role of cosmic rays in cloud formation confirmed (again), warmists in denial

[Winner]

I'm afraid the developing world won't be bothered to halt their industrialization merely to preserve the climate you grew up with.

Of course, the worst impact of climate change will be felt in the developing world, so it's rather in their interest to cooperate.

I would dispute that even a sizeable increase in global average temperature, of say 5 degrees celsius by 2100, would make much of our infra-structure useless. I also don't buy that it would lead to some catastrophic rise in sea levels; I don't think this is being suggested even by the most alarmed "warmists". The IPCC forecasts a rise of 18 to 59cm, and even they refrain from stating it as a certainty.

That is based on rather conservative models. It doesn't take into account the effects of methane release in the sub-Arctic or from methane hydrates on the ocean floor. If that happens, we could face rapid, catastrophic climate change. Also, the counter-warming effects of global dimming are being largely ignored.

So my best guess is that warming would lead to problems in some areas and open opportunities in others. And have no effect in other areas (after all GW is not supposed to be uniform).

I repeat: the worst hit area will predominantly be the "developing world" - Africa, the Middle East, South Asia. They'll lose arable land, water, and they'll be faced with more severe weather. Northern China will also be hit hard by desertification.

First world countries will be able to deal with the effects of climate change far better than the rest. Europe is environmentally practically indestructible, the US is big enough to compensate for the environmental disruption of the South-west, and Japan will muddle through as always. Africa and India, on the other hand, will feel the brunt of climate change.

 

[Tee Kay]

Of course, the worst impact of climate change will be felt in the developing world, so it's rather in their interest to cooperate.

And many of them are already doing so. Even Big Bad China is busy cleaning up its act, promoting renewables, shutting down the worst polluting factories, and planting new forests.

So yeah, the "selfish Third World" argument is not as watertight as some people might think.

 

[Camikaze]

I'm afraid the developing world won't be bothered to halt their industrialization merely to preserve the climate you grew up with.

The developing world should take advantage of what is an unique option of skipping generations of costly and wasteful technological solutions and take the sustainable route instead.

Of course, the worst impact of climate change will be felt in the developing world, so it's rather in their interest to cooperate.

And many of them are already doing so. Even Big Bad China is busy cleaning up its act, promoting renewables, shutting down the worst polluting factories, and planting new forests.

So yeah, the "selfish Third World" argument is not as watertight as some people might think.

I had an interesting lecture the other day from a fairly prominent (in Australia at least) political economist dude, whose main argument was that China was leading the way in terms of switching to a renewable economy (with Germany catching onto the idea, and Japan potentially about to). The 'West' (as opposed to 'the developing world') are rapidly falling behind China in this regard. Yet despite this, what luiz said was echoed in this lecture, because China leading the way and not halting their industrialisation are not mutually exclusive. Chinese emissions should peak around 2035, but will then rapidly decrease to zero in the following 60 years. They aren't going to forgo taking advantage of the fossil fuel system whilst they still can, but they are establishing a post-fossil fuel basis that will place them firmly in the lead by the time their renewable economy has overtaken their fossil fuel one (a Brazilian shift to recognising Sino-centrism was particularly noted with regards to this). It's not a matter of China 'co-operating', because they are already winning the race, and it will be a very profitable one!

I haven't delved into the topic any further than that lecture, but it raised some interesting and relevant points, I thought.

 

[Winner]

And many of them are already doing so. Even Big Bad China is busy cleaning up its act, promoting renewables, shutting down the worst polluting factories, and planting new forests.

So yeah, the "selfish Third World" argument is not as watertight as some people might think.

I hope this isn't addressed to me.

 

[Tee Kay]

I hope this isn't addressed to me.

It's not! *hugs*

 

[luiz]

Your hypothetical ability to dispute my claim is a piss-poor rejection of my claim.

Which is fine, considering your claim is a piss-poor hypothesis that would be laughed at in any serious scientific discussion.

18-59 was the projection for this century.

Indeed. And as I said it is idiotic to make any predictions for over a century from now.

It is also a world mean, and is amplified by tidal action and other factors in some parts of the world. If the icecaps and the Greenland icefield were to melt, the range according to the IPCC is 110-770. These projections are possibly true, quite possibly true, and such an actuality would be catastrophic.

Their best estimate for this century is 18-59. It is nonsense to talk of predictions "if X happens". I have very little faith even in the 18-59 cm forecast.

If you think they are "quite possibly true" you should be able to back it up.

Your best guess is still a guess. You are simply presuming that everything will balance out in the end without a defense of that outcome. There are at least identifiable reasons to think there will be detriment if GW is true.

The ones who need to defend their outcomes are those that want mankind to radically change course because of their predictions.

You [the "warmists", not you personally) want us to spend hundreds of billions in green energy? You want to make it many times more expensive for the developing world to catch up with the developed world? Well, prove that the alternative is disaster or you will be ignored.

The issue is that these forecasts are all that is available to us. We have to make decisions today about things in the future that we cannot know much about. Inaction is as much a decision as some other action and can be equally as misguided in retrospect. Using your argument to reject a claim that we ought to do x equally undermines the argument that we oughtn't to do x. Your point is thus absurd. A parallel example:

I already said that the burden of proof lies with those making the catastophist claims. The burden lies with those who want to spend money and radically change our ways of life.

 

[Dirichlet]

What I find funny is that the people the most eager to paint any skepticism towards the "scientific consensus" on AGW as an "attack on science" are precisely those with zero scientific background.

That's not true. You might get that impression because most of the "skepticism" is just so incredibly ill-founded. Are climate scientiest people, who can make errors? Absolutely. Still, the consensus is wide enough that you should really have something credible to offer. What I mostly get from "skepticists" are arguments like "Oh, temperature was higher in the medieval period anyway" and "oh, this summer was so cold, global warming must be false".

When someone comes and says Scientist X did not check the model assumptions enough when writing paper y and making prediction z and here is why the assumption is wrong... then we reach the point where you can have a scientific discussion. The cosmic ray argument might sound credible at first but has been dissected and dismissed.

As for the interests of the scientists and people on both sides, sucessfully overthrowing the consensus on a certain subject would bring incredible prestige for a scientist in the long run. Look at Einstein. Therefore there will always be scientists who attack a theory and who will expose the flaws.

One last thing : a chance of 50% for a disaster of a certain scale is in no way offset by a 50% of "something good" happening. Would you turn the switch on a reactor, where there is a 50% chance of unlimited energy and a 50% chance of the planet exploding? We should not take such risks as a civilization, unless we have absolutely have too.

 

[luiz]

The developing world should take advantage of what is an unique option of skipping generations of costly and wasteful technological solutions and take the sustainable route instead.

Sure. As long as it is cost-efficient it will be done regardless of concerns with GW. My problem is with non cost-effective solutions that are being pushed just because of such concerns. I'm not willing to pay more for my kWh's because of unfunded fears.

Of course, the worst impact of climate change will be felt in the developing world, so it's rather in their interest to cooperate.

We don't know what sorts of impacts to expect, and much less how they'll be spread out, that was my point.

That is based on rather conservative models. It doesn't take into account the effects of methane release in the sub-Arctic or from methane hydrates on the ocean floor. If that happens, we could face rapid, catastrophic climate change. Also, the counter-warming effects of global dimming are being largely ignored.

They're not even sure it will be 18cm. The models used to forecast sea level rise are even worse than those used to forecast future average temperature.

Catastrophe might happen for a number of reasons. As I said, the people who want to dictate how we ought to change our behaviours are the ones who must provide decent estimates of the cost of not doing so. What is the chance of catastrophe happening? On what time frame? Based on what?

I repeat: the worst hit area will predominantly be the "developing world" - Africa, the Middle East, South Asia. They'll lose arable land, water, and they'll be faced with more severe weather. Northern China will also be hit hard by desertification.

First world countries will be able to deal with the effects of climate change far better than the rest. Europe is environmentally practically indestructible, the US is big enough to compensate for the environmental disruption of the South-west, and Japan will muddle through as always. Africa and India, on the other hand, will feel the brunt of climate change.

Dude, projections for the "regional effects of climate change" are bogus. Nobody knows how that would play out. There is no scientific confidence in those models.

At any rate, one thing we do know is that high latitudes are more subject to climate change (in that climate changes faster) than the tropics.

 

[luiz]

BTW, my position is not at all "screw the Earth". I think there are a number of high impact environmental problems out there, from deforestation to pollution of water basins and emmission of real pollutants (not CO2). I've been to the Amazon frontier and it's not a pretty sight. In fact it is another problem of the GW obsession that we are focusing on hypothetical catastrophes that may or may not happen centuries from now instead of real problems.

 

[Perfection]

What about Ocean acidification?

 

[Camikaze]

You [the "warmists", not you personally) want us to spend hundreds of billions in green energy? You want to make it many times more expensive for the developing world to catch up with the developed world? Well, prove that the alternative is disaster or you will be ignored.

A $50 trillion investment is required, is the figure that I heard. 'Investment' is the key, though. I'm curious to here what you would say about the argument that moving beyond the fossil fuel industrial system that raised the standard of living of the West to a renewable industrial system that can raise the standard of living of the entire world is the biggest opportunity for businesses and developing countries in the world today? Doesn't that fit in with the idea of a 'green revolution' requiring and generating such large flows of investment?

 

[luiz]

What about Ocean acidification?

Only (yet another) a hypothetical fear. In a world with so many unaddressed pressing problems, should we really devote much energy to those?

A $50 trillion investment is required, is the figure that I heard. 'Investment' is the key, though. I'm curious to here what you would say about the argument that moving beyond the fossil fuel industrial system that raised the standard of living of the West to a renewable industrial system that can raise the standard of living of the entire world is the biggest opportunity for businesses and developing countries in the world today? Doesn't that fit in with the idea of a 'green revolution' requiring and generating such large flows of investment?

As I said to Yeekim, if there is a real opportunity that pays for itself it will be naturally pursued. The problem is if it does not pay for itself, or if it yields less return than traditional investments (resources are scarce, after all).

 

[Cutlass]

The problem with that argument is that many major investments only pay for themselves after everyone has been screwed by not doing it, or after economies of scale have been achieved through government action. Markets do not do a good job of anticipating. They react well. But that is often too late.

 

[Antilogic]

No, it doesn't. Once again you have incorrectly stated what the articles and links you provided actually say. Even if you want to accept the most far-fetched conclusions possible with no further study, the link is to cosmic rays, not solar activity.

Also a quote from one of the papers you linked which contradicts your own summary of the material in the OP, you've mis-stated what is actually being said.

This is why I don't trust "summaries" of scientific knowledge provided to me on a platter. Scientists generally aren't the ones politicizing their results.

 

[Core Imposter]

Stuff and nonsense. Energy and ecological issues can't be solved by fiat.

There isn't and can't be a pyramidal top down command and control system that can enforce restrictions on energy use over the entire globe and 7 billion people.

It just won't work. It if turns out we have too then we'll all just be dead, or, whatever.

If you want to focus on a more immediate issue chose the trust deficit. More than just a simple majority of the population world wide automatically disbelieves every single thing told to them by their government and most of what is told by the media. And its for a good reason. Most of the things told are in fact not true.

So work on that one. No one trusts governments. No one should.

Absent trust the only way an environmental program can be implemented is at the barrel of a gun. Good luck with that.

I would not willingly pay not one dollar more for any product or a red cent in tax to solve this global warming alarm, even if I knew it was true and would certainly reduce the population by a billion. Not a dime.

Because it would further entrench this wretched central government that is snaking its tendrils out to ensnare nothing less than the entire globe. The loss of a billion human beings would be a small price to pay for the liberty of the remainder.

My sentiment is not extreme, but is just a pale reflection of the glory of the founding fathers of America who bellowed, "Give me liberty or give me death!".

And I would most certainly prefer death over a life subject to the new world elite.

 

[Rashiminos]

And many of them are already doing so. Even Big Bad China is busy cleaning up its act, promoting renewables, shutting down the worst polluting factories, and planting new forests.

So yeah, the "selfish Third World" argument is not as watertight as some people might think.

I'm not sure China still qualifies as Third World.

Solar activity is unrelated to the presence of galactic cosmic rays, so your statement is wrong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heliosphere
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...2476/Suns-protective-bubble-is-shrinking.html
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2004/27sep_shieldsup/

 

[Rashiminos]

Deletable double-post.

 

[tycoonist]

At the end of the day, it doesn't really matter whether global warming as a theory is correct. Most of the solutions (with the exception of carbon capture schemes) are good ideas anyway: reducing our dependence on either limited or very polluting resources like oil and coal, stopping the destruction of rainforests, trying to find alternative power sources like renewables or nuclear (fission or fusion). These are all important for the survival of the environment and soceity as we know it. We should be doing them anyway, regardless of whether global warming is a thing or not.

Regardless, the theory you present is a lot less well understood than global warming, so your level of belief in it is peculiar.

 

[LucyDuke]

Well, prove that the alternative is disaster or you will be ignored.

I already said that the burden of proof lies with those making the catastophist claims. The burden lies with those who want to spend money and radically change our ways of life.

How much more proof do you want? Can you give an example of something that would convince you that we humans are soiling our bed?

 

[luiz]

How much more proof do you want? Can you give an example of something that would convince you that we humans are soiling our bed?

More proof? There is no proof that the extent of GW being forecasted up to 2100 will lead to catastrophe.