Cracks in the Global Warming Case?

[zilbo79]

Re: Cracks in the Global Warming Case?

Hi,

Interesting.

So if we assume that Human-caused Climate Change is one big conspiracy and we should do nothing then what are the benefits of doing nothing? Would switching over to carbon-emission-free sources of energy be so expensive that it would cause a massive global depression?

But what if the scientists are right and that humans have the ability to negatively impact the global climate? Would doing nothing cause the collapse of nations and the death of millions?

We can't know with metaphysical certainty if human-caused climate change is true or not, but we can decide whether to act or to not act, right?


There are three reasons why I think acting to prevent further emission of greenhouse gases is the prudent course of action:

1. It's not fantastic to believe humans have the ability to impact the environment around them. If you've ever been to a third-world country, you will see the enormous amounts of pollution a typical third-world city makes. Go to Los Angeles, Mexico City, Manila, and a dozen other crowded cities and you will experience the choking smog created by the collective outputs of millions of vehicles. Humans are actually quite good at screwing up their environments (See: "Collapse" by Jared Diamond).

2. EVEN IF human-made climate change is false, and the scientists are wrong, it would be beneficial to invest in new
technologies to get us out of our dependence on expensive and foreign sources of energy, afterall, the wind and sun are free. The initial investment is expensive but it is likely that it will be beneficial over the long-term.

3. The failure to act is more costly than the failure to do nothing. Would I rather have my grandchildren experience a temporary great depression due to overinvestment or experience something worse due to a human-made global catastrophe? I know they are extreme causes but you have to prepare for extreme cases. That's why I have fire extinguishers in my house, why I buy accident insurance, why I buckle my seatbeat, and why I own gold -- better to have a margin of safety and to have taken active precautions than to be left unprepared.

Anyone have thoughts on why we shouldn't act and the consequences of not acting? Can anyone refute the logic of this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mF_anaVcCXg

Paul
Norridge, IL

[metalman]

Re: Cracks in the Global Warming Case?

i can't fathom how burning 77 million barrels of oil per day, tons of coal, etc, cannot pollute the thin 10k layer of troposphere that covers the earth.

[c1ue]

Re: Cracks in the Global Warming Case?

But what if the scientists are right and that humans have the ability to negatively impact the global climate? Would doing nothing cause the collapse of nations and the death of millions?

The problem with these what if scenarios is that you are assuming doing something, anything, is better than doing nothing.

If, for example, we are presently in an interglacial period and are about to enter a glacial period, then global warming via whatever means is a good thing. Conversely though if AGW is false then pumping billions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere is worthless for warming purposes.

Isn't it better to understand via proof?

Another example is where doing the wrong thing causes more problems than doing nothing.

DDT is an excellent example: while certainly many bald eagles and what not were likely saved by banning DDT in North America, millions more of men, women, and children likely died in Africa since the chemical companies were prohibited from manufacturing this cheap compound. While certainly DDT is a pollutant, it can be argued that the nuance free legislation pushed through by 'Silent Spring' inspired crowds was far more costly than an otherwise more careful approach.

The last example is that if we do everything based on unproven what if, then you are condoing all kinds of bizarre crap like

1) Illegal wiretapping: what if you catch a terrorist talking on his cell phone? Thus we should ignore civil liberties?

2) Preventative jailing for those genetically and/or sociologically prone to commit crime a la Minority Report

3) Fighting wars in countries because they might a) develop nuclear weapons b) sponsor terrorists - oh wait already doing that.

2. EVEN IF human-made climate change is false, and the scientists are wrong, it would be beneficial to invest in new
technologies to get us out of our dependence on expensive and foreign sources of energy, afterall, the wind and sun are free. The initial investment is expensive but it is likely that it will be beneficial over the long-term.

If the goal is reducing dependence on foreign energy - and I assume you also mean Canada and Mexico? - then money should be spent for that purpose. Creating artificial means of biasing energy use seems like an extremely inefficient and corruption prone process when direct subsidies of alternative energies are easily doable. If we can throw trillions of dollars on bank bailouts, I don't see why a few dozen billion for alternative energy isn't feasible.

For that matter, why don't we have a slogan of WAOFE (Wean America Off Foreign Energy)? Oh, perhaps because American leadership is too chicken to take on any large existing interests.

3. The failure to act is more costly than the failure to do nothing. Would I rather have my grandchildren experience a temporary great depression due to overinvestment or experience something worse due to a human-made global catastrophe? I know they are extreme causes but you have to prepare for extreme cases. That's why I have fire extinguishers in my house, why I buy accident insurance, why I buckle my seatbeat, and why I own gold -- better to have a margin of safety and to have taken active precautions than to be left unprepared.

Is it? As I've repeatedly pointed out - the catastrophic outcome forecast by the AGW crowd is not holding up well even in the short term. Are you certain the worst case will come to pass as well? Let's not forget that some of these same people like Stern and Professor Steven Schneider were prominent in the global cooling crowd in the 1970s. Which is it? Fire or Ice?

This isn't the same thing as the rape of American society by its government right now. There is no question whatsoever that the end of the path we are on as a nation will be a downward decline of the American standard of living. The only question is how fast.

i can't fathom how burning 77 million barrels of oil per day, tons of coal, etc, cannot pollute the thin 10k layer of troposphere that covers the earth.

Sure, there's never been a question that there is CO2 being released. Also water, soot, various nasty partially combusted combinations of carbon/oxygen/hydrogen/sulfur, etc.

Cows are farting off millions of tons of methane too.

But of course the point is that the earth is a closed system.

The CO2 was in the atmosphere at one time - past CO2 levels were actually far far higher than today or even what AGW people profess:



Note that CO2 levels were 7000 ppm in the early paleozoic era (compared to the 560 ppm scare level), bottoming out near our present historical level (200-300ppm), then rising again.

On the other hand the temperature graph is completely inconsistent with the CO2 levels - specifically how CO2 levels have been falling in the last 170 million years but temperatures only started to fall 30 million years ago.

Now don't get me wrong - I absolutely believe in at least trying to recycle, minimize energy usage, etc.

But that is far different than artificially managing conservation - even more if the focus is only on CO2.

If the goal is to minimize pollution, how about adding $3/gallon in taxes to gasoline?

$0.50/can recycling fee?

Why is CO2 the only culprit when even the proof for this is circumstantial?

[thousandmilemargin]

Re: Cracks in the Global Warming Case?

Hi,

So if we assume that Human-caused Climate Change is one big conspiracy and we should do nothing then what are the benefits of doing nothing? Would switching over to carbon-emission-free sources of energy be so expensive that it would cause a massive global depression?

It's not a conspiracy, its a mania. One of those periodic self-organising infections of delusion that affect the human race from time to time.
.........
People who are skeptical about AGW aren't necessarily fans of coal and oil.

I'm quite happy to see trillions spent on programs to replace all coal power stations with 4th generation nuclear stations, make EVs the standard form of motor vehicle, and increase solar power usage. I'm also a big fan of double glazing and insulation.

That's progress, as far as I'm concerned.

Painting all skeptics as pawns of the fossil fuel industries is just a smear tactic.

[jacobdcoates]

Re: Cracks in the Global Warming Case?

Personally I find the AGW illogical at this point. The AGW supporters say that CO2 causes global temperatures to increase and increasing CO2 cause the global temperatures to increase faster, hence we must cut global CO2 emissions.

Lets say we accept the thesis that CO2 is the main/only cause of global warming. Atmospheric CO2 concentrations have not gone down or remained steady YoY for anytime in the last ~100 years. Yet we know as an empirical fact that global temperatures have declined in the last 10 years. To summarize we've have increasing CO2 and decreasing temperatures for the last 10 years. This would seem to be an immediate violation of causality, if one accepts that AGW thesis above is true. There is a cause but no effect. Actually it is worse, because we've had an increasing cause(CO2) and the opposite effect(decreasing temp) for the last 10 years. It would be like you dropped a hammer, but it did not fall and not only did it not fall it floated up and then declare with a righteous certainty that gravity works as it always has.

Here comes the real nut of the problem. If one declares that the temperatures readings are false and do not accept them as valid, then there is immediately no evidence that there is global warming or cooling, because one would be denying the accuracy of the very instruments that purportedly show that there is global warming or the temperature of the earth at all. OR one cannot accept the AGW as true and then there is no problem.


Just my rant on another new religion trying to get converts. Although it is better in one respect to the old religions. When the old religions started to have some power they said " convert or die". This new religion has some power now and says " convert or the world will end.". As least there not killing people, yet.

[metalman]

Re: Cracks in the Global Warming Case?

how about a oil floating tariff that keeps oil at $200? use the $$$ revenue to finance projects to reduce energy consumption?

[zilbo79]

Re: Cracks in the Global Warming Case?

The problem with these what if scenarios is that you are assuming doing something, anything, is better than doing nothing.

Doing nothing is better than doing something stupid, that is obvious. It would have been clearer to say: to prevent man-made climate destabilization caused by pollution, we should focus on conservation and transitioning into renewable energy. And, even if man-made climate destabilization is false, conservation and renewable energy is a good thing.

If, for example, we are presently in an interglacial period and are about to enter a glacial period, then global warming via whatever means is a good thing. Conversely though if AGW is false then pumping billions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere is worthless for warming purposes.

I am glad you brought this up. These two scenarios you just described are scenarios whereby doing nothing leads to good (or not bad) consequences. The following table shows the choices we can make and their possible results:


The first row means that man-made climate destabilization is false. Your scenarios of interglacial cooling and false AGW fall into this row. And doing nothing would be the second column of that row - a nice smiley face. But doing nothing, even if were 10% true, could lead to disaster. I don't want to play Russian roulette with my grandchildren's future.

The last example is that if we do everything based on unproven what if, then you are condoning all kinds of bizarre crap like

1) Illegal wiretapping: what if you catch a terrorist talking on his cell phone? Thus we should ignore civil liberties?

2) Preventative jailing for those genetically and/or sociologically prone to commit crime a la Minority Report

3) Fighting wars in countries because they might a) develop nuclear weapons b) sponsor terrorists - oh wait already doing that

I actually agree with the above steps taken. BTW, we have police that make arrests because they have probable cause to do so without having 100% complete information but they do it to err on the side of caution and to protect the overall society. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

As to your DDT example, what harmful consequences do you think will happen from people conserving energy, recycling, and using renewable energy?

Creating artificial means of biasing energy use seems like an extremely inefficient and corruption prone process when direct subsidies of alternative energies are easily doable. If we can throw trillions of dollars on bank bailouts, I don't see why a few dozen billion for alternative energy isn't feasible.

For that matter, why don't we have a slogan of WAOFE (Wean America Off Foreign Energy)? Oh, perhaps because American leadership is too chicken to take on any large existing interests.

Agreed. I'm not arguing that our legislators are competent, I'm advocating conservation and renewable energy.

This isn't the same thing as the rape of American society by its government right now. There is no question whatsoever that the end of the path we are on as a nation will be a downward decline of the American standard of living. The only question is how fast.

I agree about the rape of America. But I can always move the family to New Zealand or Australia. Why do you think I am buying gold? ;)

Why not kill two birds with one stone? We remove the American oligarchs and cancel/reduce private debts then use the otherwise-wasted economic rents to invest in a alternative energy economy. Any logical way you look at it, there's no reason to continue the status quo.

[Starving Steve]

Re: Cracks in the Global Warming Case?

Personally I find the AGW illogical at this point. The AGW supporters say that CO2 causes global temperatures to increase and increasing CO2 cause the global temperatures to increase faster, hence we must cut global CO2 emissions.

Lets say we accept the thesis that CO2 is the main/only cause of global warming. Atmospheric CO2 concentrations have not gone down or remained steady YoY for anytime in the last ~100 years. Yet we know as an empirical fact that global temperatures have declined in the last 10 years. To summarize we've have increasing CO2 and decreasing temperatures for the last 10 years. This would seem to be an immediate violation of causality, if one accepts that AGW thesis above is true. There is a cause but no effect. Actually it is worse, because we've had an increasing cause(CO2) and the opposite effect(decreasing temp) for the last 10 years. It would be like you dropped a hammer, but it did not fall and not only did it not fall it floated up and then declare with a righteous certainty that gravity works as it always has.

Here comes the real nut of the problem. If one declares that the temperatures readings are false and do not accept them as valid, then there is immediately no evidence that there is global warming or cooling, because one would be denying the accuracy of the very instruments that purportedly show that there is global warming or the temperature of the earth at all. OR one cannot accept the AGW as true and then there is no problem.


Just my rant on another new religion trying to get converts. Although it is better in one respect to the old religions. When the old religions started to have some power they said " convert or die". This new religion has some power now and says " convert or the world will end.". As least there not killing people, yet.

Once again my rant: On any such clear, calm, and dry night at Minneapolis-St.Paul (or any other similar city on flat ground, away from major water bodies) one can observe a 40F (approx. 24C) drop in temperature between the downtown core and the distant rural fringe of the city. The drop in temperature is step-like, directly co-relating to the height of structures. Thus, most of the drop in temperature occurs at the edge of the downtown core, and the rest of the drop in temperature occurs at the very limit of urban development.

The implication is rather clear: buildings reflect heat back to the street and blanket the city. This is not so much warming of the Earth as just a local effect around cities.

But the implication in climatology is quite important: This implies that buildings greatly affect temperature, including the temperatures observed at the world's climate stations. Even at airports, small additions or modifications to the airport greatly affect the airport's temperature readings. So historical temperature records can not be compared to current temperature records, at least not records taken near cities and even airports.

Finally, the global warming debate is over whether the Earth has warmed maybe 1C, at most, from CO2. But the effect of urban development can be as much as 24C, at night, the latter due just to blanketing climate stations from radiating heat at night to the sky, and not at all due to global warming or climate change of any type.

My masters' thesis at the University of Minnesota in climatology was unpublished, and decades later, I am beginning to understand why that was. Probably re-submitting the thesis for publication to-day would be futile too.:rolleyes:

[metalman]

Re: Cracks in the Global Warming Case?

My masters' thesis at the University of Minnesota in climatology was unpublished, and decades later, I am beginning to understand why that was. Probably re-submitting the thesis for publication to-day would be futile too.:rolleyes:

i wish you'd resubmit it and publish your travails here. who knows? maybe we'll read about you in the nytimes some day?

btw, in case you didn't hear, stalin's taken another hit...

Stalin’s Grandson Loses Defamation Suit

On Tuesday in Moscow, a court ruled against Joseph Stalin’s grandson, Yevgeny Dzhugashvili, who had demanded a retraction, a public apology and $340,000 in damages from the newspaper Novaya Gazeta for supposedly besmirching his family’s reputation by calling his grandfather a “bloodthirsty cannibal.”

[Starving Steve]

Re: Cracks in the Global Warming Case?

i wish you'd resubmit it and publish your travails here. who knows? maybe we'll read about you in the nytimes some day?

btw, in case you didn't hear, stalin's taken another hit...

Not to offend Raz, but the Sword of Honour, officially known as the Sword of Stalingrad, was presented to Joseph Stalin for the people of Stalingrad. The presentation was authorized by H.M. King George VI. Sir Winston Churchill and U.S. President, Franklin Roosevelt presented the Sword to Stalin on Nov 29, 1943 at the Tehran Conference.

Joseph Stalin, Soviet foreign minister Molotov, and Marshall Zuchov, Commander of the Red Army then directed the Red Army to liberate all of Eastern Europe from the Nazis. Warsaw was liberated in August 1944. Auchwitz was liberated on Jan 15, 1945, and Berlin was liberated April 29th, 1945 when Hitler shot himself. VE Day was May 1st and May 2nd, 1945. For two days, people danced in the streets of every city of Europe, and from every steeple of Europe, church bells rang-out in celebration.

Since those glorious days, Stalin died of a brain hemmorage in 1950. Churchill died in 1965 and was given honourary American citizenship. His body lied-in-state under the Dome of the U.S. Capitol.

Starving Steve's masters' thesis in climatology went un-published in 1971, and a Russian court in recent days ruled against Stalin's grandson in a defamation law-suit launched in defence of Joseph Stalin's memory.

Worse yet, Arminishod, the world's new Hitler in Tehran, says that the Holocaust was a hoax. And worst of all, the British Govn't this year allowed a rogue Scottish judge to free the Lockarbie bomber of Pan Am Flight 103 and send him home to Libya --- home to a hero's welcome.

[santafe2]

Re: Cracks in the Global Warming Case?

Welcome to iTulip but I disagree with your argument as stated.

• In the upper left, case A we've allotted our funds to AGW and it's not proven to be a problem. In that case, like all wars, no depression, just money spent and new technology earned. There will be a fantastic post war economic cycle as we reap the rewards of our efforts without a lot of dead people.
• Moving to the right, Case B, we're screwed because we've mal-invested trillions in our old school technologies and fossil energy driven economy. That's an end game.
  • Half time report: Move the happy face to the left and add an XX face on the upper right.
  
  
• Lower left, Case C. We're screwed. We're not extinct but we're so far over the top already, most won't survive. There is little difference between B and C, just different problems. I'm surprised that most folks that understand where we're heading are so apologetic. There's no happy endings with B or C.
• Case D: It's much worse than that. The stupidity of gambling against the earth is revealed but it's way too late.

The only good outcome is that the deniers are correct but the AGW crowd, (count me in), wins out. All other outcomes are negative.

[santafe2]

Re: Cracks in the Global Warming Case?

Then there's the tragedy of the past 10 years. Seems like global warming is actually global cooling. Where's the yearly march of upward temperatures?

I suppose this argument is posed within the context of the 30 year global warming and cooling cycle that's been discussed here. You apparently are willing to throw the dice for your children and grand children. I am not.

When the warming cycle reappears in ~2020 and CO2 PPM is approaching 450 because we've followed your advise and done nothing to avert climate change issues, I hope your correct that CO2 is a non starter. Unfortunately, I'm sure your wrong.

[jiimbergin]

Re: Cracks in the Global Warming Case?

I suppose this argument is posed within the context of the 30 year global warming and cooling cycle that's been discussed here. You apparently are willing to throw the dice for your children and grand children. I am not.

When the warming cycle reappears in ~2020 and CO2 PPM is approaching 450 because we've followed your advise and done nothing to avert climate change issues, I hope your correct that CO2 is a non starter. Unfortunately, I'm sure your wrong.

You give no justification for your belief. Obviously you believe the models that have failed to predict anything correctly yet. You do not reply to any of the arguments made by the deniers. Well I am sure you are wrong

[c1ue]

Re: Cracks in the Global Warming Case?

Doing nothing is better than doing something stupid, that is obvious. It would have been clearer to say: to prevent man-made climate destabilization caused by pollution, we should focus on conservation and transitioning into renewable energy. And, even if man-made climate destabilization is false, conservation and renewable energy is a good thing.

Unfortunately if all that was being asked was conservation and researching better energy sources, that'd be fine as a relatively harmless safety measure.

Instead what is on the plate is an entirely new bureaucracy and tax system. Again, those who advocate radical change must present a clear and present need for doing so.

What-if is not such a situation.

If you believe in what-if, then you should all immediately pay me $10000 dollars each. Because I am god, and will punish your children and grandchildren for your not doing so in 20 years.

The first row means that man-made climate destabilization is false. Your scenarios of interglacial cooling and false AGW fall into this row. And doing nothing would be the second column of that row - a nice smiley face. But doing nothing, even if were 10% true, could lead to disaster. I don't want to play Russian roulette with my grandchildren's future.

I suppose this argument is posed within the context of the 30 year global warming and cooling cycle that's been discussed here. You apparently are willing to throw the dice for your children and grand children. I am not.

Again, you both try to invoke Pascal's Wager. And again, are you a practicing Catholic? Buddhist? Muslim? Those are all exactly the same situation: unproven and unprovable but with catastrophic consequences if wrong (not a believer).

Unlike religion, however, science can progress. Why not spend the effort and some time to do so?

When the warming cycle reappears in ~2020 and CO2 PPM is approaching 450 because we've followed your advise and done nothing to avert climate change issues, I hope your correct that CO2 is a non starter. Unfortunately, I'm sure your wrong.

That's funny, Hansen's original graph said we'd already be accelerating on the temperature curve.

Now the thesis is global warming will restart in 10 years - 20 years after his hockey stick. Maybe that's why Gore has switched from global warming to climate change?

At what point do you start questioning the AGW panic thesis?

At what point do you at least consider that the science is *not* settled?

But as I've noted before:

It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his job depends on not understanding it.

Upton Sinclair

[santafe2]

Re: Cracks in the Global Warming Case?

You give no justification for your belief. Obviously you believe the models that have failed to predict anything correctly yet. You do not reply to any of the arguments made by the deniers. Well I am sure you are wrong

Unlike politically motivated denial stances...;), 390 PPM CO2 concentration is not a belief, it's an unfortunate fact. Next year 400 PPM will be a new, and yet more unfortunate fact. Then 450, then 500 PPM and on and on. Possibly deniers have a CO2 concentration they're uncomfortable with...1000 PPM, maybe 20,000 PPM where humans become confused and disoriented....hum...maybe deniers like breathing into a paper bag?...

All joking aside, there is a CO2 concentration that will create a tipping point. My peps think it's 350, your peps don't have a number as far as I know.