Global Warming

[BasketCase]

Yes, it's an interesting gamble! Let’s cross our fingers and hope for the best

Go to church every Sunday so that you won't go to Hell? Nope. Cross your fingers and hope for the best.

Saddam MIGHT have nuclear weapons. Not enough grounds for an invasion, a lot of people say. Cross your fingers and hope for the best.

Plus there was that meteor that until recently had something like a 1 in 20 chance of hitting Earth 15 years from now. We could have started building some long-range missiles now instead of later, to knock it down sooner. Nope. We just crossed our fingers, kept peering at the rock through our scopes, and hoped for the best.

The precedent appears to be pretty solidly established.

 

[Pikachu]

Did you think my last post was sarcastic? Why do people so often assume that when I state my honest opinion?

I love to waste resources, and I am willing to put my climate at stake to be allowed to continue wasting resources. I understand that this gamble is a little irresponsible, but who cares? I don’t want to act responsible!

 

[BasketCase]

Actually, yes--it did look to me like you were being sarcastic.

I love to waste resources, and I am willing to put my climate at stake to be allowed to continue wasting resources. I understand that this gamble is a little irresponsible, but who cares? I don’t want to act responsible!

Now, this--I'm not sure if this is you doing sarcasm again, but since you're in the "let's stop global warming" camp, I think I can assume yes. Either way, the above quote is precisely the mindset of a lot of people: gamble and hope for the best rather than give up short-term wealth for long-term benefits. People have been that way for most of recorded history.

 

[Pikachu]

What makes you think that I am in the "let's stop global warming" camp?

I don’t think what we want to do about our global warming have anything to do with how real the problem is. When people use the costs of stopping global warming as a reason why global warming must be a scam, it makes me a little suspicious to their motives for their ignorance...

I am in the camp that believes in the science that proves that global warming is a real concern, but still is not willing to do anything dramatic to avoid the problem.

 

[BasketCase]

Ahaaaa, now I see what angle yer comin' from. I've never seen anyone take that position before--everyone else I've bumped heads with on global warming was either "it's a big problem and we need to stop it NOW" or "it's not a problem".

 

[carlosMM]

Ahaaaa, now I see what angle yer comin' from. I've never seen anyone take that position before--everyone else I've bumped heads with on global warming was either "it's a big problem and we need to stop it NOW" or "it's not a problem".

most people I know rather say: "it's a big problem and we need to address it NOW"


I am of the opinion that it is PAST the point of 'being a problem' - it is a reality and we need to think ASAP about how to deal with it - we can't stop it anymore!

 

[BasketCase]

IIIIII caaaaan't heeeeeear yoooouuuu!!!

 

[carlosMM]

IIIIII caaaaan't heeeeeear yoooouuuu!!!

you are childish!

and you looooooosssssssttttttt!!!!!!

also - if you can't hear me - how do you know I addressed you???????

gotcha!

 

[storealex]

Carlos, I hope you don't stop writing to him just because he ignore you. It's not about convincing people who are wrong anymore, since it's only Basketcase who is left. It's about convincing others that he is wrong, which you're excellent at. Keep it up.

 

[BasketCase]

Only in your eyes, Store. Once again: The Real Reasons People Leave Threads

People didn't leave this thread because they were converted to the "global warming is a problem" camp. They left because real life distracted them or because there were too many damn threads to keep track of them all. Most likely they put this thread on the back burner because they figured they were up against a bunch of radical Greenpeace global warming bible thumpers.

I don't need to read any of Carlos' posts anyway, because they all sound exactly the same.

 

[carlosMM]

storelax: no worries!

BasketCase: the real reason why people leave threads - do you really think the 'I was wrong and got annoyed' option got its fair share of votes?

I somehow do not think so! I think people especially like you can never admit that they were wrong - and not even by voting 'I was wrong and too chicken to admit it!'

 

[Akka]

Only in your eyes, Store. Once again: The Real Reasons People Leave Threads

Clearly not only in his eyes, no

People didn't leave this thread because they were converted to the "global warming is a problem" camp. They left because real life distracted them or because there were too many damn threads to keep track of them all. Most likely they put this thread on the back burner because they figured they were up against a bunch of radical Greenpeace global warming bible thumpers.

Well, personnally, I barely follow this thread precisely because of the religious zeal of the wishful thinker that close their eyes on reality because they have bucks in place of brains. Talking to a wall is quite tiring, and I admire the persistence of the actual real scientists in this board, who spend their time trying to educate people that don't want to be educated.

(coincidentally, by the way, all the real scientists here are on the same side of the issue...)

I don't need to read any of Carlos' posts anyway, because they all sound exactly the same.

Wow. Talk about pot and kettle...

 

[BasketCase]

(coincidentally, by the way, all the real scientists here are on the same side of the issue...)

WHICH side has the "real scientists" is one of the things that was debated:

Now, in the ten or so pages before this post, one of you has been particularly insistent in claiming that no scientists question anthropogenic global warming. My personal experience contradicts that. In my department, all the climate people and meteorologists doubt the global warming theory. (The geologists don't.)

So there.

 

[carlosMM]

Originally Posted by gene90
Now, in the ten or so pages before this post, one of you has been particularly insistent in claiming that no scientists question anthropogenic global warming. My personal experience contradicts that. In my department, all the climate people and meteorologists doubt the global warming theory. (The geologists don't.)

Well, gene, what IS your department?
Becasue here, none of them doubts it...


@ all:

omorrow morning I hope to finally actually get the long promised meeting with my top boss - and will ask him again about those sources I promised to post.

 

[gene90]

This is the point where your otherwise well-reasoned objections break down. You decry the media, which admittedly often sensationalize environmental concerns, but swallow uncritically the point of view (I'm tempted to say propaganda) of the other side.

My "propaganda" is mostly from my opinion, and from papers such as one in AAPG Bulletin sited above. I don't recall having ever heard the media question anthropogenic global warming, even on conservative channels like FOX News. Maybe I should watch more TV?

Here is the source of the difference of opinion between myself and Gothmog, and perhaps CarlosMM.

They are into climate modeling, which is speculative. I'm into geology, which deals with past climates, and is based on observation. I do not mean to question their science on this ground, both views are important. But when observation conficts with a model, observation always wins.

I'm sure they're good scientists, but they are modelers. Modelers have this nasty habit of sitting in dark rooms and never going outside to check their data. They also have a tendency to define the real world by models, instead of defining models by the real world. A prof once told us of dealing with one of these guys. In a professional meeting, he was told by a modeler that a cave did not exist because the model said it didn't. He told the modeler that he would be sure to inform the cave of that on his next visit.

I look to the past to understand the future, they use computers.

150 years is a long time to atmospheric physicists, it is no more significant than a summer breeze in my view of climate.

They see a sea level of 66 meters higher than that of today as unusually high, I see today's sea level as unusually low.

They see a sea level rise as catastrophy, I see it as inevitable even without human intervention, and even if there were not secular change in climate.

We also read different journals and go to different professional meetings. In fact, GothMog called AAPG Bulletin 'not peer-reviewed'. That shows me how much our two disciplines are communicating right now.

You are obviously quite well-informed on the scientific side of the controversy (though Gothmog has the upper hand IMHO

Yes. I don't specialize in climate studies, even on the geological end. I admit that he knows more about the issue.

but less so on the economic issues

You, as an economist, I should expect will understand this issue far more than I.

There are many ways of reducing emissions, ranging from increasing regenerative energy production capacities

And what "regenerative production capabilities" are these?

We can't afford mass production of solar cells, they're only useful in certain latitudes, and they often use lots of lovely substances like arsenic in their construction.

Due to a Presidential Executive Order banning the use of breeder reactors, nuclear power is dead in the United States. Certain other nations have announced intentions to phase theirs out.

Windfarms are an eyesore on the landscape, kill large numbers of migratory birds, are only useful in certain climate zones, are very expensive, and costly in terms of maintenance. Senator Kennedy is a friend of the environment until you want to build a windfarm a mile from his summer vacation home. There are good reasons for that.

We've built all the hydro plants we can in the US, there aren't a lot more potential sites. Even if there were, the environmental movement is now calling for the dismantlement of certain dams in the American West, in that they cause serious disruptions of riparian ecology. And if you believe in anthropogenic global warming, you should consider the methane production by submerged vegetation.

Most of the available biomass sources require greater energy input in production than is released by burning the product. Ethanol is the worst of them all. It's made from corn, which redirects ag lands from being used to produce food. Corn itself rapidly depletes soil nutrients and requires tons of water to grow. As groundwater mining, such as occurs in the Ogallala Aquifer, intensifies, ag is going to be hurt by it as it is.

Oh, but by the way, there is a form of energy technology that produces very little pollution (other than CO2, a rather innocuous gas) and is plentiful in the United States. It's still in development but there is a facility not so far from here. It's called Clean Coal Technology and it will seriously alleviate the energy crisis, if environmentalists don't stop it because of this claimed global warming.

It needs some rearranging of priorities and economic incentives

What does that mean?

Same for a gas-guzzling car,BTW.

Yeah, but some people (not me, personally) like having the freedom to drive big cars. Does the government really have the right to deprive them of economic choices? Especially based upon such a questionable premise as global warming? I think not. You may disagree, but the argument is neither scientific nor about economics, but about politics.

 

[gene90]

Eart is in an ice era at this very moment. It has been calculated that 10 percent of the world is permanently covered in ice or snow, and a further 14 percent is in a state of permafrost. Before 50 million years ago there was no permanent ice on earth, and during the late cretaceous period Tyrannosaurus Rex often lived within 10 degrees latitude of the north pole, and there were dinosaurs in Australia, then more southern than today that also survived many winters.

I second most of the above.

The Cretaceous, the time period in which the T. Rex lived, was a greenhouse climate. And yet, there may have been periods of glaciation. (There were some rapid changes in sea level and glacioeustacy is the only way to do that.)

 

[gene90]

I love to waste resources, and I am willing to put my climate at stake to be allowed to continue wasting resources. I understand that this gamble is a little irresponsible, but who cares? I don’t want to act responsible!

This doesn't make any sense.

Who decides what is "wasting" resources? Maybe you're like me and you don't want to shell out the cash for driving a fuel-inefficient vehicle.

But some people do. Either for status, luxury, or for perceived safety, they buy SUVs. Is that a waste?

Right now, Pikachu, you are reading an online bulletin board where we arguing about global warming. The outcome of this argument will not affect gov't policy or scientific findings in any way. Yet you persist in using energy to do so, not only the energy feeding your own computer but all of the internet infrastructure you are using as well. Isn't that a "waste" of resources? Shouldn't you stop it?

 

[gene90]

I am in the camp that believes in the science that proves that global warming is a real concern, but still is not willing to do anything dramatic to avoid the problem.

That's the best position you can have in this debate. I don't want to argue that Gothmog's funding should be cut. I just think it's premature for it to require international agreements, for politicians to use it in elections, and for the media to only show one side.

 

[gene90]

Are you saying that since we cannot know for sure that something does not cancels out the changes we are making, we should simply ignore the possibility that our changes will not be cancelled out?

This was answered with the analogy to the invasion of Iraq, in which we spent hundreds of billions of dollars and thousands of lives because Saddam might have had WMDs. And yet for the same side that argues that we should take drastic action to mitigate alleged global warming; the Iraq invasion was unjustified.

Also, the same guy made the asteroid analogy. If we get hit by an asteroid, it'll wipe us out. So why aren't we spending hundreds of billions of dollars constructing a planetary defense system?

Funny, you don't even hear about the asteroid threat much these days. But as the guy at JunkScience (a politically biased discussion about GW and other things) says; if "corporations" caused asteroid impacts we'd be hearing about it as much as we hear about GW.

Why do you keep using the cost of correcting the problem as an argument?

Because the amount of money invested in correcting an alleged problem should always be directly proportional to the evidence that the problem even exists.

Simple concept.

I think the discussion about how real the problem is should be independent from how much it would cost to fix it.

Ok. Let's dump several hundred billion dollars into Spaceguard Survey.

I find it strange that you accuse the vast majority of the scientists in the field of being biased while you yourself use the cost of fixing the problem as an argument to why the problem doesn’t exist.

That's a deliberately dishonest summary of my position. I have argued that there is no evidence for anthropogenic GW. Then I pointed out how we're going to waste money on Kyoto. Different issues.

I can only see two scenarios here: Either the human interruption will cause a change directly, or it will cause a change in some feedback mechanisms that cancels out the effect.

False dichotomy.

The human influence may not even be detectable.

feedback mechanisms themselves are climate changes

Reality: humans alter the environment, because human beings are living things, and alteration of the environment is part of the definition of what constitutes life. It may be small, but we do. You radiate about 100 watts into your immediate environment. You alter the local climate simply with your metabolic functions. You also release methane and CO2. You are changing the "climate" simply by existing. So it's obviously not about humans not changing the environment, it is about whether it matters.

Our climate is not that simple! Many factors affect the climate. Sometimes different effects cancel out each other. This could make it appear that one factor alone directly controls the climate.

Here, let me repeat that in bold:

Our climate is not that simple! Many factors affect the climate. Sometimes different effects cancel out each other. This could make it appear that one factor alone directly controls the climate.

In other words, you don't know if we're causing global warming, and you don't know if it's by CO2, and if it is, you don't know if Kyoto will have any affect.

That's my point exactly.

 

[gene90]

All factors we can influence we influence in the same direction. Many of the meditatiing factors are not active (where are the big CO2-sink forests in swamps like in the Mississippian?).

Most of the State of Louisianna.

And when sea level does come up, and it is inevitable with or without anthropogenic GW, the area of coal swamp will increase and CO2 sinks will increase proporitionately. Not just in swamps but in carbonate banks as well, and also as forests advance across what was formerly tundra.

You have chicken-and-egg issues here. The reason there were so many sinks in the Mississippian was because it was warm and sea level was up. It is cold now and sea level is low, so there aren't as many sinks.