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

[Ajidica]

Just because something isn't going to be a catastrophe in your view doesn't mean that the solutions aren't nice to have.

 

[LucyDuke]

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

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?

Provide some proof before asking for more proof.

Can you give an example of something that would convince you that we humans are soiling our bed?

Proving that recent warming has caused net harm would be a start.

For instance, if the warming will cause problems to our crop production, what problems have appeared up to now?

What specific regional predictions can be made and tested?

Or are we really supposed to radically change how we live without understanding the alternative?

 

[asbestos]

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!

China has already overtaken Germany as the world leader in renewable (note: not necessarily green!) technology. The rich arab states have also lavished that sweet sweet oil money on heavy investment in solar power (which they have a lot of!) and grand projects like zero carbon-footprint cities. Kind of sad that western countries are depriving themselves of a potential windfall of profits.

 

[Orange Seeds]

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.


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.

I tried to make this as clear as I could in the last post. The proof you're asking for is mystical and will never be obtained within the constraints of our technology. You can never prove predictive claims. There is too much randomness. It is a waste of time to attack current projections on the basis of lack of certainty, you need to attack current projections for containing identifiable errors. I still have the IPCC report bolstering my position that GW will likely be catastrophic.

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.

...Stuff and nonsense indeed.
1. Top down enforcement seems to work for most things including theft, murder, industrial pollution et cetera.
2. Elites are also empowered whenever you buy oil, since elites control the oil supply. These people are just as able to reduce your liberty as the government which is, afterall, democratically controlled.
3. That you would rather exterminate billions than reduce fossil fuel consumption makes you so morally corrupt that I am ashamed to think that I am a member of the same species as you are.
4. This entire post is bona fide nuts and this absolutely needs to be pointed out.

 

[luiz]

I tried to make this as clear as I could in the last post. The proof you're asking for is mystical and will never be obtained within the constraints of our technology. You can never prove predictive claims. There is too much randomness. It is a waste of time to attack current projections on the basis of lack of certainty, you need to attack current projections for containing identifiable errors. I still have the IPCC report bolstering my position that GW will likely be catastrophic.

Many, many errors have been identified on IPCC reports.

And when they talk about the effects of warming, they specifically refrain from being objective, so it's damn hard to judge it one way or another.

Anyway, I guee we will wait and see if catastrophe will happen. Developing nations will not cut CO2 emmissions even near what the IPCC estimated would be necessary. I doubt the developed nations will either (see the massive fail that was the Kyoto Protocol).

We can argue all we want on internet forums; fact is decisive action will not be taken (on the "required" timeframe anyway) and that's that. This is a prediction you can take to the bank.

So lets see if it'll be the end of the world as we know it. Personally I'd still invest in ocean front property.

 

[Ajidica]

Luiz, whether or not view the current global warming predictions as accurate or not in no way diminished the usefulness of the current 'solutions' to global warming. Many, if not all of them, are useful in stopping current eviromental destruction (like the rain forest), reducing our dependance on non-renewable energy, or improving quality of life.

 

[Leoreth]

China has already overtaken Germany as the world leader in renewable (note: not necessarily green!) technology. The rich arab states have also lavished that sweet sweet oil money on heavy investment in solar power (which they have a lot of!) and grand projects like zero carbon-footprint cities. Kind of sad that western countries are depriving themselves of a potential windfall of profits.

China is leading in the production of renewable technology, not their development. Important difference.

 

[innonimatu]

China is leading in the production of renewable technology, not their development. Important difference.

Don't foll yourself, research and development follows industry where it goes.
In this particular thing, and in fact in technology in general, I don't see anything wrong with sharing and spreading it. I do see problems if it gets done in a way that allows imports of cheaper products to wipe out local industries. Anyway, that is a different topic.

 

[Leoreth]

Don't disagree with that. China's not as far as that post implied, is all I'm saying.

 

[asbestos]

China is leading in the production of renewable technology, not their development. Important difference.

I was comparing them to Germany, the other big manufacturer. As for development, the Chinese are subsidizing their own research program (which, granted, is still in its infancy and heavily relies on foreign research) - not that it's as important as the ability to produce, since international borders are more porous to information.

 

[El_Machinae]

Proving that recent warming has caused net harm would be a start.

For instance, if the warming will cause problems to our crop production, what problems have appeared up to now?

What specific regional predictions can be made and tested?

Or are we really supposed to radically change how we live without understanding the alternative?

This seems to be where some confusion lies.

Hopefully, I can move the dialogue forward.

There will be a net benefit during climate change. (*excepting some type of catastrophic tipping point, which is low probability but high consequence and so should probably be factored in). Even with our use of fossil fuels, we will be richer than we would have been than if we stopped polluting by stopping all fossil fuel use. (*as you say, this might not be true with other ecological issues).

The problem is one of balance, and opportunity cost. "Society" would be better off if we were allowed to do medical testing on jailed people and retired people. "Society" would be better off if we executed ******ed people. etc. The problem is balance. These 'pro-society' policies put undo burden onto people who didn't cause the problem. This is where AGW is similar. We get over $4 of economic activity per kilo of CO2 (iirc) and we do just a fraction of this total in negative economic externality (which maximizes ~$0.20/kilo over the decades, but is probably ~ $0.050/kilo now

The problem is that the cost is not born by the person engaging in the economic benefit, but in people downstream of the polluting effect. It is for this reason (partially) that there are calls for mitigation, adaptation, or compensation. If these three things are done properly (or even somewhat properly) there will still be a net benefit to society but there will be a reduction in net harm.

Now, your extreme skepticism regarding damage from AGW is not warranted and not really worth discussing. Climate shifts will cause changes to groundwater, crop use, species migration, and oceanic acidity. These have to be delayed and then adapted to. Is there likely to be a net benefit over the next 40 years? Of course! So, if you're going to be unsatisfied with AGW concerns unless the world starts to decay, then you're envisioning a strawman version of the concern.

A good analogy is coal plants and oceanic mercury. Are we better off burning coal and letting mercury build? Of course! But are we even better off using some of the economic profits from burning coal to figure out alternative electricity sources or ways of reducing mercury pollutions in our oceans? Again, of course. In such a scenario, is it really a problem if our mercury emissions go down while the burden of electricity production are shifted elsewhere? No, not unless it is done really badly.

I agree that there are stronger environmental concerns. Much stronger, in fact. With AGW, most of the issues are with our society, where we can expect people to adapt (but with cost).

I don't think people realise how small the net mitigation costs are, really. We're talking a small fraction of fossil fuel profits, and most of those mitigation costs are to be spent on alternative technologies and other ways of protecting the environment. If someone is worried about extinctions, and mitigation involves setting aside wild-growth land, then we get the mitigation benefits and conservation benefits. So, some of the redirected profits have real benefits when it comes to people and when it comes to productivity.

 

[luiz]

This seems to be where some confusion lies.

Hopefully, I can move the dialogue forward.

There will be a net benefit during climate change. (*excepting some type of catastrophic tipping point, which is low probability but high consequence and so should probably be factored in). Even with our use of fossil fuels, we will be richer than we would have been than if we stopped polluting by stopping all fossil fuel use. (*as you say, this might not be true with other ecological issues).

The problem is one of balance, and opportunity cost. "Society" would be better off if we were allowed to do medical testing on jailed people and retired people. "Society" would be better off if we executed ******ed people. etc. The problem is balance. These 'pro-society' policies put undo burden onto people who didn't cause the problem. This is where AGW is similar. We get over $4 of economic activity per kilo of CO2 (iirc) and we do just a fraction of this total in negative economic externality (which maximizes ~$0.20/kilo over the decades, but is probably ~ $0.050/kilo now

Fair and valid points!
But IMO this would argue for compensation policies after the effects of AGW are known and measured - not before!

As I said we don't really know which regions would be negatively effected, and how. Some would probably be positively effected.

The problem is that the cost is not born by the person engaging in the economic benefit, but in people downstream of the polluting effect. It is for this reason (partially) that there are calls for mitigation, adaptation, or compensation. If these three things are done properly (or even somewhat properly) there will still be a net benefit to society but there will be a reduction in net harm.

The problem once again is that we don't know yet who will be harmed, nor how much harm we're talking about.

Now, your extreme skepticism regarding damage from AGW is not warranted and not really worth discussing. Climate shifts will cause changes to groundwater, crop use, species migration, and oceanic acidity. These have to be delayed and then adapted to. Is there likely to be a net benefit over the next 40 years? Of course! So, if you're going to be unsatisfied with AGW concerns unless the world starts to decay, then you're envisioning a strawman version of the concern.

Here we disagree. We don't understand any of those changes. Ocean acidity, that someone mentioned earlier, is a good example. Tests measuring the effects on marine life have reached contradictory results.
Crop use? This one is even tougher. Who can say with a straight face that the effects of GW on agricultural output are known? Who can deny the possibility of a net increase?

A good analogy is coal plants and oceanic mercury. Are we better off burning coal and letting mercury build? Of course! But are we even better off using some of the economic profits from burning coal to figure out alternative electricity sources or ways of reducing mercury pollutions in our oceans? Again, of course. In such a scenario, is it really a problem if our mercury emissions go down while the burden of electricity production are shifted elsewhere? No, not unless it is done really badly.

I agree that there are stronger environmental concerns. Much stronger, in fact. With AGW, most of the issues are with our society, where we can expect people to adapt (but with cost).

Agree entirely.
My problem with the AGW proponents (several of them anyway) is their twisted sense of certainty and upside down priorities. There are environmental/contamination issues which are causing death and destruction right now. And that's not to mention other different issues which cause tremendous harm and could be dealt with relatively cheaply. For instance, one million people still die every year of malaria (and malaria has the perverse effect of making even the ones who don't die economically crippled). Someone mentioned a 50 trillion dollars investment as necessary to reverse AGW. Is that really the best use for that money? Clearly, not.

I don't think people realise how small the net mitigation costs are, really. We're talking a small fraction of fossil fuel profits, and most of those mitigation costs are to be spent on alternative technologies and other ways of protecting the environment. If someone is worried about extinctions, and mitigation involves setting aside wild-growth land, then we get the mitigation benefits and conservation benefits. So, some of the redirected profits have real benefits when it comes to people and when it comes to productivity.

I agree. It's sad though that one of the best alternative to fossil fuels, nuclear energy, suffers from som much ill-repute. And I am afraid Fukushima was a tremendous blow to that as well.

 

[Leoreth]

Nuclear energy (fission, that is) is nothing but a slightly less harmful alternative to fossil energy. And it's stupid to only consider the CO2 angle here (I think it was you who said we shouldn't focus on global warming alone): uranium is just as depletable, and fission isn't really cost effective unless you think that socializing eternity costs is a good thing.

 

[El_Machinae]

Here we disagree. We don't understand any of those changes. Ocean acidity, that someone mentioned earlier, is a good example. Tests measuring the effects on marine life have reached contradictory results.
Crop use? This one is even tougher. Who can say with a straight face that the effects of GW on agricultural output are known? Who can deny the possibility of a net increase?

Sorry for the drive-by posting.

These sound like arguments from incredulity, which depends upon how well someone is following the literature.

Oceanic acidity, I think, has really good evidence regarding the potential risks (that would obviously need to be averted ahead of time). Both warming and acidity are predicted to be risky regarding coral reefs, which are rather important. The same can be said regarding molluscs. If people aren't concerned about oceanic acidity, I think it's because they're not paying attention.

Wrt crops, I think that the effects upon cassava and C3 crops have been shown rather nicely, and these effects are deleterious.

Agree entirely.
My problem with the AGW proponents (several of them anyway) is their twisted sense of certainty and upside down priorities. There are environmental/contamination issues which are causing death and destruction right now. And that's not to mention other different issues which cause tremendous harm and could be dealt with relatively cheaply. For instance, one million people still die every year of malaria (and malaria has the perverse effect of making even the ones who don't die economically crippled). Someone mentioned a 50 trillion dollars investment as necessary to reverse AGW. Is that really the best use for that money? Clearly, not.

Yes, if you asked me if we should allocate a dollar for AGW or (say) malaria, I'd say malaria has a higher priority. Now, when it comes to AGW and the environment, there's a lot of potential synergy for these concerns. Coal mining, subsidised fishing, meat farming, deforestation, etc. are related to both issues.

The real question is not AGW or malaria, both are clearly under-invested. It's a question about vices and damaging luxuries or AGW. Which environmentalist is saying "Oh, we need to stop caring about snow leopards and start caring about CO2!"? None, really. It's a false dichotomy. We should be spending a great deal more on these issues, from the profits of modern economy, and at the expense of damaging luxuries.

 

[Anthropoid]

Earth's climate has changed a lot over the eons. Why so many alarmists are so convinced that the patchy observations of a recent warming trend necessarily require anthopenic explanations I can only conclude is a moral-political imperative.

Our impact on the Earth's ecology is of paramount importance. Reducing focus on that big and complex set of questions to one molecule, that also has very handy political economic money-making 'solutions' attached to it, makes me VERY uneasy, both in terms of its merits for promoting sustainable ecological impact and its veracity.

 

[Luckymoose]

Nuclear energy (fission, that is) is nothing but a slightly less harmful alternative to fossil energy. And it's stupid to only consider the CO2 angle here (I think it was you who said we shouldn't focus on global warming alone): uranium is just as depletable, and fission isn't really cost effective unless you think that socializing eternity costs is a good thing.

Go ahead and bash nuclear energy. That kind of thinking is why we won't ever get fusion tech.

 

[brennan]

The OP is incorrect, if you read the report from CERN they come to radically different conclusions than Innominatu suggests. Primarily that their findings show that in the lower atmosphere, where most cloud formation takes place, this process on its own is insufficient to make a major difference to climate modelling.

The statement that our current modelling of cloud formation has been undermined is scientifically honest, but it does not actually undermine the case for AGW or climate change at all and the suggestion that it does by the denial camp is scientifically dishonest. Spot the usual difference.

The premise that climate change is driven by cosmic rays has one massive flaw: there is no reason to think that the incoming flux of such particles varies in any significant way over time - other than the 11 year solar cycle, which we already know does not correlate to global warming evidenced over the last century.

“These new results from CLOUD are important because we’ve made a number of first observations of some very important atmospheric processes,” said the experiment’s spokesperson, Jasper Kirkby. “We’ve found that cosmic rays significantly enhance the formation of aerosol particles in the mid troposphere and above. These aerosols can eventually grow into the seeds for clouds. However, we’ve found that the vapours previously thought to account for all aerosol formation in the lower atmosphere can only account for a small fraction of the observations - even with the enhancement of cosmic rays."

http://press.web.cern.ch/press/PressReleases/Releases2011/PR15.11E.html

 

[Leoreth]

Go ahead and bash nuclear energy. That kind of thinking is why we won't ever get fusion tech.

I didn't bash it, I stated apparent flaws.

And I said specifically fission. In my opinion, if there's any research that deserves getting billions of funding thrown at it, it's nuclear fusion.

I still don't get why you think "bashing" fission would've any effect on the efforts to research on nuclear fusion.

 

[Ayatollah So]

Fair and valid points!
But IMO this would argue for compensation policies after the effects of AGW are known and measured - not before!

Prevention is usually cheaper than restitution. AGW looks likely to fit that pattern. Also, the effects will never be known with certainty, since an undisturbed climate will always be a mere hypothetical - although, in the future, the effects will be known to a larger extent than today.