists who dissent the premise of global warming? I could. But that would just bore everyone. There is a lot of dissent on the subject, and I predict that dissent will grow over time.
And another thing. The published view of the American Meteorological Society is one thing. The views of its individual members are another. There is significant dissent within the AMS. How do I know this? Because I know 2 of its members who happen to be personal friends of mine. And we have discussed it at length and they both told me that many members disagree with the premise of global warming, either in whole or in part. So you can pretty much throw out "official pronouncements" of the AMS. Those pronouncements do not reflect the individual views of the membership. There is dissent within the AMS, there is dissent without the AMS, there is dissent pretty much throughout the professions related to the discussion.
-
What does the existence of dissenters--a universal phenomenon--have to do with anything?
-J
-
I still don't see how pushing towards new inventions and ideas is a bad thing? Pushing towards using more sustainable devices is a bad thing?
-
I still don't see how pushing towards new inventions and ideas is a bad thing? Pushing towards using more sustainable devices is a bad thing?
It's not. I'm not even sure why M13 brought that up as an issue.
-
I still don't see how pushing towards new inventions and ideas is a bad thing? Pushing towards using more sustainable devices is a bad thing?
Can't speak for him, but I don't think he is against it. I think he is merely against the government spending tax money to do it as opposed to the free market dictating that it be done privately.
-
I'd personally prefer that innovation towards a country that is friendly to the environment be spearheaded by the free market, too. Unfortunately, the cats who profit from sticking with the old ways are the ones with wallets fat enough to get Washington to make policies that give them an unfair advantage over alternative energies. So, I realize that game-breaking changes have to be made in Washington to even the playing field for alternative energies to make any sort of progress towards their being the new standard. The free market has its pros and cons; it's not some sort of magic cure-all. There is no magic cure-all; hence why no tactic is guaranteed to work in all circumstances. Hell, the solution I proposed probably would have its drawbacks, as well, though I bet there would be fewer than relying on the free market, and in a situation in which the potential solutions have their share of pros and cons, I'm going with the one with a pro to con ratio stacked in favor of the pros.
-
I still don't see how pushing towards new inventions and ideas is a bad thing? Pushing towards using more sustainable devices is a bad thing?
Can't speak for him, but I don't think he is against it. I think he is merely against the government spending tax money to do it as opposed to the free market dictating that it be done privately.
So that makes sense... then why the focus on whether Global warming is real or man caused? If the end result is innovation and progress, does it matter what the catalyst for that is?
-
I counted 40 scientists on that list. 10 were from the fields of atmospheric science (a little too general, but whatever), meteorology, and climatology.
Thousands of scientists were involved in writing the latest IPCC report. There are 14,000 people in the American Meteorological Society. There are ~2,650,000 American scientists. Do you see how small a number 40 is?
Your claims are incredibly inconsistent. You say that if 40 accredited scientists deny, to varying degrees, the theory of anthropogenic global warming, they cannot all be wrong. At the same time, you're claiming millions of other scientists are wrong.
Meanwhile, I'm sure if someone produced a list of scientists denying evolution (https://www.discoveringdesign.org/scientists.shtml) you would not claim "they can't all be wrong."
Your logic is quite confusing.
My contention is there is dissent on global warming within the climatological community. The dissent I produced was the result of a quick search that took only trivial time and effort. Do you seriously not think that I could produce 50 links to thousands of scientists who dissent the premise of global warming? I could. But that would just bore everyone. There is a lot of dissent on the subject, and I predict that dissent will grow over time.
And another thing. The published view of the American Meteorological Society is one thing. The views of its individual members are another. There is significant dissent within the AMS. How do I know this? Because I know 2 of its members who happen to be personal friends of mine. And we have discussed it at length and they both told me that many members disagree with the premise of global warming, either in whole or in part. So you can pretty much throw out "official pronouncements" of the AMS. Those pronouncements do not reflect the individual views of the membership. There is dissent within the AMS, there is dissent without the AMS, there is dissent pretty much throughout the professions related to the discussion.
Yes, there is dissent. There is dissent within the scientific community on nearly every theory. So what? The amount of dissent is trivial when compared to the amount of support. There is absolutely a consensus on the causes of global warming.
Your claims are incredibly illogical. By your view, the views of two of its members conclusively undermine the premise that the official stated position of the AMS is that anthropogenic global warming is real. By that standard, I could claim that the Republic Party opposes universal suffrage.
You make no distinction between the existence of claims and the prevalence of them. That is a ludicrous approach to have. By your logic, Ron Paul won the last Presidential election, because thousands of people voted for him. How could Obama have won a majority of the popular vote if thousands of people voted for other candidates?
As for dissent within the scientific community over global warming, it's reasonably fair to say it's gone down over time. It's emergence as a political issue has increased coverage of the science and the opinions of those on either side, but ever since the consolidation of a consensus amongst climatologists in 1988, the evidence for the phenomenon has solidified (both with more accurate estimations of past temperatures, the increased prevalence of satellite data, and the rising temperatures of the '90s and '00s) and accordingly, those holding opposing views have diminished. Just as importantly, no other theory has emerged that accounts for the changes we are experiencing in our atmosphere.
-
Just as importantly, no other theory has emerged that accounts for the changes we are experiencing in our atmosphere.
Being aware of Roy Spencer's research, and discussing it on this forum, I don't understand how you can say that. But even if he turns to be wrong, an entirely new theory isn't necessary. There's a whole lot of literature that raises questions not about the cause or existence of the warming but the amount of warming and how society will adapt to it. By the way, economists have much to say about that last issue and they're conclusions are almost entirely ignored when conclusions about climate change are drawn.
-
Just as importantly, no other theory has emerged that accounts for the changes we are experiencing in our atmosphere.
Being aware of Roy Spencer's research, and discussing it on this forum, I don't understand how you can say that. But even if he turns to be wrong, an entirely new theory isn't necessary. There's a whole lot of literature that raises questions not about the cause or existence of the warming but the amount of warming and how society will adapt to it. By the way, economists have much to say about that last issue and they're conclusions are almost entirely ignored when conclusions about climate change are drawn.
The increase in temperatures can't be radiatively forced. It fails on two very basic levels:
1. We can measure insolation; it follows (in the short-term) an 11 year pattern, and does not correlate with observed temperature increases
2. Temperatures in the stratosphere are decreasing
As for economists, the way we adapt to global warming would be a secondary consideration if we could prevent it. But I agree in principle that solutions from outside the scientific community would be welcome on how best to frame and plan long-term responses to increasing temperatures and the other considerations that brings with it.
-
Just as importantly, no other theory has emerged that accounts for the changes we are experiencing in our atmosphere.
No. That's wrong. What you should have said is that "no other theory has emerged that I accept". Other theories have emerged.
The FACT is the sun is by far the single most powerful driving force on our climate, and the fact is we do not understand how it affects us as much as some think we do.
Prevailing theories supporting the anthro model generally agree that the Sun had a major influence on climate change for most of the 20th century, but that it's influence paled in comparison to our own in the past 20 or 50 years; while the Sun showed a significant warming trend for over 150 years!
Temperatures increased from 1975 to 1998. From about 1990 onward the Sun has shown a downward trend in temperature (albeit it's sunspot cycle is for reasons unknown now stronger and shorter and, technically speaking, its magnetic field leakage is weaker and its cosmic ray shielding effect stronger).
However- with the exception of 2010, NOAA has stated that since 1998 global temperatures have stalled. So, temperatures increased as the Suns temperature and activity increased, and when it peaked in activity about 1990, within a few years global warming stalled. A coincidence? You betcha! A connection? Probably!
To basically plug your ears and shout down any other theory or explanation is just ridiculous! Again, anthro supporters play the numbers game citing the number of scientists supporting their theories, which is fine I guess if that helps them win an argument. But hell, prevailing wisdom once thought the world was flat too.
My OPINION is that the inherent danger I see with this whole thing is the politicizing of this issue. We've even seen many people who can't even get grant money (always follow the money first) who not necessarily disagree, but who simply question the science behind this issue. AND there are those who would like for us to simply return to the damn stone age basically when it comes to our energy policies globally, and they have a huge voice in this issue (albeit they are small in number for sure).
I'm ALL for finding alternative energy sources for cleaner air, water, environment, no dependence of foreign oil, reduced pollution, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc. But DO NOT tell me it has to be done through penalizing people, or denying people energy at all, because were blaming us for climate shifts and changes that we might not be responsible for and we certainly don't yet fully understand!
Also, I'm not as quick to shout that the sky is falling, and IF we find out it is indeed NOT, risking setting science back on it's ass for a 100 years because the "sheeple" will then choose to ignore the "scientific community" at large for other things because of lack of credibility over getting this one wrong.
Now, I won't change your mind, and you won't change mine on this issue on this message board, so attacking my points, producing someones stats that are sure to support your THEORY, and calling me a "conspiracy theorist" won't do any good really, but to say there are NOT any other theories is really rather absurd wouldn't you say?
-
So I think we have established conclusively that there is lots of credible dissent to the theory of global warming. So, with that in mind, it is important to take a step back and collect more data over the next 100 years. During that period of time, there should be no talk of destroying our freedom or our opportunity. It would be a waste to attempt to solve a problem that many do not even believe exists.
I believe that the political strategy of those who support global warming is to create fear and panic by making claims that there will be a tipping point after which the planet will basically enter an event horizon from which escape will be impossible. The hysterical nature of global warming proponents is probably what made me suspicious of them in the first place. They seem to be in such a rush to construct taxpayer supported programs where vast sums of money are moved around the globe to "responsible" people who "know what to do". Or rich countries being forced to send trillions to "developing" countries to fund their "green" development. The whole thing has a foul stench.
I do think we need to "follow the money" as was mentioned. I suspect we will discover unsavoryness.
-
Just as importantly, no other theory has emerged that accounts for the changes we are experiencing in our atmosphere.
No. That's wrong. What you should have said is that "no other theory has emerged that I accept". Other theories have emerged.
No, I'm right. I'd suggest you look up the scientific definition of "theory," because there is no other well-accepted or well-supported hypothesis that accurately accounts for the changes in our atmosphere.
The FACT is the sun is by far the single most powerful driving force on our climate, and the fact is we do not understand how it affects us as much as some think we do.
Prevailing theories supporting the anthro model generally agree that the Sun had a major influence on climate change for most of the 20th century, but that it's influence paled in comparison to our own in the past 20 or 50 years; while the Sun showed a significant warming trend for over 150 years!
Of course the Sun is the most influential single factor in our climate. That doesn't mean it is necessarily the source of this particular period of warming.
I don't know where you're getting these claims from. Sunspot activity peaked in the '60s and then again in the '80s; there's no evidence to suggest continued warming is due to higher solar energy output.
Temperatures increased from 1975 to 1998. From about 1990 onward the Sun has shown a downward trend in temperature (albeit it's sunspot cycle is for reasons unknown now stronger and shorter and, technically speaking, its magnetic field leakage is weaker and its cosmic ray shielding effect stronger).
Uhh, temperatures have continued to rise after 1998. And I still don't know where you're getting these claims about general increases or decreases in the Sun's temperature.
(https://blogs.edf.org/climate411/wp-content/files/2007/07/SolarOutput1.png)
However- with the exception of 2010, NOAA has stated that since 1998 global temperatures have stalled. So, temperatures increased as the Suns temperature and activity increased, and when it peaked in activity about 1990, within a few years global warming stalled. A coincidence? You betcha! A connection? Probably!
What? This isn't true at all. 2005 and 2010 were within the margin of error of 1998, and the five-year averages of temperature have continued to rise. And the above image shows that in accordance with the 11-year cycle, solar output has been just as high since 1990 in the most recent maximum.
To basically plug your ears and shout down any other theory or explanation is just ridiculous! Again, anthro supporters play the numbers game citing the number of scientists supporting their theories, which is fine I guess if that helps them win an argument. But hell, prevailing wisdom once thought the world was flat too.
Comparing the opinion of highly trained, educated, and specialized scientists with the opinion of uneducated peasants 1000 years ago is pretty dumb.
But I'll re-post the simple 2 reasons why the increase in global temperature is not due to the Sun:
1. We can measure insolation; it follows (in the short-term) an 11 year pattern, and does not correlate with observed temperature increases
2. Temperatures in the stratosphere are decreasing
-
So I think we have established conclusively that there is lots of credible dissent to the theory of global warming.
No we haven't. You showed 4 people who denied it.
-
No we haven't. You showed 4 people who denied it.
Please re-read. The links of dissenters I found in about 30 seconds was well over 30,000. I could find tens of thousands more and post pages and pages of credible and informed descent. But that would not be entertaining. There is credible dissent, there is lots of it, it stretches far and wide, it is interdisciplinary, it is highly qualified, it reaches around the globe, and it will eventually increase as the inconvenient truth becomes better researched and exposed for what it is.
So let's stop and NOT send trillions of dollars to anyone for the time being.
-
No we haven't. You showed 4 people who denied it.
Please re-read. The links of dissenters I found in about 30 seconds was well over 30,000. I could find tens of thousands more and post pages and pages of credible and informed descent. But that would not be entertaining. There is credible dissent, there is lots of it, it stretches far and wide, it is interdisciplinary, it is highly qualified, it reaches around the globe, and it will eventually increase as the inconvenient truth becomes better researched and exposed for what it is.
So let's stop and NOT send trillions of dollars to anyone for the time being.
Yes, 29,700 or so of which are just random people with no authority. Those don't count. Or else you count as a credible dissenter.
-
Yes, 29,700 or so of which are just random people with no authority. Those don't count. Or else you count as a credible dissenter.
OK, so that gets us up from 4 to 304, I guess that's a concession...
-
Here are a few more:
https://www.co2science.org/
-
36,509 people voted for Ron Paul in 2008. Therefore, the majority of people could not have voted for Obama.
-
Why the focus on whether Global warming is real or man caused? If the end result is innovation and progress, does it matter what the catalyst for that is?
-
Why the focus on whether Global warming is real or man caused? If the end result is innovation and progress, does it matter what the catalyst for that is?
Because there is no real incentive to move to renewable energy in the short term if current energy sources are not the cause of rising temperatures.
-
Why the focus on whether Global warming is real or man caused? If the end result is innovation and progress, does it matter what the catalyst for that is?
Good thinking, but you're making too much sense. In this world, people with power rely primarily on potential profit margins and probability of the outcome leading to funds for the next election campaign. Unless Washington is seriously reformed, environmental reform will sadly remain on the outskirts until it becomes extremely lucrative for them and their Wall Street pimps.
-
Why the focus on whether Global warming is real or man caused? If the end result is innovation and progress, does it matter what the catalyst for that is?
Because there is no real incentive to move to renewable energy in the short term if current energy sources are not the cause of rising temperatures.
The fact that the non-renewable energy sources wont last forever isn't a good enough reason? It HAS to be global warming?
-
Big oil has a lot of money. The gov likes money, particularily Sens and Reps who can get big money from lobbyists from the oil barons if they make things a lot easier for the oil to be the dominant fuel. They think in the sort term, because they are hedonistic and honestly couldn't give an F about the long term. They're living well and will die soon, anyways.
We really ought to get off oil, though. Renewable energy as the energy standard is a crucial goal to reach, but it'll be difficult to overcome the big oil and their fat wallets. :(
-
Why the focus on whether Global warming is real or man caused? If the end result is innovation and progress, does it matter what the catalyst for that is?
Because there is no real incentive to move to renewable energy in the short term if current energy sources are not the cause of rising temperatures.
The fact that the non-renewable energy sources wont last forever isn't a good enough reason? It HAS to be global warming?
Oil might take 200 or 300 years to run out, depending on future use and the discovery of other reserves.
Greenhouse gas emissions need to be cut by 80-90% within the next thirty years or so to prevent global temperature from increasing by over 2 degrees C.
There's a massive gulf between the two scenarios in terms of how quickly non-renewables need to be replaced.
-
Why the focus on whether Global warming is real or man caused? If the end result is innovation and progress, does it matter what the catalyst for that is?
Because there is no real incentive to move to renewable energy in the short term if current energy sources are not the cause of rising temperatures.
The fact that the non-renewable energy sources wont last forever isn't a good enough reason? It HAS to be global warming?
Don't bother, he's ignored my argument for this numerous times. It apparently has to be global warming, otherwise, it makes no sense.
m13, do you know about ocean acidification and the corresponding results of having 450ppm of CO2 in our atmosphere?
-
I've definitely heard of ocean acidification; too much acidity (or basicness, for that matter) would make the oceans' pH uninhabitable for it's life, is that right?
And I'm guessing that 450 ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere would be a high enough concentration to raise the temperature to some rather high point, on average, considering that it's a greenhouse gas. Am I on the right page?
-
Oil might take 200 or 300 years to run out, depending on future use and the discovery of other reserves.
Greenhouse gas emissions need to be cut by 80-90% within the next thirty years or so to prevent global temperature from increasing by over 2 degrees C.
There's a massive gulf between the two scenarios in terms of how quickly non-renewables need to be replaced.
I guess my point is that "why" shouldn't really be the issue debated. There seems to be a common knowledge that our current resources aren't going to last forever and that our current state could be improved with new technologies. "When" is also not the issue to be debated, as the faster anything is addressed the better to reduce our dependence on foreign markets and limit pollutants. The real issue at hand to debate would be the "how".
-
I've definitely heard of ocean acidification; too much acidity (or basicness, for that matter) would make the oceans' pH uninhabitable for it's life, is that right?
Pretty much; it destroys a huge section of the bottom of the food chain, causing massive collapse (whatever left of it anyways...)
-
And I'm guessing that 450 ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere would be a high enough concentration to raise the temperature to some rather high point, on average, considering that it's a greenhouse gas. Am I on the right page?
Master Shak, I'm glad you've asked.
https://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect/venus/greenhouse.html
It's the potentially anthropogenic Armageddon that keeps me up at night.
Fake edit: And I realize it's not the best source, but it's the best I can do at short notice.
Fake edit 2: But hey, in a rather relieving turn of events, the labs at Mauna in Hawaii have released atmospheric data weekly at co2now.org, and if their data is correct, the CO2 concentration has happily gone down almost four points since around mid-May this year.
-
It's an annual fluctuation. Plants uptake more CO2 in the summer as they're growing. See:
(https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/ccgg/trends/co2_trend_gl.png)
-
Well that's disheartening. Or we should just plant more trees.
-
Well that's disheartening. Or we should just plant more trees.
It would be a start. Deforestation is one of the biggest sources (second-biggest, I think, obviously after the burning of fossil fuels) of human CO2 emissions, because burning/cutting them down produces CO2, processing the wood into lumber or other products produces CO2, and the trees not being alive anymore prevents them from converting CO2.
-
Dammit, I hated hippies as a kid and now I'm becoming one! :lol
-
A little good news to turn your frowns upside down.
https://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2011/08/15/climate-models-not-so-good-for-crop-prediction/#more-503
The climate models are fairly lousy at predicting changes in crop production, and that means more food for everybody. By the way, I didn't say everything is lovely everywhere and at all times. The study only covers agricultural regions in the U.S. But it's still good news, seeing as how we produce a lot of food.
-
This issue with crop production is more to do with places like India, China, and sub-Saharan Africa. The United States will not lack for food; I'd expect the potential crop yields of Canada and Russia will increase massively. The writers of the study quoted are absolutely correct to warn that the results in the United States, where farmers are much wealthier, and better able to adapt, will not necessarily mimic the results increased temperatures will have on Zimbabwe.
-
Yeah, I've never doubted the US's personal fortunes in this; my concern is with the bigger picture. I am not worried at all about global warming, but I am completely terrified of runaway global warming.
-
Wolfgang Wagner, editor of Remote Sensing, has stepped down over publishing the article discussed here by Spencer and Braswell.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-14768574
-
Read that. Seems like an overblown reaction to be honest.
-
Wolfgang Wagner, editor of Remote Sensing, has stepped down over publishing the article discussed here by Spencer and Braswell.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-14768574
What a bunch of bullshit. Remote Sensing (https://retractionwatch.wordpress.com/2011/09/02/editor-of-remote-sensing-resigns-over-controversial-climate-paper-co-author-stands-by-it/) isn't going to retract the paper - "Remote Sensing’s editor Wagner tells us the journal is not considering retracting the study. 'No, neither the publisher nor I have so far considered this [retraction]. On the one hand, as I wrote in the editorial, formally everything was correct with the review. On the other hand we believe that it is much better to treat this issue in an open and scientific manner. Therefore the publisher is already working on inviting the science community to respond to this paper.'"
In other words, the process will continue as it always has. The study was published and now the journal will probably publish a rebuttal of some kind, which Spencer said needs to happen if there is a flaw in his study. What's with all the drama?
-
I don't get why'd he resign, but the fact that the man feels like he "failed" the scientific community really says something about the paper published, or at east the implications trying to be drawn from the study.
-
Maybe if he meant he failed science because of his shameful connections to a political scene and not a scientific one.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2011/09/editor-in-chief-of-remote-sensing-resigns-from-fallout-over-our-paper/
-
New low for Arctic sea ice: 4.24 million km^2.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/north/story/2011/09/12/science-arctic-sea-ice-record.html
-
Okay - I don't buy into global warming. I just don't think the evidence is there to convince me. Not saying it's a hoax or anything, I'm just saying that I don't buy into it.
-
Why not? The overwhelming majority of climatologists think there's enough evidence.
And the basic mechanism is both proven and easy to understand.
-
Why not? The overwhelming majority of climatologists think there's enough evidence.
And the basic mechanism is both proven and easy to understand.
Nothing compelling. Earth gets cold, Earth gets hot. It happens in cycles.
-
Sure it does, but those cycles tend to occur over the course of centuries or more; this one seems to be happening on the order of decades, years even.
I almost wrote a whole big edit describing the ways this time was different from previous warmings and coolings, but I'll just sum up by saying that people who are concerned are so because the warming is not only occurring at a faster rate but to a greater degree than previously. The most recent warming periods before this saw 0.1-0.2 degree C change, and the most recent cooling around 1-2 degrees. Over half the time we've already covered that ground, and we're expected to take up at least a 2 degree change since 1850 by the year 2050, and some predict by 2100 we'll have hit a 7 degree change.
-
Why not? The overwhelming majority of climatologists think there's enough evidence.
And the basic mechanism is both proven and easy to understand.
Nothing compelling. Earth gets cold, Earth gets hot. It happens in cycles.
But the greenhouse effect is a proven phenomenon. Considering there has been no other major changes to our atmosphere over the past 100-150 years, doesn't the increase in greenhouse gases make for compelling evidence that the warming the Earth has experienced is anthropogenic in cause?
-
Why not? The overwhelming majority of climatologists think there's enough evidence.
And the basic mechanism is both proven and easy to understand.
Nothing compelling. Earth gets cold, Earth gets hot. It happens in cycles.
Death is natural, does that make all deaths natural?
-
Even if I was a climate skeptic I'd still probably be supportive of alternative energies. I mean if there is low risk of catastrophe (and the risk is definitely greater), I'd think the high cost would be enough to justify it. Why risk it, even if you believe it's unlikely? In other words, is it worth the cost of being wrong?
-
I think the defiance of GW is a picture-perfect example of political opportunism. GW has long gone beyond question in moderate circles, it's really mostly used by right-wing politicians to create the feeling of being besieged and thus rally their constituents behind them. Same thing with Evolution.
rumborak
-
Oh I didn't mean public officials, I meant the constituents themselves. Even as a Republican voter (not a Tea Partier, maybe) my philosophy would still be to err on the side of caution. Because what if you are wrong, and you have doomed the nation because you thought it was too unlikely to worry about anyway?
-
Why the focus on whether Global warming is real or man caused? If the end result is innovation and progress, does it matter what the catalyst for that is?
Because there is no real incentive to move to renewable energy in the short term if current energy sources are not the cause of rising temperatures.
How about not having our balls in the hands of those folks in the middle east?
-
Why the focus on whether Global warming is real or man caused? If the end result is innovation and progress, does it matter what the catalyst for that is?
Because there is no real incentive to move to renewable energy in the short term if current energy sources are not the cause of rising temperatures.
How about not having our balls in the hands of those folks in the middle east?
Not to mention the public health issues, the various government "gimmes" necessary to keep oil dominant, the oil peak we are rapidly reaching, etc.
-
Here's a problem I always seem to encounter: why is it only liberals who are concerned with global warming? Even if I agree with alternative political ideologies, I can't jive with any of them because they all believe global warming is a myth and that we shouldn't do anything about it.
-
Here's a problem I always seem to encounter: why is it only liberals who are concerned with global warming? Even if I agree with alternative political ideologies, I can't jive with any of them because they all believe global warming is a myth and that we shouldn't do anything about it.
Because liberals are more open-minded, and generally more scientific.
-
Here's a problem I always seem to encounter: why is it only liberals who are concerned with global warming? Even if I agree with alternative political ideologies, I can't jive with any of them because they all believe global warming is a myth and that we shouldn't do anything about it.
Because it's a conspiracy by the left!!! :justjen
It's an interesting question though, and I think it's partially due to the fundamental platform of liberalism. Liberals tend to think more about society as a whole and ensuring their well-being. Being concerned with global warming is a logical extension of that.
Here's a problem I always seem to encounter: why is it only liberals who are concerned with global warming? Even if I agree with alternative political ideologies, I can't jive with any of them because they all believe global warming is a myth and that we shouldn't do anything about it.
Because liberals are more open-minded, and generally more scientific.
Eh...I don't really buy that, if only for the negative implication on everyone else.
-
Here's a problem I always seem to encounter: why is it only liberals who are concerned with global warming? Even if I agree with alternative political ideologies, I can't jive with any of them because they all believe global warming is a myth and that we shouldn't do anything about it.
Because liberals are more open-minded, and generally more scientific.
Eh...I don't really buy that, if only for the negative implication on everyone else.
I didn't say other people are neither of those things, only that liberals are more so. I'm more talking about personal disposition too, and not necessarily where you fall on the current political spectrum, though there's a lot of similarities. It's part of what definition of "liberal," as well as numerous studies on the matter. Take your paradigm conservative and your paradigm liberal, and they'll disagree on global warming and evolution.
-
Here's a problem I always seem to encounter: why is it only liberals who are concerned with global warming? Even if I agree with alternative political ideologies, I can't jive with any of them because they all believe global warming is a myth and that we shouldn't do anything about it.
Political Ideology is the key. An ad hoc world view based on personal preference instead of principles. Most people have a hard time separating their personal preferences (World View) with a political system. People on both sides of the standard left/right paradigm tend to support political action on what hey personally believe for themselves. For example, the traditional religious conservative believes in God and Creation, so they are appalled that someone would ever want to teach evolution so they attempt to use political action to keep it out of schools (or atleast keep Creation taught in schools). A left leaning environmentalist believes the Earth should not be defiled so they attempt to use political action to create protected area's from development regardless of what it would be used for.
-
Actually I'm an environmentalist because I want my grandkids to have grandkids, not because of some tree-hugging anti-modernity shit. So yeah, I don't indiscriminately oppose all development, just the dirty stuff. Although honestly, what's wrong with having national parks?
Although in principle, I agree with you: personal aspirations have become very closely tied with ideology.
-
Actually I'm an environmentalist because I want my grandkids to have grandkids, not because of some tree-hugging anti-modernity shit. So yeah, I don't indiscriminately oppose all development, just the dirty stuff. Although honestly, what's wrong with having national parks?
Although in principle, I agree with you: personal aspirations have become very closely tied with ideology.
There's nothing wrong with wanting to have a clean environment or national parks, but some people seem to place their preference above all others and use the State to force that end. That's the part that causes problems.
-
Here's a problem I always seem to encounter: why is it only liberals who are concerned with global warming? Even if I agree with alternative political ideologies, I can't jive with any of them because they all believe global warming is a myth and that we shouldn't do anything about it.
Because liberals are more open-minded, and generally more scientific.
What's your basis for that? It may be true, but there are a lot of variables that come to mind upon reading that. For example, what makes one more scientific? It seems awfully easy to equate open mindedness with whatever ideology you (speaking generally) prefer, because most people think of objectively good things as the foundation for their politics - progress, critical thinking, and so forth. It gets circular in a hurry.
-
Well I'm certainly not a purveyor of libertarian porn, but I guess I could do to be a bit more open-minded. :eyebrows:
Actually I'm an environmentalist because I want my grandkids to have grandkids, not because of some tree-hugging anti-modernity shit. So yeah, I don't indiscriminately oppose all development, just the dirty stuff. Although honestly, what's wrong with having national parks?
Although in principle, I agree with you: personal aspirations have become very closely tied with ideology.
There's nothing wrong with wanting to have a clean environment or national parks, but some people seem to place their preference above all others and use the State to force that end. That's the part that causes problems.
If you mean the people who assume such a policy solely for its own sake (i.e. for the sake of the trees and animals alone), then I agree with you. The only reason I personally would endorse such measures is because while much of the opposition is so worried about implementing measures that might risk them a life of comfort or at least the high standard of living we currently enjoy in this nation, what we really should be worrying about is whether the human race will live to see past the year 2100.
-
Here's a problem I always seem to encounter: why is it only liberals who are concerned with global warming? Even if I agree with alternative political ideologies, I can't jive with any of them because they all believe global warming is a myth and that we shouldn't do anything about it.
Because liberals are more open-minded, and generally more scientific.
What's your basis for that? It may be true, but there are a lot of variables that come to mind upon reading that. For example, what makes one more scientific? It seems awfully easy to equate open mindedness with whatever ideology you (speaking generally) prefer, because most people think of objectively good things as the foundation for their politics - progress, critical thinking, and so forth. It gets circular in a hurry.
Look up liberal in the dictionary and a thesaurus. It's just part of what it means to be a "liberal," historically as well (liberal thought is highly intertwined with early scientific thought).
Open mindedness has nothing to do with what you actually believe, simply how you approach that belief, and other possibilities. Conservatives are generally more firm on their beliefs, have more conviction. Just look at how willing to compromise liberals always are, whereas most conservatives won't accept compromise no matter what.
But ya, it's not a clear break, and I'm not saying conservatives are science hating Luddites, or something like that. Our conservatives today are a hell of a lot more liberal than people in the 1600's, so it's a comparison.
-
I think part of it has to do with the nature of the response required. Human combustion of fossil fuels occurs on such a massive scale, it's obvious that the market won't take care of itself (not just in the scale or in the vested economic interests, but also because the market has no concern for 5, let alone 50, years from now) and grassroots campaigns won't work either. The only real approach to it is a series of restrictions upon the world's economy, as well as a government-led shift into renewable resources.
-
I can sorta see that. But I always saw it as being an excuse, not a reason non-liberals tend to oppose global warming.
-
Ozone loss at the North Pole reaches a new high, forming for the first time in recorded history an "ozone hole" there, similar to the one that forms yearly at the South Pole.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15105747
-
So wait...is the Arctic climate getting colder or warmer? And doesn't less ozone actually mean more CO2 able to escape the atmosphere?
-
The Arctic climate is most definitely getting warmer. But the stratosphere is getting cooler. Because, you know, greenhouse gases trap heat in the troposphere.
The cooling is what is helping destroy the ozone, because it aids in the formation of polar stratospheric clouds. The formation of PSCs loose bromine and chlorine free radicals that destroy ozone.
Global warming also has some effects on atmospheric dynamics. Increased temperatures change the polar vortex and increase the zonal winds in the upper troposphere; both result in a cooling of the stratosphere.
A third effect is an increased transport of water vapour into the stratosphere due to warmer tropospheric temperatures; higher H20 concentrations enable free radicals to be activated at warmer temperatures than normal.
And ozone doesn't have anything to do with CO2 escaping the atmosphere. For all intents and purposes, no CO2 "escapes" from our atmosphere (towards space).
-
If it doesn't "escape," how does CO2 leave our atmosphere?
-
If it doesn't "escape," how does CO2 leave our atmosphere?
Plants
-
Just the regular ol' carbon cycle.
-
Here's a problem I always seem to encounter: why is it only liberals who are concerned with global warming? Even if I agree with alternative political ideologies, I can't jive with any of them because they all believe global warming is a myth and that we shouldn't do anything about it.
Because liberals are more open-minded, and generally more scientific.
What's your basis for that? It may be true, but there are a lot of variables that come to mind upon reading that. For example, what makes one more scientific? It seems awfully easy to equate open mindedness with whatever ideology you (speaking generally) prefer, because most people think of objectively good things as the foundation for their politics - progress, critical thinking, and so forth. It gets circular in a hurry.
Look up liberal in the dictionary and a thesaurus. It's just part of what it means to be a "liberal," historically as well (liberal thought is highly intertwined with early scientific thought).
Open mindedness has nothing to do with what you actually believe, simply how you approach that belief, and other possibilities. Conservatives are generally more firm on their beliefs, have more conviction. Just look at how willing to compromise liberals always are, whereas most conservatives won't accept compromise no matter what.
But ya, it's not a clear break, and I'm not saying conservatives are science hating Luddites, or something like that. Our conservatives today are a hell of a lot more liberal than people in the 1600's, so it's a comparison.
I dont think there's any evidence that liberals are more willing to compromise than conservatives. I'm not a conservative myself, but I dont think there's any empirical justification for this.
Personally, I find that political compromise isn't always a good thing. One should stick to principles, especially congress members. For example, one shouldn't vote for a bill simply because its more of a compromise relative to a previous version. If its wrong, stick to your beliefs. Thats why the people voted you into office.
Moreover, scientists should apply this also. Fact is, global warming isn't scientifically proven. As someone who deals firsthand with the financial models that destroyed the economy because they overreached, I know how easily these models fail when they try to describe something as chaotic and non-linear as a system such as the earth's climate. There are literally millions of variables that influence temperature, and no current mathematical generalizations have been able to accurately predict future temperatures.
Being skpetical about climate change is exteremly scientific. I liken people like Al Gore to religious fanatics who are as far from scientifiic as possible.
-
Global warming is scientifically proven. We have over 150 years of cold, hard evidence and charts that I'd be happy to show you.
-
I don't understand people who say the atmosphere is too chaotic to understand. Sure, on the very short-term, it's pretty damn hard to. That's why 5-day weather forecasts don't have that much accuracy.
But on the larger scale? We sure as hell can anticipate what the atmosphere's going to do. We may not be able to model some of the more complex features, but useable approximations can be developed and reasonable models can be formed.
-
In my ENVS class learning about an interesting little idea called cellulosic ethanol. If we can achieve 30% efficiency with it, we would emit 91% less CO2 than with oil, and it would cost $2.50/gallon. Sounds like a big win to me.
-
Global warming is scientifically proven. We have over 150 years of cold, hard evidence and charts that I'd be happy to show you.
Show me
-
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/75/Instrumental_Temperature_Record_%28NASA%29.svg)
Seems to be going up to me.
-
I actually had another one (two, actually) but that works too. :)
-
Oh also, I just came across a nice, simple model that explains why human activities might have such a huge impact on atmospheric carbon, global warming and all that nonsense if we're just that: puny, insignificant humans:
(https://www.skepticalscience.com/images/Carbon_Cycle.gif)
In lamest terms, natural carbon producers naturally (sorry, couldn't come up with a better term) offset the emissions they make, whereas humans do not.
-
I dont think there's any evidence that liberals are more willing to compromise than conservatives. I'm not a conservative myself, but I dont think there's any empirical justification for this.
Have you paid attention to politics? Democrats and liberals constantly compromise their bills, their plans, their agenda's, and the Republicans constantly refuse to compromise or even agree to the agreements they already came up with.
Also, to clarify what I mean, in American, "conservatives" and "liberals" differ by degree, not by kind. You're conservative, but historically and comparatively speaking, you are quite liberal.
Personally, I find that political compromise isn't always a good thing. One should stick to principles, especially congress members. For example, one shouldn't vote for a bill simply because its more of a compromise relative to a previous version. If its wrong, stick to your beliefs. Thats why the people voted you into office.
I think this is a good reason why the above is true. Politically, I think it's necessary to compromise. There's a difference between compromising on a political bill, in order to get something done, than compromising your personal beliefs. If you're actually fighting for your ideals (and not a corrupt piece of shit), then this will be reflected in the bill that results.
And yes, quality is still important, not sure what "more of a compromise" would entail in all situations, becuase you can meet in the middle in many many many different ways.
Moreover, scientists should apply this also. Fact is, global warming isn't scientifically proven. As someone who deals firsthand with the financial models that destroyed the economy because they overreached, I know how easily these models fail when they try to describe something as chaotic and non-linear as a system such as the earth's climate. There are literally millions of variables that influence temperature, and no current mathematical generalizations have been able to accurately predict future temperatures.
Being skpetical about climate change is exteremly scientific. I liken people like Al Gore to religious fanatics who are as far from scientifiic as possible.
The basics of global warming are undeniable, CO2 and greenhouse gases do raise the temperature of the planet, and they're also pollution and harmful in other ways.
(https://nathan-lee.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/whatIfGetABetterPlanetForNothing.jpg)
On top of this: Ocean Acidification (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidification)
I don't get why you're skeptical only in one direction. I'm fully skeptical about what exactly will happen to the planet, but taking that same view of human ignorance, isn't it quite stupid to keep pumping chemicals into an ecosystem we don't understand? Are we going to destroy the planet? No, that's merely anthropocentric bullshit. Ya, the planets temperature has fluctuated in the past; but are you aware of the consequences, and in some cases the cause? The first photosynthetic life forms nearly destroyed the planet for all known forms of life, and they're just fucking bacteria. Also, these temperature shifts have not always been kind to the then current life forms; you're a current life form.
-
You don't believe in the possibility of runaway greenhouse effect, do you Scheavo?
-
This may sound stupid... but why don't scientists look at ways of genetically modifying plant life forms to consume a larger amount of CO2? In theory they'd create more oxygen as a byproduct. Scatter their seeds throughout forrest all over the planet. Wait a few hundred years and see the improvement.
-
I never thought of that, but two things I can see becoming an obstacle:
1) What's the economic payoff? It sucks but it's true: the world turns on money, and the only reason energy alternatives have gotten as far as they have is because of their utilitarian benefits as producers of energy for human use.
2) Considering how much forestry we cut down yearly around the globe, such plants might not be able to absorb CO2 faster than we're able to kill CO2 consumers.
3) If you ask me, the real hope is with algae.
-
What was the ecomic payoff of Nasa? There really hasn't been one yet, other than technologies being adapted for medical use. Hopefully one day when we need to protect ourselves from a comet or an asteroid it will pay off. I think the continuation of our species is pay off enough. But, I get what you are saying, and it is sad.
-
I'm not saying sometimes science develops things for its own sake, but at least in the last few decades, it seems as though the only thing that makes science "worth it" is if there's some practical use (i.e. you can make money with it). I mean think about this: do we have a colony on the Moon right now, and why not?
-
You don't believe in the possibility of runaway greenhouse effect, do you Scheavo?
No, I believe it's possible; what I don't think is clear is how that comes about, what kind of other feedbacks and other possibilities will actually happen. What I don't believe is that it's the for-sure result. But this seems to miss the point for me, because pollution in and of itself is bad, and so even if our emissions don't lead to a runaway effect, there are so many reasons why we should be cutting back emissions, that it's rather irrelevant in the end.
This may sound stupid... but why don't scientists look at ways of genetically modifying plant life forms to consume a larger amount of CO2? In theory they'd create more oxygen as a byproduct. Scatter their seeds throughout forrest all over the planet. Wait a few hundred years and see the improvement.
I'm not a botanist, but it seems like this would be problematic, or just as easily replicated by planting more plants we already have. Oxygen isn't the only byproduct of photosynthesis, and the plants would also need more water for the chemical process, which could cause other horrible problems.
-
I mean the only possibility I can think of in terms of a runaway greenhouse effects is the Arctic methane store completely melting, exposing the atmospheres to levels of greenhouse gases never previously experienced. That's my worry because we could make that happen.
-
I'm not a botanist, but it seems like this would be problematic, or just as easily replicated by planting more plants we already have. Oxygen isn't the only byproduct of photosynthesis, and the plants would also need more water for the chemical process, which could cause other horrible problems.
We may not need more water. We may just need to alter the way the plant manages water. We see companies that have genetically engineered grass to use water almost 50% more efficiently. This helps people in hotter climates keep a green lawn. I'm not saying it is the solution, but something that could conceivably be done, and might not hurt looking into. Planting more plants would immediately double the water needs, and double the amount of methane that gets released during their decay, the solution to create more efficient forests could solve that issue.
No, I believe it's possible; what I don't think is clear is how that comes about, what kind of other feedbacks and other possibilities will actually happen. What I don't believe is that it's the for-sure result. But this seems to miss the point for me, because pollution in and of itself is bad, and so even if our emissions don't lead to a runaway effect, there are so many reasons why we should be cutting back emissions, that it's rather irrelevant in the end.
I agree with you here. We may never be sure what can cause severe fluctuation in CO2 levels. We haven't been around long enough to gather anywhere near the data required to do so. We are able to determine that in the past levels have been much higher and much lower than they currently are. We see those results. The question as to whether or not carbon emissions have greatly contributed to higher levels doesn't need a definitive answer. We know it could certainly be a possibility. It couldn't hurt to release less into the atmosphere. If not for the sake of Carbon levels, for the sake of pollutants in general, as well as not needing to rely on a product that we have to get from people who hate us.
Whether we caused it or not, I believe that there are events that will be occurring regardless of whether we change are ways or not. Even if carbon emissions are not causing the ice caps to melt, the scary truth is that they are. You never hear anyone talking about what we are going to do when that happens. We think the nation is in turmoil now... what happens when millions of people not only loose their home, but the land upon which they live. The relocation of millions of American's is going to be a unavoidable problem we are going to have to deal with regardless of the actions we take today.
-
I mean whenever I feel like we're doomed, there's this article that gives me a little bit of hope: https://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/08/opinion/08friedman.html
But we always have the Terra Nova option. ;D
-
I'm not a botanist, but it seems like this would be problematic, or just as easily replicated by planting more plants we already have. Oxygen isn't the only byproduct of photosynthesis, and the plants would also need more water for the chemical process, which could cause other horrible problems.
We may not need more water. We may just need to alter the way the plant manages water. We see companies that have genetically engineered grass to use water almost 50% more efficiently. This helps people in hotter climates keep a green lawn. I'm not saying it is the solution, but something that could conceivably be done, and might not hurt looking into. Planting more plants would immediately double the water needs, and double the amount of methane that gets released during their decay, the solution to create more efficient forests could solve that issue.
Okay, I get your point. Still, I think this is an unnecessary complication. We have the technology to sequester carbon (there's even ones that look like trees), but the bigger issue should be our emitting the carbon. Plus, more oxygen may not necessarily be a good thing. A runaway oxygen effect would be just as bad (in fact, that's what nearly snowballed earth).
Whether we caused it or not, I believe that there are events that will be occurring regardless of whether we change are ways or not. Even if carbon emissions are not causing the ice caps to melt, the scary truth is that they are. You never hear anyone talking about what we are going to do when that happens. We think the nation is in turmoil now... what happens when millions of people not only loose their home, but the land upon which they live. The relocation of millions of American's is going to be a unavoidable problem we are going to have to deal with regardless of the actions we take today.
This has always annoyed me.
-
I'm not a botanist, but it seems like this would be problematic, or just as easily replicated by planting more plants we already have. Oxygen isn't the only byproduct of photosynthesis, and the plants would also need more water for the chemical process, which could cause other horrible problems.
We may not need more water. We may just need to alter the way the plant manages water. We see companies that have genetically engineered grass to use water almost 50% more efficiently. This helps people in hotter climates keep a green lawn. I'm not saying it is the solution, but something that could conceivably be done, and might not hurt looking into. Planting more plants would immediately double the water needs, and double the amount of methane that gets released during their decay, the solution to create more efficient forests could solve that issue.
Okay, I get your point. Still, I think this is an unnecessary complication. We have the technology to sequester carbon (there's even ones that look like trees), but the bigger issue should be our emitting the carbon. Plus, more oxygen may not necessarily be a good thing. A runaway oxygen effect would be just as bad (in fact, that's what nearly snowballed earth).
Shouldn't we be doing both? I mean even if we cut the global emissions rate down to zero, totally carbon neutral, global warming is going to happen.
-
Whether we caused it or not, I believe that there are events that will be occurring regardless of whether we change are ways or not. Even if carbon emissions are not causing the ice caps to melt, the scary truth is that they are. You never hear anyone talking about what we are going to do when that happens. We think the nation is in turmoil now... what happens when millions of people not only loose their home, but the land upon which they live. The relocation of millions of American's is going to be a unavoidable problem we are going to have to deal with regardless of the actions we take today.
This has always annoyed me.
What I said annoys you? Or the fact that people don't acknowlege what I said?
-
Whether we caused it or not, I believe that there are events that will be occurring regardless of whether we change are ways or not. Even if carbon emissions are not causing the ice caps to melt, the scary truth is that they are. You never hear anyone talking about what we are going to do when that happens. We think the nation is in turmoil now... what happens when millions of people not only loose their home, but the land upon which they live. The relocation of millions of American's is going to be a unavoidable problem we are going to have to deal with regardless of the actions we take today.
This has always annoyed me.
What I said annoys you? Or the fact that people don't acknowlege what I said?
That what you said isn't acknowledged in the media, or politics, or by many people.
I'm not a botanist, but it seems like this would be problematic, or just as easily replicated by planting more plants we already have. Oxygen isn't the only byproduct of photosynthesis, and the plants would also need more water for the chemical process, which could cause other horrible problems.
We may not need more water. We may just need to alter the way the plant manages water. We see companies that have genetically engineered grass to use water almost 50% more efficiently. This helps people in hotter climates keep a green lawn. I'm not saying it is the solution, but something that could conceivably be done, and might not hurt looking into. Planting more plants would immediately double the water needs, and double the amount of methane that gets released during their decay, the solution to create more efficient forests could solve that issue.
Okay, I get your point. Still, I think this is an unnecessary complication. We have the technology to sequester carbon (there's even ones that look like trees), but the bigger issue should be our emitting the carbon. Plus, more oxygen may not necessarily be a good thing. A runaway oxygen effect would be just as bad (in fact, that's what nearly snowballed earth).
Shouldn't we be doing both? I mean even if we cut the global emissions rate down to zero, totally carbon neutral, global warming is going to happen.
Are you proposing we have the ability to actually achieve such a balance? Cause I don't think we could, and why do what the environment already does. To try and solve our environmental problem, we shouldn't try and resort too much on a solution which comes with it's own problems. It's the lady who swallowed the fly, it's much easier to just not pollute than to try and clean it up later.
-
So what are your thoughts on the whole ice caps bit? Like what should we be doing to slow that down/prevent it/deal with it?
-
So what are your thoughts on the whole ice caps bit? Like what should we be doing to slow that down/prevent it/deal with it?
If we slow it down, it will prevent a disaster for maybe a few more years. We can't prevent it. As far as how to deal with it... I have no fucking clue. Whatever we decide, completely fucking mayhem will be impossible to avoid. I mean, realistically, how do you move millions of people. All home owners would have to buy/build new homes elsewhere. Business in the doomed areas will most likely go under. Jobs will not be available in places where people do move. Etc etc.... I really don't know what the hell will happen. But hey, it's not my job to come up with evacuation and relocation plans. I just hope I don't have to see it in my lifetime.
-
See that very inevitability is why I worry about the possibility of a positive feedback loop. That means what we have to do is find some way to manage all the methane that is then released from a huge release event.
-
So what are your thoughts on the whole ice caps bit? Like what should we be doing to slow that down/prevent it/deal with it?
I'd rather not swallow a spider to kill a fly.
The problem is that we're messing with an ecosystem we don't fully understand, so I don't see how messing with this balance even more is going to be beneficial to us. What are we going to do to prevent it or slow it down, and how can we be absolutely positive we can control that force the way we want, and that there won't be even more consequences we have to deal with? Better to have the problem I know, than the problem I don't know.
-
Well suppose the ice caps do melt and it causes planetary warming at an alarming rate (we're talking 2 degrees every few decades without pause). What would you suggest?
-
Well suppose the ice caps do melt and it causes planetary warming at an alarming rate (we're talking 2 degrees every few decades without pause). What would you suggest?
Something that wouldn't be everlasting, like plant modifications. I suppose if I was forced to pick a "solution," I would choose a dust option. I think there's some plans out there for using nukes to basically blow a shitload of material into the atmosphere, to block the suns rays. But really, that wouldn't address the cause of the warming, so it would only do so much; notably, it wouldn't address ocean acidification.
-
Nuking us out of a Venus-type situation sounds really rather extreme. Is that really our best shot?
-
Nuking us out of a Venus-type situation sounds really rather extreme. Is that really our best shot?
Well I suppose some people have some cloud-seeding idea's, but again it doesn't solve the issue, only some of its effects.
Our best shot is to try and not get in that situation in the first place, and if we're already there, then frankly there's only ugly solutions.
-
Well, I suppose that's why I'm entering this business in the first place. God help us all.
-
Nuking us out of a Venus-type situation sounds really rather extreme. Is that really our best shot?
Well I suppose some people have some cloud-seeding idea's, but again it doesn't solve the issue, only some of its effects.
Our best shot is to try and not get in that situation in the first place, and if we're already there, then frankly there's only ugly solutions.
In regards to the sun...
"either way, when that thing burns out we're all gonna be dead"
(https://thebigmamablog.com/wp-content/plugins/image-shadow/cache/a0280d01efec2320d078743dc60fc250.jpg)
-
Good thing we figured out that neutrino moves FTL. :neverusethis:
-
I think it would be better to focus on more immediate problems then worry about the world slowly burning up. For me this is like religion I'm sticking with agnostic. I got another 50 or so years going from average life expectancy of the U.S. and if it does exist I don't care enough because I won't experience the extremes.
-
Well I for one would like for my grandchildren to have grandchildren.
And it's not gonna be slow.
-
I'm not a scientist or economist. I go off of what I see and experience regardless of heresay and public opinion.
Now... to just pipe in on my feelings of GW and how it affects me as an American: I feel that despite whether GW is simply a contemporary term for "a shift in climate" or a catastrophe caused by greenhouse gases (us humans), its exposure has both negatives and positives on my life.
Positives: It boosts the movement (and R/D) of renewable resources such as wind/solar power and many energy-powered sources. That creates new jobs. If fossil fuel-based companies don't jump on that band wagon, that's their own fault for not being competitive (ie polaroid in the digital age). No matter how much of an affect we have on the destruction of our environment, creating less impactful ways can only move us forward. That's about all the positives I get out of this.
Negatives: In my every day life, the lobbying for GW and environmental protection in general has done more harm than good. Construction jobs (for example) all over the country have to meet extremely costly environmental regulations that local and federal gov'ts have complete control over (even private projects). One example is that small businesses cannot afford to accomodate over-the-top environmental regulations. To give a specific example as a result of GW: construction jobs are requiring very strict smog and carb regulations for every piece of equipment/vehicle used on a job. How strict? Growing businesses cannot afford to buy or rent the equipment required to complete the job and break even (never mind turning a profit). Large corporations with multiple projects are feeling huge losses as well. Despite the reality of GW, the regulations I'm talking about do not help the environment. They are very much financially driven.
I can't tell you what the latest economic numbers or scientific theories are on GW but this is what I deal with every day. Again, please don't jump all over me for not being well informed on the big picture, I just say it as it affects me. I hear this side of the forum is a dangerous place, so I thought I'd be clear on where my thoughts are coming from.
-
What do you do? Just as a response to your hint.
Also, being part of such an advocacy group, the data that I've been shown is actually pretty encouraging, both in terms of public health and economics. It's something like $20 trillion saved by the end of the decade, taking into account health bills, missed work days, and things of that nature. I don't have the literature in front of me right now so these are just coming out of my ass right now, but I can say for a fact that the economic and environmental benefits are greater than if they weren't there to begin with.
Edit: And I'm not trying to be like, "OMGWTF THESE MEASURES ARE PERFECT FUCK YOU," but from what I know the benefits are much more noticeable in their absence (a perfect case being the lack thereof in China).
-
What do you do? Just as a response to your hint.
Also, being part of such an advocacy group, the data that I've been shown is actually pretty encouraging, both in terms of public health and economics. It's something like $20 trillion saved by the end of the decade, taking into account health bills, missed work days, and things of that nature. I don't have the literature in front of me right now so these are just coming out of my ass right now, but I can say for a fact that the economic and environmental benefits are greater than if they weren't there to begin with.
Edit: And I'm not trying to be like, "OMGWTF THESE MEASURES ARE PERFECT FUCK YOU," but from what I know the benefits are much more noticeable in their absence (a perfect case being the lack thereof in China).
Hi Super Dude. I'm not sure if you're addressing me or not. I'm not a part of an advocacy group. I'm a manager for a contractor on a large construction project going on the US. I see your point that environmental benefits are greater than if there weren't any at all. There is definitely a place for a reasonable level of environmental practice in the workplace and every day living. But, I'm gearing my criticism more towards the unnecessary regulations where the intentions of the ESA (and related agencies) are for financial gain and the promotion of economic drought more than actually improving the environment. I'm all for financial gain as long as the product is not built on a fallacy.
Basically I'm saying that you can compare the lobbying of GW to an infomercial for a $19.95 Call Now Product. In theory, the product sounds fantastic, but once you get it, you realize that you're stuck with S&H at double the cost and the product doesn't work.
-
Basically I'm saying that you can compare the lobbying of GW to an infomercial for a $19.95 Call Now Product. In theory, the product sounds fantastic, but once you get it, you realize that you're stuck with S&H at double the cost and the product doesn't work.
And the unreasonable infomercial-esq policies we may get (due to corruption, I'd bet) doesn't mean we shouldn't do something reasonable about the issue, as you allude to. I may not need the super-amazing vegetable slicer, but that doesn't mean I don't need a knife to cut vegetables. There are some sane ways of trying to reduce carbon emissions, and some corrupt ways. Requiring people to buy a product isn't a good way to go at it, but perhaps helping to make it so that the product is cheaper, therefor it would be bought anyways, is something the government can invest in, and speed the process along.
-
Well I for one would like for my grandchildren to have grandchildren.
And it's not gonna be slow.
I think everyone wants this. Though people have varying degrees of concern. I think the ultimate solution is a little bit counter-intuitive but we'll get there eventually. The data more or less proves we are in a warming period, but it's not definitive as to the source. Regardless of whether it is natural or anthropogenic, we need to find ways of dealing with it. Even if there is no anthropogenic cause, we're still headed for an eventual energy crisis if we don't move to renewable sources since coal/oil can only sustain us for so long. I believe the transition will be smoother without government intervention, but I digress. The next major Human revolution will be around energy efficiency and economization out of necessity due to the diverging trend of available non-renewable energy sources and the growth of the population and demand for energy.
The path to a greener society may not be what you think. Yes, there are long term gains that can be attained from increased health and productivity from lost work days etc, but implementing most green policies will increase the upfront fixed costs of production. In other words, the move to green requires a lot of wealth to be diverted to protecting the environment. In addition to the increased capex, the move to green will depend on having a strong existing infrastructure. To illustrate this point, think of Email. The advent of Email was a major boon to the green cause. There was a significant reduction in the need for paper and cutting down tree's, also a huge decrease in carbon emissions and energy consumption from the manufacturing and transportation of paper etc. However, for Email to be developed, we have to remember that there was TONS of paper and transportation used by all the companies building the infrastructure to support email from networks, to servers and software. Also, consider the gas used in transportation and construction, hell, just the car's getting people to work had an impact. The point is, the Green technology's (like email) are built on the backs of prior non-green technologies. This may not be a terribly surprising revelation, but it drives home the point that any advancements in green technology are predicated on a broad and complex network of non-green technologies that come before it. Therefore, any types of regulations that hinder existing infrastructure can only add delay's and additional costs, either directly or indirectly, to development and proliferation of green technologies. Yes, regulations may reap short-term environmental gains, but it may delay the real gains further and jeapordize long-term improvements.
In conclusion, we need to have a very strong pro-growth economic plan to generate wealth in ALL industries to pay for transition to Green technologies, further, we need to limit the regulations to ensure we don't indirectly hobble the the industry by cutting out the legs it needs to stand on.
I'm welcome to feedback.
-
Green tech is very much about growth, and is doing so rapidly. I'd love to elaborate but I'm on lunch break atm.
-
I think everyone wants this. Though people have varying degrees of concern. I think the ultimate solution is a little bit counter-intuitive but we'll get there eventually. The data more or less proves we are in a warming period, but it's not definitive as to the source. Regardless of whether it is natural or anthropogenic, we need to find ways of dealing with it. Even if there is no anthropogenic cause, we're still headed for an eventual energy crisis if we don't move to renewable sources since coal/oil can only sustain us for so long. I believe the transition will be smoother without government intervention, but I digress. The next major Human revolution will be around energy efficiency and economization out of necessity due to the diverging trend of available non-renewable energy sources and the growth of the population and demand for energy.
I agree that we need a moderate response, but we do need a response. Ocean acidification doesn't get as much news, or as much lobbying, but it's a serious economic and environmental hazard, and it's culprit is CO2. The problem I see with saying you, "waste money on the environment," is that it's short sighted statement, and ignores the massive economic role of the environment (as in, it's the foundation, without which there could be no economy). Clean air and water laws have saved us money by reducing health problems related to dirty air and dirty water, money which can then go back to other parts of the economy. It's a balance to be sought, for sure, but protecting and aiding the environment through investments does not necessitate economic harm (even National Park and Wild Life Refuges attracts tourists, which although not productive in a strict sense, is a good thing for a local economy).
For example, the efficiency standards for cars. Here we have a field of technology which is very capable of expanding beyond the efficiencies in place, but which don't happen due to other reasons. I have a car which is 15 years old and get's better mileage than some brand new hybrids. Why? Because my car doesn't have fancy shit that takes up energy. It doesn't have TV's, it doesn't have a huge amazing sound system, it's windows are manual, it's lighter (but still quite safe), and has shitty cup holders. Recently, Obama, in cooperation with the private sector (which makes me very very suspicious of corruption, to be honest), raised the required fleet fuel efficiency to a standard of 56 by 2025 (it varies by car, by size; semi's and trucks have lower standards, some have higher, I believe); this was accompanied by a commercial which basically said that this law will drive innovation, and that it wasn't a problem for the car industry.
Basically, the market, and consumer purchasing power, does not address all issues, and humans are woefully nearsighted. When buying a car, an individual may go for that amazingly awesome car with a bunch of cool electronics, and GPS units, and TV's, and all that, but suffer a huge hit to their fuel standards. Problem is, most consumers are too ignorant to realize that those electrical devices take energy away from the car's mileage, and those shiny things attract them. Other car companies then face problems in trying to raise their mileage, because they still have to compete with all those shiny cars (note: I didn't say impossible, the Prius is a good example of these hurdles being overcome). The overall effect is a fleet which is much less fuel efficient, but which causes all the pollution problem's we're aware of, and is something which must be addressed for environmental reasons. On a macro level, CO2 and pollution breach the liberal definition of liberty and freedom, and so macro level solutions (government), are not only justified, but they can sometimes be necessary to address the problem. To go back to cars; the problem in and of itself is not that a company is making a less "efficient" product than it should "regulated," it's that those inefficiencies cause problems for all of us, and yet individually we cannot address the problem as well as we can if we do it en masse. By doing it en masse, we also give producer's a clearer idea of what they need to do to satisfy their customers; that is, instead of companies being hindered from progress due to all those fancy cars with their fancy things, the focus will be on efficiency, by all companies, with attention later given to those shiny, fancy things.
Beyond that, though, it amps up the potential gain for innovating beyond the current technology. Our engine designs, in basic concept, hasn't changed much since it was created; but there have been people who have recently come up with completely new ways of trapping the energy made by a small explosion. Whereas those kinds of idea's, in the stale market we we're seeing in fuel efficiency, would never be given a shot, now there is much more incentive to invest, research, and try out some different models and approaches.
-
The solar market in Massachusetts is huge. People (everyday people, not just businesses) are making a lot of bucks off it.
Edit: And in California, you can recharge a fully electric car at an oil equivalent of 75 cents/gallon. I feel like I've mentioned that here already though.
-
Canada is formally withdrawing from the Kyoto Protocol.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15930562
Fuck this. It's embarrassing.
-
Goddammit Canada. Maybe it's time Michigan invaded, take back our 1812 territory. :yarr
-
I personally find it hard to not become a pessimist these days. The new climate conference will be just the same as always. Absolutely jack shit will get done, because of the big guys blocking things (most notably, USA) and any of the smaller guys hiding behind it, some of them pretending to want more but in essence exactly knowing they can say those things safely because it will never go through. All politics.
Einstein called for a world government, and I can see the reason why, because he probably saw the same thing happening in his time than now.
In the end, humans will just return to their previous place in nature: A species that dies at the hand of nature. Cynically said, our inability to get shit done will take care of over-population quite soon.
rumborak
-
I think the entire Western world should just get together and collectively declare war on Bangladesh. It would be a lot more honest than what we're doing now.
-
https://www.sciencemag.org/content/early/2011/11/22/science.1203513
Assessing impacts of future anthropogenic carbon emissions is currently impeded by uncertainties in our knowledge of equilibrium climate sensitivity to atmospheric carbon dioxide doubling. Previous studies suggest 3 K as best estimate, 2 to 4.5 K as the 66% probability range, and nonzero probabilities for much higher values, the latter implying a small but significant chance of high-impact climate changes that would be difficult to avoid. Here, combining extensive sea and land surface temperature reconstructions from the Last Glacial Maximum with climate model simulations, we estimate a lower median (2.3 K) and reduced uncertainty (1.7 to 2.6 K 66% probability). Assuming paleoclimatic constraints apply to the future as predicted by our model, these results imply lower probability of imminent extreme climatic change than previously thought.
Thoughts?
-
"lower probability of imminent extreme climate change" still means "probably of imminent extreme climate change." We still need to do something about co2, for a variety of reasons.
-
I was actually thinking of saying that, but I would add to that that we are actually already seeing its milder effects anyway, so it's a moot point.
Plus, I think anyone who strongly supports mitigation and adaptation measures and such things as alternative energy are more in the line of "low probability, high cost" thinking (I know I am).
-
I was hoping for a little more analysis of the study. Where's GuineaPig?
-
The premise of the research behind the article was to use reconstructions of the most recent glacial maximum (ice age, in layman's term) to determine whether there is a threshold or equilibrium for CO2's effect on global temperatures. The conclusion they reach is that the mean effect of a doubling of the atmosphere's CO2 concentration would be a temperature rise of ~2.3 degrees Kelvin, lower than previous estimates which were ~3 degrees Kelvin.
This paper shouldn't have a huge influence. There are some problems with the approach (of people trying to claim the paper contains huge implications, rather than the authors themselves, it should be noted); using a global cooling event driven by a radiative forcing (and only one) to attempt to predict the effects of CO2 on climate in anthropogenic-forced warming can be questioned. Also, given we've already experienced a pre-Industrial warming of about 0.8 degrees with a 20% increase in CO2 concentration, one wonders how well their model fits with warming experienced already (the authors note uncertainties with regards to aerosol forcing and ocean uptake). Essentially, the scope of the implications are a lot smaller than some would want it to be.
In the end of the day, it's just one paper. Climate science, like every discipline, is a cumulative effort; this paper is just another in a line of them attempting to isolate or determine the influence of CO2 on our climate. The conclusions of this paper, or further papers built upon the research in it, will be integrated into the next IPCC. Predictions of warming in the future aren't based on one or two cherry-picked models, but a swath of them.
EDIT: Like I said, the paper says a lot less than some would want. Apparently it's being tossed around the internet as "proof" CO2 doesn't affect temperature as much as previously thought. Those people probably didn't read it.
-
The premise of the research behind the article was to use reconstructions of the most recent glacial maximum (ice age, in layman's term) to determine whether there is a threshold or equilibrium for CO2's effect on global temperatures. The conclusion they reach is that the mean effect of a doubling of the atmosphere's CO2 concentration would be a temperature rise of ~2.3 degrees Kelvin, lower than previous estimates which were ~3 degrees Kelvin.
This paper shouldn't have a huge influence. There are some problems with the approach (of people trying to claim the paper contains huge implications, rather than the authors themselves, it should be noted); using a global cooling event driven by a radiative forcing (and only one) to attempt to predict the effects of CO2 on climate in anthropogenic-forced warming can be questioned. Also, given we've already experienced a pre-Industrial warming of about 0.8 degrees with a 20% increase in CO2 concentration, one wonders how well their model fits with warming experienced already (the authors note uncertainties with regards to aerosol forcing and ocean uptake). Essentially, the scope of the implications are a lot smaller than some would want it to be.
In the end of the day, it's just one paper. Climate science, like every discipline, is a cumulative effort; this paper is just another in a line of them attempting to isolate or determine the influence of CO2 on our climate. The conclusions of this paper, or further papers built upon the research in it, will be integrated into the next IPCC. Predictions of warming in the future aren't based on one or two cherry-picked models, but a swath of them.
EDIT: Like I said, the paper says a lot less than some would want. Apparently it's being tossed around the internet as "proof" CO2 doesn't affect temperature as much as previously thought. Those people probably didn't read it.
The real climate people say the authors of this study are most likely wrong about climate sensitivity, that they're underestimating it. Do you agree?
-
I saw this piece on Democracy Now today from the Durbin Climate Change Summit about a top dog Climate Change denier praising the President for continuing Bush's policies regarding climate change. I'm not educated at all on the topic; I'd be interested to hear what you guys, esp. SD think.
Video: https://www.democracynow.org/2011/12/8/his_nickname_is_george_w_obama (it says it's 54 minutes long but it brings you right to the spot when you press play)
Short transcript: AMY GOODMAN: Interestingly, on Wednesday, a group of climate change deniers held a news conference here at the U.N. climate change summit in Durban. Speakers included Marc Morano, publisher of the "Climate Depot," a website run by the organization Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, or CFACT. I spoke to Marc Morano just before this broadcast and asked him about President Obama.
MARC MORANO: His nickname is "George W. Obama." Obama’s negotiator, Todd Stern, will be here today. They have kept the exact same principles and negotiating stance as President George Bush did for eight years. Obama has carried on Bush’s legacy. So, as skeptics, we tip our hat to President Obama in helping crush and continue to defeat the United Nations process. Obama has been a great friend of global warming skeptics at these conferences. Obama has problems, you know, for us, because he’s going through the EPA regulatory process, which is a grave threat. But in terms of this, President Obama could not have turned out better when it came to his lack of interest in the congressional climate bill and his lack of interest in the United Nations Kyoto Protocol. So, a job well done for President Obama.
-
I can't look at the video because I'm in a noisy cafeteria right now, but unfortunately Marc Morano is absolutely right. I've never said President Obama was good for the environment or the climate change cause, just that he was the least bad of anyone running. BTW I might post a recent article from Nature later, one that gets to what GP was saying about WW's article: that in all likelihood, climate change is probably not so grossly overestimated as WW's articles suggest nor as underestimated as one I might typically post would suggest, but probably somewhere in the middle. The point they make, and one I can wholeheartedly agree with, is that it doesn't matter if climate change is no big deal or the apocalypse as we know it, because the policy changes prescribed for it ought to be enacted anyway, whether as a bet against global warming or for the many other benefits part and parcel to them.
-
Canada to formally withdraw from Kyoto.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-16151310
Fucking embarrassing.
-
What's the Durban document?
-
I can't look at the video because I'm in a noisy cafeteria right now, but unfortunately Marc Morano is absolutely right. I've never said President Obama was good for the environment or the climate change cause, just that he was the least bad of anyone running. BTW I might post a recent article from Nature later, one that gets to what GP was saying about WW's article: that in all likelihood, climate change is probably not so grossly overestimated as WW's articles suggest nor as underestimated as one I might typically post would suggest, but probably somewhere in the middle. The point they make, and one I can wholeheartedly agree with, is that it doesn't matter if climate change is no big deal or the apocalypse as we know it, because the policy changes prescribed for it ought to be enacted anyway, whether as a bet against global warming or for the many other benefits part and parcel to them.
Oh I wasn't suggesting that you did say that, I just figured you'd be interested/know about it. That's pretty disappointing though, yeah.
-
Yeah, I mean as far as environmental policy goes, he's as bad as any of his predecessors, in the sense that he keeps such policy in America at a safe standstill. I prefer that over Paul or Perry, who'd set us back a hundred years if they had their way, but not by a whole lot.
I mean hell, even Nixon was better for the environment.
-
How much of the economics of climate change do you guys study? It seems that that profession has somewhat of a consensus position on Kyoto, too - and not a favorable one.
-
How much of the economics of climate change do you guys study? It seems that that profession has somewhat of a consensus position on Kyoto, too - and not a favorable one.
As a general rule, we value consumption in economics as "better." Of course, according to such studies, they're going to find a problem with more sustainable and green technology, becuase they discount those on a fundamental level as economically "bad."
I don't find it surprising that economics finds the solution to global warming as unfavorable, everything looks like a nail when you're holding a hammer.
-
Luckily, my final semester as an undergrad will include an early morning class called Environmental Econ, so hopefully I'll be able to propose to y'all a workable economic solution by next spring. :P
-
How much of the economics of climate change do you guys study? It seems that that profession has somewhat of a consensus position on Kyoto, too - and not a favorable one.
Only if one is looking at maintaining the status quo; and that is unfortunately what most economists (partially because they're supported by the oil industry and the Koch bros.) are thinking of.
Yes, massive economic upheaval is going to be needed to combat global warming. But it's going to happen regardless; the question is whether o not we'll be able to control it. To avoid dangerous climate change, huge cuts to emissions are required - on the order of about 90% by 2030. One can't do that by envisioning a future where most people drive cars and use electricity derived from coal.
-
Dammit, it just so happens I also have lost a great article about specifically how a green economy would help turn us around and get us into real recovery mode.
-
Well, there's obvious avenues for government investment and expansion within the green energy sector. There's a need for de-regulation of nuclear power. Over the long run, green sources provide a much cheaper cost/kWh, so there's savings to be had there. People are really over-rating how difficult it is to get away from non-renewable sources. Ontario has gotten off of coal (which in 2004 provided 25% of energy to the province) in less than a decade.
There's the potential for plenty of new infrastructure spending with regards to transit. More or less all building of roads should be suspended; they won't ease congestion, and capacity is much more cheaply provided (and environmentally sustainable) by building high-speed rail, light rail, trams, commuter rail, S-Bahn-esque systems, etc... Furthermore, rolling stock like that isn't built in the third world, so all jobs could be contained within the country of origin. Plus, transit, much more so than roads, offers superior and more sustainable economic development, which in turn decreases reliance on automobiles. With enough investment, major North American cities could be able to ban personal cars from much of the interiors of cities in a decade or so.
-
Well, there's obvious avenues for government investment and expansion within the green energy sector. There's a need for de-regulation of nuclear power. Over the long run, green sources provide a much cheaper cost/kWh, so there's savings to be had there. People are really over-rating how difficult it is to get away from non-renewable sources. Ontario has gotten off of coal (which in 2004 provided 25% of energy to the province) in less than a decade.
There's the potential for plenty of new infrastructure spending with regards to transit. More or less all building of roads should be suspended; they won't ease congestion, and capacity is much more cheaply provided (and environmentally sustainable) by building high-speed rail, light rail, trams, commuter rail, S-Bahn-esque systems, etc... Furthermore, rolling stock like that isn't built in the third world, so all jobs could be contained within the country of origin. Plus, transit, much more so than roads, offers superior and more sustainable economic development, which in turn decreases reliance on automobiles. With enough investment, major North American cities could be able to ban personal cars from much of the interiors of cities in a decade or so.
Which is great, but weren't you just saying earlier in the thread that Canada is failtastic when it comes to climate change?
-
Yep, largely because of the denialist federal government and the further development of the oil sands in Alberta. Emissions in Ontario have actually gone down; I'm not positive, but I think it may be the only region in North America to have achieved that.
-
How much of the economics of climate change do you guys study? It seems that that profession has somewhat of a consensus position on Kyoto, too - and not a favorable one.
To avoid dangerous climate change, huge cuts to emissions are required - on the order of about 90% by 2030. One can't do that by envisioning a future where most people drive cars and use electricity derived from coal.
One can't do that at all. Kyoto wasn't that prohibitive, and every country with any amount of international influence has given the UN the finger.
-
Sure you can. If we stopped all gas-run or coal-run power today except airplanes, we'd already be there.
Edit: And actually, America is well on their way there. Colorado, California and Massachusetts are among the vanguard here in the U.S., and I anticipate by the end of the decade a slew of other states will follow suit.
-
How much of the economics of climate change do you guys study? It seems that that profession has somewhat of a consensus position on Kyoto, too - and not a favorable one.
To avoid dangerous climate change, huge cuts to emissions are required - on the order of about 90% by 2030. One can't do that by envisioning a future where most people drive cars and use electricity derived from coal.
One can't do that at all. Kyoto wasn't that prohibitive, and every country with any amount of international influence has given the UN the finger.
Lack of will ≠ lack of possibility.
-
How much of the economics of climate change do you guys study? It seems that that profession has somewhat of a consensus position on Kyoto, too - and not a favorable one.
To avoid dangerous climate change, huge cuts to emissions are required - on the order of about 90% by 2030. One can't do that by envisioning a future where most people drive cars and use electricity derived from coal.
One can't do that at all. Kyoto wasn't that prohibitive, and every country with any amount of international influence has given the UN the finger.
Lack of will ≠ lack of possibility.
Whatever you call it, it's not a possibility. You're talking about replacing our entire energy infrastructure through massive public investment. We're many trillions of dollars in debt, and our future obligations in the form of entitlements like medicare and social security are even bigger. If we successfully enact a Kyoto-style policy, we'll default before we see any meaningful reduction in carbon emissions.
-
It'd be a lot easier if we just plain dropped oil subsidies. ::)
-
It'd be a lot easier if we just plain dropped oil subsidies. ::)
Those numbers are but a fraction of what I'm talking about. Those subsidies, which are more accurately described as tax breaks, amount to several billion dollars. Still, I'd be happy to see those and all other government favors disappear. They favor some over others simply because the former have the appropriate political connections.
By the way, you see the problem with breaks for big oil, but if the money is extracted from the private sector and funneled to the "right" activities, all the economic distortions magically disappear. Neat.
-
How much of the economics of climate change do you guys study? It seems that that profession has somewhat of a consensus position on Kyoto, too - and not a favorable one.
To avoid dangerous climate change, huge cuts to emissions are required - on the order of about 90% by 2030. One can't do that by envisioning a future where most people drive cars and use electricity derived from coal.
One can't do that at all. Kyoto wasn't that prohibitive, and every country with any amount of international influence has given the UN the finger.
Lack of will ≠ lack of possibility.
Whatever you call it, it's not a possibility. You're talking about replacing our entire energy infrastructure through massive public investment. We're many trillions of dollars in debt, and our future obligations in the form of entitlements like medicare and social security are even bigger. If we successfully enact a Kyoto-style policy, we'll default before we see any meaningful reduction in carbon emissions.
That's a load of horseshit.
According to wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_the_United_States#Electricity_production), the United States produces 2.89 trillion kWh yearly from non-renewable sources.
Using the figures presented here (https://nuclearfissionary.com/2010/04/02/comparing-energy-costs-of-nuclear-coal-gas-wind-and-solar/), to replace that 2.89 trillion kWh with wind power would entail $232 billion of production and construction costs. Nuclear would cost $116 billion.
Furthermore, the continued operation of those renewable sources (assuming all of the non-renewable sources are powered by coal, which lessens their costs) would reduce $78 billion of energy production costs, yearly. Accounting for the other sources that are non-renewable (gas, petroleum, etc.) it's probably more like $85-90 billion.
Now, this is a pretty simple presentation of the issue, and I'm probably missing or ignoring some other part of the picture, but basic analysis means that the cost of replacing all non-renewable energy sources in the US would be about $30-120 billion per year in the first year, and then declining over the course of about twenty-five years (accounting for the need to replace old coal-fired generators). Total cost would be ~$350 - 1500 billion over that time-span. The parameters for the estimate are probably a bit low, but within an order of magnitude.
To put that into perspective, the cost of the American military over that time-span (assuming no changes in budget, and no inflation, obviously) would be ~$16.5 trillion.
Saying the States can't pay for it is absolute bullshit.
-
How much of the economics of climate change do you guys study? It seems that that profession has somewhat of a consensus position on Kyoto, too - and not a favorable one.
To avoid dangerous climate change, huge cuts to emissions are required - on the order of about 90% by 2030. One can't do that by envisioning a future where most people drive cars and use electricity derived from coal.
One can't do that at all. Kyoto wasn't that prohibitive, and every country with any amount of international influence has given the UN the finger.
Lack of will ≠ lack of possibility.
Whatever you call it, it's not a possibility. You're talking about replacing our entire energy infrastructure through massive public investment. We're many trillions of dollars in debt, and our future obligations in the form of entitlements like medicare and social security are even bigger. If we successfully enact a Kyoto-style policy, we'll default before we see any meaningful reduction in carbon emissions.
That's a load of horseshit.
According to wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_the_United_States#Electricity_production), the United States produces 2.89 trillion kWh yearly from non-renewable sources.
Using the figures presented here (https://nuclearfissionary.com/2010/04/02/comparing-energy-costs-of-nuclear-coal-gas-wind-and-solar/), to replace that 2.89 trillion kWh with wind power would entail $232 billion of production and construction costs. Nuclear would cost $116 billion.
Furthermore, the continued operation of those renewable sources (assuming all of the non-renewable sources are powered by coal, which lessens their costs) would reduce $78 billion of energy production costs, yearly. Accounting for the other sources that are non-renewable (gas, petroleum, etc.) it's probably more like $85-90 billion.
Now, this is a pretty simple presentation of the issue, and I'm probably missing or ignoring some other part of the picture, but basic analysis means that the cost of replacing all non-renewable energy sources in the US would be about $30-120 billion per year in the first year, and then declining over the course of about twenty-five years (accounting for the need to replace old coal-fired generators). Total cost would be ~$350 - 1500 billion over that time-span. The parameters for the estimate are probably a bit low, but within an order of magnitude.
To put that into perspective, the cost of the American military over that time-span (assuming no changes in budget, and no inflation, obviously) would be ~$16.5 trillion.
Saying the States can't pay for it is absolute bullshit.
You're missing a whole lot. For one thing, projections of the cost of alternative energies are hardly reliable. A quick search revealed that some environmentalists say $500 billion (https://www.apolloalliance.org/downloads/fullreportfinal.pdf) over the next 10 years is suitable, while Obama says it can be done for around $150 billion (https://www.barackobama.com/pdf/factsheet_energy_speech_080308.pdf). Your figures are far higher than than those two estimates. The point being, nobody has the foggiest idea how much this is really going to cost.
Furthermore, these industries are dependent on subsidies for survival. The idea that we'll build a green economy on technologies that can't survive in the market place is a wish at best. It's true that the oil and gas industry is the recipient of about $21 billion in various tax breaks. While those should be eliminated, they're nothing compared to what you want to spend in the next two decades on alternative energy. Oil would remain profitable without those favors anyway.
We also have to consider the impact of lost economic productivity that comes from subsidizing any energy source and, in particular, punishing greenhouse gas emitters with a cap and trade program - between half a trillion and 1.3 trillion, according to the Department of Energy (https://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/s2191/execsummary.html).
And this on top of our already outrageous commitments to our empire and entitlements, both of which should be eliminated. It's also fallacious to say that those bad investments justify further subsidizing the energy market.
-
We also have to consider the impact of lost economic productivity that comes from subsidizing any energy source and, in particular, punishing greenhouse gas emitters with a cap and trade program - between half a trillion and 1.3 trillion, according to the Department of Energy (https://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/s2191/execsummary.html).
See that just doesn't make sense to me. Over time, reducing emissions saves costs, because as GP has said, renewable energy is more cost-efficient.
And to the last bit about bad investments, I don't know if you mean Solyndra, but turns out they failed because the solar market was expanding more rapidly than they could keep up with.
Also I think you'll find this interesting (read the whole thing, especially the part near the end about the Advanced Research Project Agency-Energy):
https://ilar.ucsd.edu/assets/001/502035.pdf
The Crisis in Clean Energy, from this summer in Foreign Affairs
-
Furthermore, these industries are dependent on subsidies for survival. The idea that we'll build a green economy on technologies that can't survive in the market place is a wish at best.
This is a fair point to bring up, but it really fades away when you look at the actual issue. The extent to which green energy is not viable in the market place is due to the upfront cost, which a lot of people simply cannot afford. That doesn't mean it's an inferior product, that the product will not return the investment it promises, etc.
-
Furthermore, these industries are dependent on subsidies for survival. The idea that we'll build a green economy on technologies that can't survive in the market place is a wish at best.
This is a fair point to bring up, but it really fades away when you look at the actual issue. The extent to which green energy is not viable in the market place is due to the upfront cost, which a lot of people simply cannot afford. That doesn't mean it's an inferior product, that the product will not return the investment it promises, etc.
That's the problem with the logic of economic growth by subsidy. Sure, this thing couldn't survive on its own, but if we cover the cost of all the inputs, boom, it's profitable. You guys understand this when it comes to subsidizing products and services that don't agree with your other political concerns, say agricultural subsidies. But the rules change when we're talking alternative energy.
We also have to consider the impact of lost economic productivity that comes from subsidizing any energy source and, in particular, punishing greenhouse gas emitters with a cap and trade program - between half a trillion and 1.3 trillion, according to the Department of Energy (https://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/s2191/execsummary.html).
See that just doesn't make sense to me. Over time, reducing emissions saves costs, because as GP has said, renewable energy is more cost-efficient.
Maybe so. But if our economy collapses on the way there, it doesn't matter. It's not that subsidizing energy is more harmful than any other expenditure, but it's another massive investment we can't afford.
And to the last bit about bad investments, I don't know if you mean Solyndra, but turns out they failed because the solar market was expanding more rapidly than they could keep up with.
I wasn't specifically referring to Solyndra. But they failed because their solar panel design flopped. And they avoided liquidation because they were made the poster child for the stimulus.
-
Actually they didn't fail because of their solar panel design. Note my comment just after.
I would also like to point out that if we don't make the change, there won't really be economy to crash in the first place.
The rules are also different for alternative energy because all those really need are economies of scale. Read the article I posted in my previous entry to the thread.
-
How much of the economics of climate change do you guys study? It seems that that profession has somewhat of a consensus position on Kyoto, too - and not a favorable one.
To avoid dangerous climate change, huge cuts to emissions are required - on the order of about 90% by 2030. One can't do that by envisioning a future where most people drive cars and use electricity derived from coal.
One can't do that at all. Kyoto wasn't that prohibitive, and every country with any amount of international influence has given the UN the finger.
Lack of will ≠ lack of possibility.
Whatever you call it, it's not a possibility. You're talking about replacing our entire energy infrastructure through massive public investment. We're many trillions of dollars in debt, and our future obligations in the form of entitlements like medicare and social security are even bigger. If we successfully enact a Kyoto-style policy, we'll default before we see any meaningful reduction in carbon emissions.
That's a load of horseshit.
According to wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_the_United_States#Electricity_production), the United States produces 2.89 trillion kWh yearly from non-renewable sources.
Using the figures presented here (https://nuclearfissionary.com/2010/04/02/comparing-energy-costs-of-nuclear-coal-gas-wind-and-solar/), to replace that 2.89 trillion kWh with wind power would entail $232 billion of production and construction costs. Nuclear would cost $116 billion.
Furthermore, the continued operation of those renewable sources (assuming all of the non-renewable sources are powered by coal, which lessens their costs) would reduce $78 billion of energy production costs, yearly. Accounting for the other sources that are non-renewable (gas, petroleum, etc.) it's probably more like $85-90 billion.
Now, this is a pretty simple presentation of the issue, and I'm probably missing or ignoring some other part of the picture, but basic analysis means that the cost of replacing all non-renewable energy sources in the US would be about $30-120 billion per year in the first year, and then declining over the course of about twenty-five years (accounting for the need to replace old coal-fired generators). Total cost would be ~$350 - 1500 billion over that time-span. The parameters for the estimate are probably a bit low, but within an order of magnitude.
To put that into perspective, the cost of the American military over that time-span (assuming no changes in budget, and no inflation, obviously) would be ~$16.5 trillion.
Saying the States can't pay for it is absolute bullshit.
You're missing a whole lot. For one thing, projections of the cost of alternative energies are hardly reliable. A quick search revealed that some environmentalists say $500 billion (https://www.apolloalliance.org/downloads/fullreportfinal.pdf) over the next 10 years is suitable, while Obama says it can be done for around $150 billion (https://www.barackobama.com/pdf/factsheet_energy_speech_080308.pdf). Your figures are far higher than than those two estimates. The point being, nobody has the foggiest idea how much this is really going to cost.
Furthermore, these industries are dependent on subsidies for survival. The idea that we'll build a green economy on technologies that can't survive in the market place is a wish at best. It's true that the oil and gas industry is the recipient of about $21 billion in various tax breaks. While those should be eliminated, they're nothing compared to what you want to spend in the next two decades on alternative energy. Oil would remain profitable without those favors anyway.
We also have to consider the impact of lost economic productivity that comes from subsidizing any energy source and, in particular, punishing greenhouse gas emitters with a cap and trade program - between half a trillion and 1.3 trillion, according to the Department of Energy (https://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/s2191/execsummary.html).
And this on top of our already outrageous commitments to our empire and entitlements, both of which should be eliminated. It's also fallacious to say that those bad investments justify further subsidizing the energy market.
My figures account for costs of construction and then production, while accounting for the de-activation and lack of replacement for coal-fired plants. Their is a lack of precision (spending on any hypothetical infrastructure is always uncertain), but it's surely within an order of magnitude. It's not like it could cost $200,000, or $50 trillion.
The industries aren't reliant on subsidies. The cost of production for wind and solar are only slightly higher than coal (I'm talking about the US, where coal and energy in general is cheap), and the costs of nuclear and hydro are cheaper. If the costs of energy production were actually higher than the value of electricity produced, you wouldn't have individual investors, let alone much larger private developments. I don't know where you're getting this "can't survive in the marketplace" argument from.
I never argued that previous bad investments justify anything. You claimed the US couldn't afford it, and would default in the process. That's clearly not the case.
Furthermore, I think it's a little shortsighted to calculate the costs/benefits solely in the amount of money invested/money saved. There would be massive health benefits to eliminating coal-fired electricity generation, and massive environmental benefits even if one were to exclude the GHG emissions entirely. Coal mining is dangerous, presents massive costs to the community, and is notorious for the kind of environmental disasters it leaves behind.
The costs future global warming will have on the US economy are massive. It's short-sightedness of the utmost degree to claim that an investment in renewable energy is not affordable, or not necessary.
-
The costs future global warming will have on the global economy are massive. It'll make 2008 look like the dot-com bubble burst. I'm serious.
-
Furthermore, these industries are dependent on subsidies for survival. The idea that we'll build a green economy on technologies that can't survive in the market place is a wish at best.
This is a fair point to bring up, but it really fades away when you look at the actual issue. The extent to which green energy is not viable in the market place is due to the upfront cost, which a lot of people simply cannot afford. That doesn't mean it's an inferior product, that the product will not return the investment it promises, etc.
That's the problem with the logic of economic growth by subsidy. Sure, this thing couldn't survive on its own, but if we cover the cost of all the inputs, boom, it's profitable. You guys understand this when it comes to subsidizing products and services that don't agree with your other political concerns, say agricultural subsidies. But the rules change when we're talking alternative energy.
You try to make this an issue is political hypocrisy, but it seems to me your the one being less truthful to your ideology by not calling for the end of oil subsidies, which you begrudgingly except as a "tax cut." If you look at what I think should be "subsidized," there are arguments and reasons for why the market does not properly function, where it goes wrong, why it goes wrong, and what can be done to fix the solution.
Profits can hinder just as much as they can help, and depends upon the product. Sometimes, needing to make a profit means you have a crappier product, other times it forces you to create something better (and I'm saying this as someone who produces, and faces this dilemma personally). It is not some magical automatic boost to a product quality, and it ignores the vast number of ways in which you are implicitly relying upon consumption to assume something is profitable. Profits rely upon other factors that are completely unrelated to the quality of the product created.
-
How much of the economics of climate change do you guys study? It seems that that profession has somewhat of a consensus position on Kyoto, too - and not a favorable one.
To avoid dangerous climate change, huge cuts to emissions are required - on the order of about 90% by 2030. One can't do that by envisioning a future where most people drive cars and use electricity derived from coal.
One can't do that at all. Kyoto wasn't that prohibitive, and every country with any amount of international influence has given the UN the finger.
Lack of will ≠ lack of possibility.
Whatever you call it, it's not a possibility. You're talking about replacing our entire energy infrastructure through massive public investment. We're many trillions of dollars in debt, and our future obligations in the form of entitlements like medicare and social security are even bigger. If we successfully enact a Kyoto-style policy, we'll default before we see any meaningful reduction in carbon emissions.
That's a load of horseshit.
According to wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_the_United_States#Electricity_production), the United States produces 2.89 trillion kWh yearly from non-renewable sources.
Using the figures presented here (https://nuclearfissionary.com/2010/04/02/comparing-energy-costs-of-nuclear-coal-gas-wind-and-solar/), to replace that 2.89 trillion kWh with wind power would entail $232 billion of production and construction costs. Nuclear would cost $116 billion.
Furthermore, the continued operation of those renewable sources (assuming all of the non-renewable sources are powered by coal, which lessens their costs) would reduce $78 billion of energy production costs, yearly. Accounting for the other sources that are non-renewable (gas, petroleum, etc.) it's probably more like $85-90 billion.
Now, this is a pretty simple presentation of the issue, and I'm probably missing or ignoring some other part of the picture, but basic analysis means that the cost of replacing all non-renewable energy sources in the US would be about $30-120 billion per year in the first year, and then declining over the course of about twenty-five years (accounting for the need to replace old coal-fired generators). Total cost would be ~$350 - 1500 billion over that time-span. The parameters for the estimate are probably a bit low, but within an order of magnitude.
To put that into perspective, the cost of the American military over that time-span (assuming no changes in budget, and no inflation, obviously) would be ~$16.5 trillion.
Saying the States can't pay for it is absolute bullshit.
You're missing a whole lot. For one thing, projections of the cost of alternative energies are hardly reliable. A quick search revealed that some environmentalists say $500 billion (https://www.apolloalliance.org/downloads/fullreportfinal.pdf) over the next 10 years is suitable, while Obama says it can be done for around $150 billion (https://www.barackobama.com/pdf/factsheet_energy_speech_080308.pdf). Your figures are far higher than than those two estimates. The point being, nobody has the foggiest idea how much this is really going to cost.
Furthermore, these industries are dependent on subsidies for survival. The idea that we'll build a green economy on technologies that can't survive in the market place is a wish at best. It's true that the oil and gas industry is the recipient of about $21 billion in various tax breaks. While those should be eliminated, they're nothing compared to what you want to spend in the next two decades on alternative energy. Oil would remain profitable without those favors anyway.
We also have to consider the impact of lost economic productivity that comes from subsidizing any energy source and, in particular, punishing greenhouse gas emitters with a cap and trade program - between half a trillion and 1.3 trillion, according to the Department of Energy (https://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/s2191/execsummary.html).
And this on top of our already outrageous commitments to our empire and entitlements, both of which should be eliminated. It's also fallacious to say that those bad investments justify further subsidizing the energy market.
My figures account for costs of construction and then production, while accounting for the de-activation and lack of replacement for coal-fired plants. Their is a lack of precision (spending on any hypothetical infrastructure is always uncertain), but it's surely within an order of magnitude. It's not like it could cost $200,000, or $50 trillion.
That's really not the point. There's still significant uncertainty in the estimates and we can't possibly account for the economic activity that is prevented when we dump even more money into centrally planned energy.
The industries aren't reliant on subsidies. The cost of production for wind and solar are only slightly higher than coal (I'm talking about the US, where coal and energy in general is cheap), and the costs of nuclear and hydro are cheaper. If the costs of energy production were actually higher than the value of electricity produced, you wouldn't have individual investors, let alone much larger private developments. I don't know where you're getting this "can't survive in the marketplace" argument from.
I'm getting it from economists. And the reason you have investors is because the federal government is standing behind these ventures into green energy. When the people with the printing press are on your side it tends to create some confidence. More to the point, though, the people making the case for green energy are trying to convince people why we need to subsidize these projects; even they know the alternatives can't survive without public support. That's why they, as you guys have, try to draw attention to the tax breaks for oil companies. "Why not fund green energy? Big Oil gets public money!"
I never argued that previous bad investments justify anything. You claimed the US couldn't afford it, and would default in the process. That's clearly not the case.
It's broader than just energy. We are hurling towards default and need to be cutting spending, not expanding our commitments. That's why I don't want to finance energy projects - just like I don't want to pay for wars, support farmers, hunt down drug cartels or provide medical care to everybody.
Furthermore, I think it's a little shortsighted to calculate the costs/benefits solely in the amount of money invested/money saved. There would be massive health benefits to eliminating coal-fired electricity generation, and massive environmental benefits even if one were to exclude the GHG emissions entirely. Coal mining is dangerous, presents massive costs to the community, and is notorious for the kind of environmental disasters it leaves behind.
My overall point has been that we will forgo a lot of economic growth, on top of the direct costs of these subsidies, if we do what you want. And the question isn't invest in green technology or suffer disastrous consequences. As society get wealthier it also gets healthier. The results come because people can afford them and demand them. I like clean air, water and not dying from climate change. I just think your means to those ends are retarded.
The costs future global warming will have on the US economy are massive. It's short-sightedness of the utmost degree to claim that an investment in renewable energy is not affordable, or not necessary.
Well, that's what's in question now, isn't it?
-
I think you fail to realize the reason green tech has such trouble breaking through is because of subsidies to Big Oil. It makes for an uneven playing field. Otherwise, green tech would be able to stand on its own, without public support. Otherwise there wouldn't be a problem, and this argument would not need to take place.
-
Also, there's this thing called lobbying. It's why politicians still allow an outdated, disastrously damaging industry to drive American electricity generation.
-
I used to have a link to a brilliant website that tracked the multiple millions of dollars Senator Scott Brown got from various oil companies to block green policy. Wish I knew where it went.
Edit: By the way, to put the economics into perspective, Iceland is one of the greenest countries in the world, and as of 2010 also just happened to be in the best shape economically following the financial meltdown. Which is not to suggest causation, but there is certainly something to be said for correlation.
-
I used to have a link to a brilliant website that tracked the multiple millions of dollars Senator Scott Brown got from various oil companies to block green policy. Wish I knew where it went.
Yeah, it's only the oil companies and their political shills who have a financial stake in this debate. ::)
Edit: By the way, to put the economics into perspective, Iceland is one of the greenest countries in the world, and as of 2010 also just happened to be in the best shape economically following the financial meltdown. Which is not to suggest causation, but there is certainly something to be said for correlation.
So, you acknowledge that the correlation doesn't prove anything...but you're still going to conclude that their embrace of all things green deserves credit? It could as easily be said that their economy is recovering in spite of the energy policies they're implementing.
A better explanation for their recent growth is that their financial sector imploded and the central bank was incapable of providing a bailout big enough. As a result, all the bad investments were liquidated and they were able to begin rebuilding.
-
I said there's no surefire indication of causation, I never said anything about there being a weak correlation.
And in any case, listen to GP. He knows more econ than I do and would probably agree with me all the same that in the long run, clean energy is a lot more economically beneficial, and for more reasons than the purely financial.
-
I used to have a link to a brilliant website that tracked the multiple millions of dollars Senator Scott Brown got from various oil companies to block green policy. Wish I knew where it went.
Yeah, it's only the oil companies and their political shills who have a financial stake in this debate. ::)
So say you're a green technologies company; you enter a field that is already distorted in the favor of oil companies, becuase they've been lobbying for decades, and have basically bought off the government. How do you compete? You could have a better product, but that won't matter, this is clearly not an example of a free-market, it's a corrupt market. You're forced into lobbying, and trying to buy favors, just to even the playing field, so that other market functions can work, and our lives can all improve.
Also, another implication is just how much of a threat these oil companies see green technology as being. If green technology stood no chance, as you claim, then the oil companies wouldn't be spending millions / billions of dollars to try and block their implementation.
-
It's also completely disingenuous to suggest that the small "green" technology sector has anywhere near the kind of weight and influence of the largest industry in the world, or even that of the gigantic coal lobby.
-
I used to have a link to a brilliant website that tracked the multiple millions of dollars Senator Scott Brown got from various oil companies to block green policy. Wish I knew where it went.
Yeah, it's only the oil companies and their political shills who have a financial stake in this debate. ::)
So say you're a green technologies company; you enter a field that is already distorted in the favor of oil companies, becuase they've been lobbying for decades, and have basically bought off the government. How do you compete? You could have a better product, but that won't matter, this is clearly not an example of a free-market, it's a corrupt market. You're forced into lobbying, and trying to buy favors, just to even the playing field, so that other market functions can work, and our lives can all improve.
Though I think you're exaggerating their effect, I agree. End the oil subsidies
-
A wild article appeared!
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=how-to-buy-time-to-combat-climate-change-cut-soot-methane
Humanity has done little to address climate change. Global emissions of carbon dioxide reached (another) all-time peak in 2010. The most recent international talks to craft a global treaty to address the problem pushed off major action until 2020. Fortunately, there's an alternative—curbing the other greenhouse gases.
Specifically, in the case of rapid action to slow catastrophic climate change, the best alternatives appear to be: methane and black carbon (otherwise known as soot). A new economic and scientific analysis published in Science on January 13 of the benefits of cutting these two greenhouse gases finds the benefits to be manifold—from human health to increased agricultural yields.
Even better, by analyzing some 400 potential soot- and methane-emission control measures, the international team of researchers found that just 14 deliver "nearly 90 percent" of the potential benefits. Bonus: the 14 steps also restrain global warming by roughly 0.5 degree Celsius by 2050, according to computer modeling.
That's because both methane and black carbon only remain in the atmosphere for a short time compared with CO2. As atmospheric physicist Veerabhadran Ramanathan of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography at the University of California, San Diego, said of such efforts to reduce atmospheric soot a few years ago: "If the world pays attention and puts resources to it, we will see an effect immediately. I'm talking weeks, at most a few months, not decades or centuries."
The 14 measures that would immediately slow global warming are:
—Eliminate methane releases from coal mines—particularly in China—by capturing it and burning it.
—Eliminate the venting or accidental release of methane co-produced by oil drilling (and, of course, gas drilling itself), particularly in Africa, the Middle East and Russia.
—Capture gas from landfills in the U.S. and China as well as promote recycling and composting of biodegradable trash.
—Occasionally aerate flooded rice paddies to prevent the growth of methane-producing microbes.
—Stop leaks from natural gas pipelines, particularly in Russia.
—Use bio-digesters—vessels in which microbes break down manure into gas—to cut methane from livestock globally.
—Update wastewater treatment plants to capture methane.
—Filter the soot produced by incomplete combustion of diesel fuel in vehicles, and attempt to eliminate inefficient internal combustion engine vehicles entirely.
—Replace indoor cooking and heating fires with clean-burning cookstoves fired either by wood, manure or other biomass or, even better, methane.
—Replace traditional brick kilns with more advanced firing methods.
—Replace traditional ovens for turning coal to coke with modern technologies.
—Ban the open burning of crop stubble and other agricultural waste.
The researchers estimate that cutting those 14 together could avoid between 700,000 and 4.7 million premature deaths (largely from smoky, unhealthy air) and increase crop yields by between 30 million and 135 million metric tons (due to concomitant reductions in ground-level ozone, otherwise known as smog, which forms from fugitive methane and blights crops in Brazil, China, India, the U.S. and elsewhere). In addition, the economic analysis suggests that many of these measures provide more value in benefits than they cost to implement.
You can read the rest of the article at the link above, but I think this speaks for it well enough. Solve global warming without really having to do anything, and save money in the process? Sounds like just the thing climate skeptics have been waiting for.
Not to mention the implications of a naturally occurring and renewable source of natural gas, meaning no (immediate) need to ditch the oil economy completely. Win-win for climate alarmists and skeptics alike.
-
Anyway we can find natural gas, without fracking, is a huge positive in my book.
-
Yeah, and this is not to say I won't still be championing the cause of carbon mitigation through measures like developing clean tech and the green economy, but it does take a lot of heat off the cause in terms of the economics and whatnot.
-
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2093264/Forget-global-warming--Cycle-25-need-worry-NASA-scientists-right-Thames-freezing-again.html
No warming after 17 years? Thoughts?
-
dailymail
There's your problem. I can show you plenty of places that confirm the planet is warming. In fact, even from my own, individual perspective I can see the planet is warming. Although one shouldn't make the mistake that it's weather that's warming, but rather the system, which is causing more erratic climatic behavior.
-
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2093264/Forget-global-warming--Cycle-25-need-worry-NASA-scientists-right-Thames-freezing-again.html
No warming after 17 years? Thoughts?
What's the ppm for co2 in the ocean? Is it still rising?
-
And in any event, as my previous article points out, we should still be shifting towards renewable energies and the like, especially considering we now have a way of doing so that's not only not unbearably costly but indeed potentially extravagantly profitable.
-
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2093264/Forget-global-warming--Cycle-25-need-worry-NASA-scientists-right-Thames-freezing-again.html
No warming after 17 years? Thoughts?
(https://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/01/28/article-2093264-1180A4F1000005DC-28_468x286.jpg)
vs.
(https://i556.photobucket.com/albums/ss10/GraemeCrackers/temps.jpg)
That shows you the integrity of the author, there.
-
Besides, there's still the physical fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and the uncontrolled and massive pollution of CO2 is bad, no matter how you figure it. There's a lot we don't know about the climate, which is all the more reason we should not want to mettle with it.
-
If we're worried about more CO2 then plant more crops. People are not going to reduce their standard of living. Want to buy some carbon credits? :biggrin:
-
Actually the point Scheavo and I have been making over the course of this thread is that people's standard of living actually doesn't need to change drastically in order to protect our environment...
-
Actually the point Scheavo and I have been making over the course of this thread is that people's standard of living actually doesn't need to change drastically in order to protect our environment...
It kind of does. The Western way of life is fundamentally unsustainable. There's no question about that.
If we're worried about more CO2 then plant more crops. People are not going to reduce their standard of living. Want to buy some carbon credits? :biggrin:
Hey, I'm right there with you. I think hundreds of millions of people in the third world should die, too.
-
They will if the American Christians stop sending them bags of rice every week.
-
If we're worried about more CO2 then plant more crops. People are not going to reduce their standard of living. Want to buy some carbon credits? :biggrin:
Are there really that many area's of the world that can grow plants that aren't growing plants?
Though, someone came up with a pretty ingenious method to catch dew in deserts, which then feed tree's, giving them enough time to root down and get some water. That could actually be a good way to reduce desertification, and desertification would be a problem either way.
As another side point, we should probably reintroduce more predators in the Wilderness. Predators kill elk / deer, elk/deer kill sapling tree's and produce more grasslands. More predators = more forests = better carbon sequestering.
Actually the point Scheavo and I have been making over the course of this thread is that people's standard of living actually doesn't need to change drastically in order to protect our environment...
It kind of does. The Western way of life is fundamentally unsustainable. There's no question about that.
There's a lot we could do that wouldn't really effect our lifestyle. Geothermal would reduce energy costs by a lot, and doesn't require us to change jack shit. Same goes for solar panels. Of course, this is just in regards to CO2, our overall nature of consumption is, by definition, unsustainable.
-
Actually in fact a lot of the solutions we've been advocating throughout the thread would vastly improve the standard of living around the world, not just in the Western world.
-
They will if the American Christians stop sending them bags of rice every week.
Actually, charity can be rather detrimental to developing economies, to the point that crops in those countries are literally rotting on the the vine while nearby families starve. How can local farmers compete with free food? It's the old "Give a man a fish, and he'll eat for a night. Teach a man to fish, and he'll eat for life," adage.
-
I don't think that was his point, sadly...
-
They will if the American Christians stop sending them bags of rice every week.
:lol
Did you ever post when "The Terminator" was here? If not, you've taken his place as defender of all things Christian-Conservative.
-
They will if the American Christians stop sending them bags of rice every week.
:lol
Did you ever post when "The Terminator" was here? If not, you've taken his place as defender of all things Christian-Conservative.
I was being sarcastic. I am not religious. I couldn't care less about third world garbage holes.
-
If we're worried about more CO2 then plant more crops.
That would make things worse.
-
If we're worried about more CO2 then plant more crops.
That would make things worse.
How is growing more food, plants, etc bad? CO2 is not a pollutant.
-
If we're worried about more CO2 then plant more crops.
That would make things worse.
How is growing more food, plants, etc bad? CO2 is not a pollutant.
Holy fuck.
-
Holy not explaining how growing more food is bad :rollin
-
Alright well I hope you're alright with 1/3 of the world's population living in poverty:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=world-lacks-enough-food-fuel-as-pop
And that's with us "simply growing more food."
I would also like to point out that climate science has found that even the minor, gradual and rather temporary instances of global warming and cooling in our past have led to the collapse of entire empires. The upcoming scenario is none of these.
-
Oh, I don't care about the third world. They're basically all in the stone age and we've thrown enough money and aid at them to no real results. I just meant with more CO2, plant more crops (wherever) to absorb. Personally, I'd go for hemp..plenty of uses and it grows like crazy.
-
Oh, I don't care about the third world. They're basically all in the stone age and we've thrown enough money and aid at them to no real results. I just meant with more CO2, plant more crops (wherever) to absorb. Personally, I'd go for hemp..plenty of uses and it grows like crazy.
Wow!
-
I'm honestly not sure if you are trolling or whether you really are that apathetic. Either way its quite depressing.
In any case to answer your question about why growing more crops is bad: crops in and of themselves on average dont actually remove any CO2 because in using them you typically return the CO2 back to the system (eating them, burning them, whatever) . And considering how much oil/natural gas is used in generating things like fertilisers, harvesting, transportation, processing/storing etc, you actually dump more CO2 into the ecosystem on average.
-
And as I said, the Third World won't be the only people affected. To be frank, climate change will impact everyone negatively. And hey, the Third World actually produces a sizable chunk of our foodstuffs and other imports, and if they go down you can say goodbye to the standard of living you so cherish.
-
I'd rather we take care of our own (in my case, Americans) before worrying about people in other parts of the world.
-
As noted, supporting them benefits us. Someone who's fiscally conservative should appreciate the economic principle of "everyone benefits from growth," and so growth there translates into growth here.
-
As noted, supporting them benefits us. Someone who's fiscally conservative should appreciate the economic principle of "everyone benefits from growth," and so growth there translates into growth here.
An isolationist like Praxis likely would rather have less growth and prosperity in their own country, if more growth and prosperity meant sharing anything, or being involved, with other countries.
The irony is that the US would never have become such a great country if it had been so stricly isolationist.
-
Isolationist, my ass. I believe in non-intervention. HUGE difference.
-
Isolationist, my ass. I believe in non-intervention. HUGE difference.
Even if you're right, the end result will be the same (i.e. what eric said).
-
Isolationist, my ass. I believe in non-intervention. HUGE difference.
I didnt know that humanitarian aid (when not forced against a countrys will) was included in non-interventionism.
-
Isolationist, my ass. I believe in non-intervention. HUGE difference.
I didnt know that humanitarian aid (when not forced against a countrys will) was included in non-interventionism.
Voluntary aid is included in non-interventionism. Meaning, you can choose to donate YOUR money to whatever humanitarian cause/charity that you want because it's your money. Non-inverventionism mainly means you don't meddle in the affairs of the other country. If they want to trade with you, then great, otherwise, you have no alliances or responsibility towards anyone but yourself.
-
A good reason why selling to others is actually beneficial for both parties:
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/stephanie-praus/paving-the-way-for-us-cle_b_954444.html?ref=green-technology
Also posting this annual climate tracker because I love diagrams:
https://www.5min.com/Video/NASA-Finds-2011-Ninth-Warmest-Year-on-Record-517257716
-
Nicaragua, Central America's poorest country, is on track to have 94% of their energy produced by renewable sources by 2016. (https://www.csmonitor.com/World/Americas/2012/0207/The-next-revolution-for-Nicaragua-energy-independence) They're at 30% as of now.
Remember a few pages back, when people were claiming the United States couldn't afford to go completely renewable?
-
Nicaragua, Central America's poorest country, is on track to have 94% of their energy produced by renewable sources by 2016. (https://www.csmonitor.com/World/Americas/2012/0207/The-next-revolution-for-Nicaragua-energy-independence) They're at 30% as of now.
Remember a few pages back, when people were claiming the United States couldn't afford to go completely renewable?
And ya know, actually doing it would be a huge infrastructure investment, and would create quite a few jobs.
-
https://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/02/10/a-carbon-allowance-in-every-pot/#more-132179
What do the economists here say to reduced working hours?
-
I think some of you are misunderstanding what Praxis is saying. He is not saying that the US should stop doing business with third world countries but he is saying that they should stop sending aid to them (free food, medical suplies, etc.). I think it's a little harsh but I can understand why he feels like that.
https://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/02/10/a-carbon-allowance-in-every-pot/#more-132179
What do the economists here say to reduced working hours?
Reduce working hours? Lol, like any company will go for that.
And regarding global warming and using renewable energy, I don't think it should matter how much it will cost to generate the infrastructure, it will create jobs as Scheavo already pointed out and is also planning for the future since we know the oil reserves are not endless.
-
By the way, can we have the thread title changed to the Official Climate Change Thread? Or maybe the Official Environment Thread, since the topics we discuss are actually a lot broader than climate change?
-
Can't you do it?
-
Well no, I thought only mods could?
-
I think you can edit your original post.
-
OK, you were right. :P
-
Did anybody hear about the Heartland Institute (https://www.policymic.com/articles/4290/not-problematic-that-climate-change-skeptic-heartland-institute-took-donations-from-microsoft-and-gm) drama?
-
I don't see why it's a big deal (is it? I haven't heard anything about it before hand). You're right to note the scale of the Heartland Institute's budget relative to other environmental groups (although you did omit how much massively larger oil and coal are).
However: Finally, how outrageous is Heartland's view of climate change? Well, it's not at all. The institute argues on its website that, "Probably two-thirds of the warming in the 1990s was due to natural causes; the warming trend already has stopped and forecasts of future warming are unreliable; and the benefits of a moderate warming are likely to outweigh the costs."
I don't know what you're defining as "outrageous," but it is 100% bullshit.
-
And actually, hasn't there been a model circulating lately that shows that not only have the last 30 years' winters been the hottest in climatology history, but that this winter is the hottest of all of those?
-
I don't see why it's a big deal (is it? I haven't heard anything about it before hand). You're right to note the scale of the Heartland Institute's budget relative to other environmental groups (although you did omit how much massively larger oil and coal are).
However: Finally, how outrageous is Heartland's view of climate change? Well, it's not at all. The institute argues on its website that, "Probably two-thirds of the warming in the 1990s was due to natural causes; the warming trend already has stopped and forecasts of future warming are unreliable; and the benefits of a moderate warming are likely to outweigh the costs."
I don't know what you're defining as "outrageous," but it is 100% bullshit.
Well, no. I can find plenty of papers to back up that claim. I don't think warming has stopped, as I mentioned in there. But Heartland is hardly some dastardly anti-science organization. That's all I'm saying.
-
Which is why it's hard to see how this is a controversy. Maybe if you're conspiratorial, you view his as one side against the other, but it really just shows you the ernest interest in this issue by those people.
-
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/18/climate-change-economic-hardship_n_1353749.html?ref=climate-change
All I have to say is: no, really? :lol And it took them four years to figure that out?
-
The Arctic has reached a CO2 concentration of 400 ppm. (https://www.guardian.co.uk/world/feedarticle/10266256)
-
Only 50 ppm to go. It's been nice knowing you all.
I do hope this silver lining will be enough to make up for the news: https://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45975253/ns/technology_and_science-science/#.T8eh_-1QSXu
-
Prediction: in 30 years, ecocide will be a globally recognized crime.
-
I should hope so.
Anyway, have you noticed we're the only two people who post in this thread?
-
I personally have grown tired of discussing the topic. The only real opposition you meet in those threads is by ideologically handicapped people.
rumborak
-
True that. It's too bad there can't be a more pragmatic dialogue, like coming up with positive solutions to the problem.
-
Something everyone can do to help the environment is lower their total consumption of animal foods. Factory farming produces 18% of the worlds greenhouse gases, including large amounts of methane which is 23 times worse than CO2, and large amounts of nitrous oxide which is 300x worse than CO2. This paper from the FAO (https://www.fao.org/docrep/010/a0701e/a0701e00.HTM) pegs livestock as a bigger contributor to global warming than transportation and calls for meat consumption to be cut in half. Of course, this may fall on deaf ears on a bacon-centric board. I've been a vegetarian for 3 years and it's not nearly as bad as some would have you believe. It's one of the best things you can do for yourself, the Earth, and last but not least, the poor animals.
-
I fall in the camp of believing in climate change, admitting it's mostly man-made but having no desire to change it (not that I have any desire to add to it either).
-
Something everyone can do to help the environment is lower their total consumption of animal foods. Factory farming produces 18% of the worlds greenhouse gases, including large amounts of methane which is 23 times worse than CO2, and large amounts of nitrous oxide which is 300x worse than CO2. This paper from the FAO (https://www.fao.org/docrep/010/a0701e/a0701e00.HTM) pegs livestock as a bigger contributor to global warming than transportation and calls for meat consumption to be cut in half. Of course, this may fall on deaf ears on a bacon-centric board. I've been a vegetarian for 3 years and it's not nearly as bad as some would have you believe. It's one of the best things you can do for yourself, the Earth, and last but not least, the poor animals.
Wow, I never knew we agreed in this area. Cool beans.
I mean there are tons of other things we could be doing, but yes, factory farming and, in lamest terms, cow farts are big contributors.
-
Something everyone can do to help the environment is lower their total consumption of animal foods. Factory farming produces 18% of the worlds greenhouse gases, including large amounts of methane which is 23 times worse than CO2, and large amounts of nitrous oxide which is 300x worse than CO2. This paper from the FAO (https://www.fao.org/docrep/010/a0701e/a0701e00.HTM) pegs livestock as a bigger contributor to global warming than transportation and calls for meat consumption to be cut in half. Of course, this may fall on deaf ears on a bacon-centric board. I've been a vegetarian for 3 years and it's not nearly as bad as some would have you believe. It's one of the best things you can do for yourself, the Earth, and last but not least, the poor animals.
I've been cutting down my meat-intake by a lot over the last couple of years. Really diversified my cuisine - discovered my love for Moroccan food (which now dominates my diet), explored the south-east Asia and the Indian sub-continent, looking for delicious vegetarian meals to add to my repertoire. Now I only have one or two meat dinners a week, plus a little bacon and deli meats for breakfast and lunch (old habits die hard). It is a big contributor.
-
Tofu: it helps me help the planet. And turns me into a woman.
-
In other news, apparently this summer has been turning the climate politics tide against Republicans. I don't know what to make of this article, so I'll let you all decide for yourselves, all two of you:
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-vognar/could-climate-change-fry-_b_1635117.html?utm_hp_ref=climate-change
-
In other, other news, Australia is now pricing carbon.
Sky: still in tact.
-
Good on ya, Australia! :tup
God, I might just move to Narnia. :lol
-
Tofu: it helps me help the planet. And turns me into a woman.
Soy is garbage. I've always lamented the fact that it was associated with vegetarianism. :lol
Monocrops like soy are probably not that great for the environment though. Another food I've cut from my diet is palm oil which contributes heavily to deforestation in Indonesia and Malaysia. A lot of vegetarians/vegans end up consuming loads of palm oil not knowing of its disastrous environmental impact.
-
Good on ya, Australia! :tup
In that context, the correct pronounciation is Straya...but I forgive you :p
But yeah, havent noticed any price flow throughs yet. Waiting for my electricity bill though :lol
-
Oh wow, it's charging through at all levels? I thought you meant industry-only regulation.
-
Yo America, crazy weather we've been having lately! Really freaking hot too...weird, right?
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tVEPvXBEOSE
-
I'll explain how its working tomorrow mornin', if you'd like
-
Sure, tomorrow morning Straya time?
-
I don't get why climate change is either a political or a religious issue, other than in the sense that the far right wants to politicize science. Would a thread on evolutionary biology go in P/R as well?
-
Yes and I believe it has happened in the past.
-
It's been pointed out before that this is actually Political, Religious, and Serious Discussion of Science board.
-
Also AFAIK none of the contributors to the thread so far has disputed that climate change exists so much as its extent, severity, and what to do about it.
-
And therefore, its a political issue :)
So, Straya's carbon pricing is an interesting policy I guess. Its technically an ETS, although in the first three years the price is fixed (starting at AU$26/tonne and escalating by 4% per year I think), and its only directly paid by 280 of the countries biggest emitting entities at this stage. After the three year fixed price period, it becomes a full blown cap n trade - so I guess then anyone who wants carbon permits can pay for them. Its mostly going to hit power generators, waste dumps, utility companies, some chemical manufacturers and some local councils (that have waste dumps); so the direct impact is minimal. However it flows through the economy (hopefully I don't have to explain why), and everyone is waiting to see how it affects broader prices. An anecdote we've already heard from a food manufacturer is that a chemical gas used in his refrigeration system will see its price rise by 234% by the end of the month (so $4,000 a unit to $14,000 a unit) as a result of the policy.
Which, hey, is doing its job because its raising the relative price of carbon-intensive goods and services. I dispute why Australia, of all places, should lead the way on pricing carbon given our comparative advantages, at least in an industrial sense, lie almost exclusively in carbon-intensive raw materials such as coal, agriculture, fertaliser and the like. All we can hope for now is that the world gets into gear, otherwise we will be putting our economy at a self-inflicted competitive disadvantage for years.
-
Sounds good, keep us updated. Meanwhile in Michigan, it's over 100 degrees Fahrenheit, and we have severe thunderstorms with marble-sized hail coming down. Either we're looking at the effects of climate change, or the true blue apocalypse.
-
That must be some giant-ass ice forming in the clouds to make it all the way down!
-
That must be some giant-ass ice forming in the clouds to make it all the way down!
That isn't how hail is formed. Hail usually only occurs in large thunderstorms because it requires extremely strong updrafts and a vertically extended cumulonimbus cloud (usually 6-7+ km in height, optimally to the top of the troposphere). Rain droplets get caught in a strong updraft in the centre of the cumulonimbus, and then once they get to a high altitude they become supercooled, meaning they are below 0 degrees C and will freeze on contact with particles called "condensation nuclei." These frozen raindrops will then collect other supercooled raindrops forming hailstones, until the strength of the updraft can't hold their weight and they fall to the Earth. That's why bigger, more violent storms tend to have bigger hailstones, even if the temperature on the ground is warmer.
-
Awesome. Thanks for the meteorology lesson!
(being completely sincere)
-
Here's a nice little piece about how carbon taxes are actually an economic boon, and can increase personal freedom (with no credit given apparently to Australia though, sorry):
https://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/05/opinion/a-carbon-tax-sensible-for-all.html?_r=1&hp
In another piece of news, around four million Americans are without power as of last Saturday because of these extreme weather events, and that number is probably way up from then, given there are over 200,000 such cases in my hometown alone.