That aside, what about geoengineering, for those of us who are convinced that climate change is real and urgent? I share the general queasiness with the idea of massive attempts to control the climate--it seems to me that a backfired attempt could be awfully bad. On the other hand, I also share the dismay that, outside of major economic recessions, we don't seem to have a good plan for cutting emissions. Most of Europe's reductions have been achieved via the collapse of the East German and other post-Soviet industrial economies, Britain's 'dash for gas" after the energy sector was privatised, and purchases of questionable offsets--not from actual reductions as a result of greenhouse policy.
Ryan Avent makes the sensible point that geoengineering would fall hostage to politics, too, if we were actually trying to implement it. But I'm not sure he makes a compelling case that it would be as hard to do a geoengineering project as it is turning out to be to enact a serious regime to prevent climate change. It might be, for the same reason that I'm queasy about these sorts of projects. But carbon reduction is turning out to be really, really hard.
Ryan optimistically says that we may well get a climate change bill. But most people I know think that climate change is dead, for exactly the reasons I've been predicting for some time--no one is willing to amp up their constituents' energy bills, especially during a recession. (This does not make me happy, so please hold the righteous anger. The universe is not here to please me, or you.)
The scale of the carbon reductions that will be required in developed nations are massive. The political will to achieve them is very weak, even in Europe. Even if we somehow developed the political will, unless we also make some radical advances in cheap renewable energy technology, China is going to burn all of her coal, plus all of the oil we don't buy from the Saudis, rendering most of our efforts moot. Yes, yes, I know--China's government is making noises about environmental sustainability. Let's just say I'd like to see a lot more examples of actual efforts to cut their greenhouse emissions before I base any policy around their committment to carbon reduction.
If it turns out not to be possible to coordinate carbon reduction within an acceptable timeframe, shouldn't we have a plan B?
Update: Smart point from Kevin Drum
It's also worth noting that even if we eventually resort to geoengineering, our job will be a lot easier if we've already made some progress on reducing greenhouse gases. Trying to solve a 7°C temperature rise entirely with atmospheric sulfates would require a lot of sulfates and produce a lot of side effects. But if we manage to solve half the problem with greenhouse gas reductions, we're still way ahead of the game even if we can't manage the other half. It means that we only have to address a 3°C problem with sulfates, and while this might still be dangerous and unpredictable, it's a lot less dangerous and unpredictable.
One of the great things about the geoengineering approach is that it makes it possible to price the externality.
As Avent says
I can think of several (all?) nuclear powers that might feel threatened by geoengineering projects.
The US and Europe are already reducing emissions, just not very fast, and on a per-capita basis only rather than overall.
Given the future economic growth in India and China I think climate change is something we're just gonna have to live with. Once the sunspots pick up again anyway.
Don't you worry about sunspots. The climate hysterics assure us that the sun's variations don't matter.
"If only there was some natural explanation for variations in climate. It would have to be massive, on the scale of our own Sun.."
I'm always a little suspicious about some on the left viz a vie Climate Change because - they never look at (as Megan says) Geoengineering, carbon sequestration, nuclear power or the economics of dealing with the consequences vs prevention i.e. sea level rise will flood Manhattan? Is it cheaper to lower green house gases or is cheaper to just put a big dike around it?
Further I think at least one of the solutions they tout - increasing efficiency is questionable. I think there's at least as good a chance that if we become more energy efficient we'll just use more energy as that we'll use less - especially given the fact that if we use less the price will actually go down.
At its worst the anti global warming agenda methods seem more like someone's happing ending then a means towards a goal.
I'm also suspicious of the environmentalist position on climate modeling.
"Climate models are great, they let us conclude with 95% certainty that the earth will warm if we don't cut back on CO2, and that current warming is anthropogenic."
"Just because climate models claim geoengineering is safe doesn't make it so. There could be all sorts of factors the models don't account for, geoengineering could be disastrous! But, um, we should still trust their conclusions about anthropogenic CO2."
It seems the luddites have forgotten that once you understand a system, you can do engineering. Oops!
I agree. There's so much cognitive dissonance with the AGW crowd that you could start a fire. On the science end of things; The radiosonde data was 'adjusted' to show tropospheric warming. They IPCC dataset was also 'adjusted' and it was recently announced that their original dataset was lost meaning that peer review of their conculsions is impossible. Without tropospheric warming leading surface warming, the greenhouse model is dead in the water. You need CO2 induced warming causing increased water vapor (which is a greenhouse gas) equilibrium in the air, at the least, for any of the models to work. This would magnify the effects of a few parts per million of CO2. Showing increased CO2 at the levels we have, by itself, is not sufficient to cause anything worth worrying about.
Iron fertilization (for carbon sequestration, for a new carbon source, with the added benefit of revitalizing fish stocks and de-acidifying the oceans) is always ignored by those on the left.
Nuclear power, nuclear reprocessing to reduce nuclear waste as France and Japan have done, and streamlinging of the construction of plants is ignored. (Nuclear power is FAR cleaner than the gas we burn, and even solar panels are likely to contribute a huge amount of various heavy metals to the environment once they're eventually wrecked and left to rust in the rain.) When people ask me to sign petitions for more solar power to get us off foreign oil, I always ask them if they support nuclear power. If they don't, I assume they're not really serious. Most of the hurdles to the use of nuclear power in the US are things that we, ourselves, have erected.
(And on the topic, Al Gore's deliberate confusion of CO2 as a leading indicator of climate change and as a lagging indicator in An Inconvenient Truth was quite deceptive.)
There is never any discussion of funding fusion power? Almost never.
What do they want? Policies which will move our industrial base to China where efficiency is worse and environmental laws are non-existant. Mercury containing CFC bulbs. Political movements which will dramatically decrease efficiency (and thus increase waste) and create a huge new market where people can get rich without making anything. (Enron dearly wanted Cap and Trade, IIRC, for the economic opportunities it presented. )
Not to mention the fact that increased CO2 within the levels we're discussing is actually GOOD for crops.
Even the Kyoto protocol admitted that the policies that it was enacting would not significantly diminish global warming, but were for the sake of establishing an international regulatory body.
When people on the left are willing to at least consider those solutions which could efficiently tackle this problem, I'll be a lot more willing to take them seriously.
Don't get me wrong. I'd love to see the US get off fossil fuels. Our dependence on foreign oil funds dictatorships. And we'll have to get off it eventually. My frustration is that the left's efforts often, if enacted, would do more harm than good. (Unless you happen to be one of the special interests who stands to benefit from them.)
Is the link in that paragraph correct? If so I'm not really following (I also followed most of the links from that page).
Seconding this.
I was originally confused too. I think Megan meant this url:
http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/18/global-warming-in-superfreakonomics-the-anatomy-of-a-smear/
Dubner documents a lengthy e-mail exchange between several parties involved in this debate.
Ryan Avent makes the sensible point that geoengineering would fall hostage to politics, too, if we were actually trying to implement it.
Eh, Ryan's points seem dubious. First off, emissions controls are themselves a form a geoengineering. In fact, they are arguably the least cost-effective, least reversible, and most dangerous form of geoengineering possible.
World GDP per capita is currently about $10K. At 3% real growth, by 2059 it will be around $43K. Assuming population of about 8B, that means world GDP will be $350T -- almost six times the current GDP of $60T. We will be more than wealthy enough to do any geoengineering that's needed. But if emissions control schemes reduce GDP growth to 2%, we would lose $135T of that -- and that's the lost production for ONE year, the total lost production reaches the quadrillons. It's hard to imagine any geoengineering solution costing that much.
Also, this argument begins too often with the premise that we know for certain what the ideal level of CO2 would be. We don't. We don't even know if the difference between current levels and natural levels matters at all, let alone whether it's a net boon or net harm. The downside risk of an Ice Age is existential, far greater than coastal flooding associated with warming.
If, in 50 years, we determine that geoengineering is necessary, it won't be on the flimsy basis of computer models run by environmentalists; by then there will be some real evidence (hopefully untainted by bristlecones and Yamal-ish cherrypicking of tree rings). The political consensus will be there, and the cost will be bearable.
And your argument, TD, begins with the premise that reducing GHG emissions won't be necessary, or that geoengnineering will be sufficient and feasible. We most certainly can't say either of these things with confidence, nor can we count on non-occurrence of worst case scenarios with respect to climate change. But you and I will both be dead by then, so why worry, right?
begins with the premise that reducing GHG emissions won't be necessary,
No it doesn't, but it's strange to assume that of all possible options, this is the only one that could work.
We most certainly can't say either of these things with confidence,
We most certainly can't say reducing CO2 will do anything beneficial, yet you want to spend gigantic amounts of resources doing so. My approach at least has the benefit of putting us in a better position while we learn more.
nor can we count on non-occurrence of worst case scenarios with respect to climate change
The worst case scenario is an Ice Age that effectively ends human civilization. If we're going to worry about worst-case scenarios than we should be thinking about ways to keep the planet warmer, not cooler.
It is strange, and that's probably why I've never heard this claim made before. Who's making it?
Of course we can. We can say reducing C02 will lessen the human-induced environmental stresses steadily heating up the planet. I think that's beneficial. Don't you?
That's not the worst case scenario. The worst case scenario is that AGW enters a feedback cycle whereby methane hydrate floods the atmosphere and we see mass extinctions, possibly including our species. But since you brought up ice ages, one of the scarier possibilities flowing from AGW is a shut down (due to decreased salinity) in the Gulf Stream, and, yes, the onset or rapid glaciation in the northern hemisphere:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shutdown_of_thermohaline_circulation
Who's making it?
You just did.
We can say reducing C02 will lessen the human-induced environmental stresses steadily heating up the planet.
We don't know that. We can't say with any confidence whether manmade CO2 is affecting climate at all.
The worst case scenario is that AGW enters a feedback cycle whereby methane hydrate floods the atmosphere and we see mass extinctions, possibly including our species.
This is deeply stupid. The amount of biomass a warmer Earth can support is greater, not smaller. An Ice Age is a far, far greater existential threat.
But since you brought up ice ages, one of the scarier possibilities flowing from AGW is a shut down (due to decreased salinity) in the Gulf Stream, and, yes, the onset or rapid glaciation in the northern hemisphere:
We're much more likely to slip back into an Ice Age as a result of natural variation, regardless of CO2 levels.
We've had Ice Ages at CO2 levels ten times higher than today's.
Congratulations, TallDave, on another defeat of Jasper's attempt at an argument.
What does that make the record, 18-0 in your favor now?
"Ryan optimistically says that we may well get a climate change bill."
The la-la-land of climate protection has too long lived on hailing governments to make promises and not really caring about the follow-through. So what if the bill passes Congress? Most of the supporters of the bill agree that it will not do anything to reduce emissions in a meaningful way.
At some point, one has to move past "raising awareness" and "building momentum" into actual "getting results." Kyoto was 12 years ago, Rio was 17 years ago. Copenhagen is looking like another set of empty promises.
I see absolutely no chance of this happening over the medium-term (next 10 years, say).
Tall Dave:
No. I did not make the argument you falsely cited that reducing GHG is the the "only" option "that could work." Thanks in advance for retracting this claim.
Yes we do -- what's not settled is whether or not we'll be able to make sufficient reductions to save our butts. Yes, there's sadly a non-trivial possibility we're already too late. But in principle, sure, there's no doubt that if we could end all C02 emissions tomorrow morning we'd "lessen the human-induced environmental stresses" we're talking about. And we most certainly can claim with confidence that man made C02 is affecting the climate. What planet have you been living on? I agree there is legitimate debate and speculation (and thankfully massive amounts of ongoing study) about degrees of change and scenarios and mitigation strategies and so forth. But the debate about whether or not our species' propensity to create carbon pollution is affecting the climate is over. Except apparently in the Holy Church of American Right Wingery (not to be confused with the Right in other countries, who thankfully realize not everything is ideological).
It's not "deeply stupid." It's common sense. Mass extinctions aren't incompatible with an increase in biomass. The problem is, we could be one of the species affected. I think it would give very little consolation to the last, dying community of humans to know that they were making way for more "biomass."
No. I did not make the argument you falsely cited that reducing GHG is the the "only" option "that could work."
Yes you did; you said "begins with the premise that reducing GHG emissions won't be necessary." If something else can work, GHG reduction isn't necessary.
In any case, you were wrong that my argument assumed that. We could also start reducing them in 2059, after we're vastly richer.
Thanks in advance for retracting both those claims.
It's not "deeply stupid." It's common sense.
No, it's very, very stupid. Mass extinctions due to a warmer Earth are exceedingly unlikely to threaten human existence, because nothing we depend on is very sensitive to warmer temperature; in fact, higher temps are likely benefit us overall, with higher crop yields and longer growing seasons, and anyways the Earth has been much warmer than present for most of its existence.
Cold, otoh, is the enemy of life. You may have noticed not much grows at the poles.
I think it would give very little consolation to the last, dying community of humans to know that they were making way for more "biomass
They would be eating the biomass.
TallDave:
Ridiculous claim. We've built up an infrastructure capable of keeping 7 billion human beings alive based on the relatively narrow range of climate conditions extant since the end of the last ice age. Rather obviously, precipitous, large-scale shifts in this range could prove disastrously problematic. You really are making this stuff as you go along, aren't you?
There is plenty of life present "at the poles." Just as there is plenty of life present at scaldingly hot geothermal springs. The question isn't about whether life itself will cease. The question is what impact will human-induced climate change have on the mix of species that call this planet home.
But the debate about whether or not our species' propensity to create carbon pollution is affecting the climate is over
You're an idiot.
Why? Because as a lay person I strongly suspect the conclusions of the the vast bulk of the scientific community are likely more valid than those of climate change cranks? If you want to throw you lot in with them, be my guest, TallDave, but you do at least acknowledge that AGW denial is an opinion possessed by only a small minority of scientists in the field, don't you?
Because your statement "the debate is over" shows you don't understand science.
There are different kinds of scientific proof. The strongest is things we can all easily test -- gravity, Newton's laws of motion, the phase transitions of water. Weaker are things that require specialized tests -- the curvature of the Earth, the speed of sound/light. Weakest are the category of things we cannot test directly at all: things like evolution, the Big Bang theory, cosmic inflation, etc.
Now, despite not being able to test it, it is exceedingly likely that evolution, cosmic inflation, BBT are at least mostly correct. We know this because they make very specific predictions, and ever-finer measurements of past events confirm those predictions. (If you know anything about AGW, you know where this is going...) The problem with AGW is that it doesn't make any specific predictions, and where it does make predictions it tends to be wrong-- CO2 doesn't drive climate historically, it follows climate change, making any cause/effect relationship extremely dubious. Anyone who thinks the idea CO2 drives climate is beyond debate is, well, an idiot.
Even worse, the "field" of climate "science" is mostly comprised of environmental activists looking for some pseudo-scientific justification of more government intervention on behalf of the environment. They all review each other's papers and use each other's data. That's a recipe for very bad science, and very bad science is what we get: Yamal, bristlecones, GCMs, etc.
Fortunately, idiots are a minority in America.
Forty-six percent (46%) say global warming is caused primarily by long-term planetary trends, while 38% put the blame more on human activity
Any time you hear someone say "the debate is over" it means they don't understand science and just want everyone who disagrees to shut up.
Rasmussen can get any number he wants in favor of any right wing proposition whatsoever. It's all in the wording:
http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/archives/2009/02/scott_rasmussens_conservative_friendly_question_wording.php
(That's not to say I don't regard this straight up election polling to be good -- I think it is -- but his issues polling is ludicrously right wing).
And at any rate, the fact that you're citing general public opinion polls on a question of science underscores the weakness of your position.
I don't want y'all to shut up. I want you to argue your way all the way into a thirty year minority.
Yeah, blame the question.
How's that cap and trade bill going?
And at any rate, the fact that you're citing general public opinion polls on a question of science
I didn't cite it as evidence of anything. I just said it was fortunate.
I will cite your statement as evidence for my proposition you're an idiot, though.
Um, that's called "peer review" TallDavey.
Tell us the truth: you do write for The Onion, don't you?
Yes, it's nice when the "peers" reviewing you happen to mostly also be environmental activists.
Are you really not seeing the problem there?
You're writing this from kindergarten class, aren't you? Maybe you should stick to crayons.
Nonsense, TallDave. The consensus of the scientific community is that there's overwhelming evidence -- the UN panel aggregating the opinions of the scientific community calls it a 90% probability -- that CO2 caused by human activities is warming the planet. Among their key findings:
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPCC_Fourth_Assessment_Report
If you want to associate with a bunch of conspiracy theorists and crazies, have at it. But claiming we can't make the case for AGW "with any confidence" is just bizarre, even by your exotic standards.
TallDave:
What a cheap, baseless slur on the scientific community.
As we're both aware, there are vast quantities of hard, peer-reviewed science on climate change being done by researchers globally. The problem for you is, hardly any of them are willing to ignore their findings for reasons of ideology as you do.
What a cheap, baseless slur on the scientific community
Just one very small part of it. There's, what, maybe a couple dozen people behind the hoaxey stick? Briffa has already been discredited. We'll see what other dominoes fall.
No, no, no! This sentence is characteristic of the worst sort of opposition-to-action-on-climate-change tarted up as concern trolling.
Absolutely nobody who's passingly familiar with these issues doubts that various developing countries will continue to increase their GHG emissions for many years, no matter what rich countries do. So, the point is: A) GHG reductions on the part of rich countries are still good for the environment in absolute terms, in that they imply less GHG being spewed into the atmosphere than would otherwise be the case, and; B) You've gotta start somewhere. So, anybody who thinks getting started on this project is desirable (Megan sadly is clearly not amongst this classification of people) realizes the only feasible way to go about it is for rich countries to lead the way. You know, low hanging fruit and all that.
Sure, it would be better if China and Brazil and India got their acts together, as well, but they're not particularly likely to do so until they've grown richer. And they're definitely not likely to do so unless current rich countries can credibly lead by example. This isn't about making the planet measurably better off by, say, 2018. This is about getting ourselves on the path to a point in, say, the last days of this century where we're hopefully on the cusp of stabilizing AGW.
One pines for the days when preserving Earth's natural bounty for future generations was considered a conservative value. Sigh.
One pines for the days when preserving Earth's natural bounty for future generations was considered a conservative value. Sigh.
Protecting the Earth remains a conservative value. Making up phony science in order to create global income redistribution is not. Or do you think the hockey stick is based on sound science? If not then how do you reconcile the global warming hysteria with the hotter Medieval warm period? If so, then what exactly constitutes sound science for the left - confirmation bias?
Incoherent claim. What evidence do you have that climate scientists make up "phony science?" Has the field in general eschewed the use of the scientific method?
Um, yes?
The best practice of the scientific method involves looking for the strongest evidence against your favored hypothesis and addressing it head on. I only see that behavior from warming skeptics and the occasional AGW believer who's already concluded that emissions reductions are far too inefficient an approach to be relevant to the problem. (This is not to say that emissions reductions have no value at all. For instance, China needs to pursue them to raise air quality.)
AGW True Believers exhibit all the repulsive intellectual habits that drove me away from fundamentalist Christianity. If they wind up being right, it certainly won't be because they deserved to be.
What evidence do you have that climate scientists make up "phony science?"
Briffa? Yamal? Bristlecones?
Has the field in general eschewed the use of the scientific method?
Yes, real scientists made that point quite emphatically:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/28/forecasting-guru-announces-no-scientific-basis-for-forecasting-climate/
We conducted an audit of the procedures described in the IPCC report and found that they clearly violated 72 scientific principles of forecasting (Green and Armstrong 2008). (No justification was provided for any of these violations.) For important forecasts, we can see no reason why any principle should be violated. We draw analogies to flying an aircraft or building a bridge or performing heart surgery—given the potential cost of errors, it is not permissible to violate principles.
First, don't use words whose meaning you don't understand. There is nothing incoherent about the charge of phony science. The issues is one of evidence, not logical coherence. You yourself recognize this because you immediately demand evidence rather than point out any alleged incoherence in my criticism.
Second, I specifically brought up the issue of the hockey stick as an example of phony science and you completely ignored it. Do you think the hockey stick was based on sound science or phony science?
When you're dealing with fungible commodities and an economy that is less fuel efficient than ours, it is indeed simply passing the emissions to other places, not a net reduction.
Megan: For this claim to be true it would have to be the case that literally 100% of any net reductions achieved by developed countries would be canceled out by the developing world. Again, nobody disputes the certainty that developing countries will continue to see sharpish increases in C02 emissions for many years. But you're not claiming that growth in emissions of non-rich countries will entirely cancel out gains elsewhere, are you? That sounds non-sensical.
I agree that the planet as a whole is not going to see peak human-induced GHG emissions for many decades. What I'm claiming -- and I would hope you're not disputing -- is that the planet as a whole can reach this peak earlier -- and at a lower level -- than it would sans efforts to reduce consumption of carbon-based fuels. In other words, it's a net reduction in GHG emissions over what would be the case if we don't take action.
It does not need to perfectly cancel out for emissions reduction to be too inefficient a strategy to be viable w.r.t. climate change. What is the price of each foregone ton of carbon emissions? If the price of removing, preventing, or neutralizing that ton in another manner is at least an order of magnitude less, every cent spent on emissions reduction is 90% wasted or worse.
Your mistake is believing that there's no better use of the resources our central planners would prefer to direct towards emissions reduction. In practice, there's every reason to believe that we'll come out ahead on all dimensions if we spend at least 11% of those resources on a more efficient climate management strategy, and do whatever we want with the other 89%. The only "problem" with this is that it doesn't satisfy many liberals' Puritan sensibilities.
Jasper, you just described a prisoner's dillemma and then threw out three squares, allowing only for the case in which the developing nations do whatever they want and everyone else loses. Then, for kicks, you propose the losers take it sportingly by blending Kabuki and hari kiri.
It's an amusing picture you paint, but it has very little in common with achievable pragmatism.
Dog of Justice:
Agreed. Point?
Huh? You do realize, one hopes, that experts (such as those at CBO) have already made detailed inquiries into this subject, and their conclusion is that the economy will continue to grow robustly amidst the backdrop of a C02 reduction policy. As with anything, it's about choosing from various policy options (everything from doing nothing to outlawing carbon-based fuels by government fiat) and making best guesses about likely costs and benefits. The evidence, at least according the professional numbers crunchers, is that taxing carbon gives us an optimal combination of continued economic growth and (eventual) net reductions in GHG emissions. Do you really think it would be possible to harness the machinery of the rich world's governments and tax codes without, you know, at least glancing at the likely effects on their economies? Good grief.
No. That's not "my mistake" at all. My conclusion -- one shared by a majority of reasonable people -- is that harnessing market forces to account for the need to curb the damage being done to the planet will give us a pareto-optimal solution with respect to to the proper mix of energy sources. Why you keep going on about "central planning" is anybody's guess.
Wow. 11%. That's mighty specific of you. Why don't you get even more specific and list some of these "reasons?"
I am a professional number cruncher, though I can tell you that it doesn't take a professional to understand the importance of exponential growth.
Look, if this was really about letting the market decide on an efficient solution, I would have no objections.
But the very first thing a rational, informed policymaker who believed there was a real crisis would do is unleashing nuclear power, ASAP (especially since construction times are pretty long). No subsidies beyond those given to other alternative energy sources are necessary, just streamline the regulatory environment to be similar to France's, a model that's known to work. I can trust any AGW activist-type who realizes this, and realizes the potential value of geoengineering, to be an honest problem-solver, worth listening to. The rest -- and that's almost all of them -- are transparently not worth listening to.
"You can choose any form of alternative energy you want... except that one which actually allows you to continue your current lifestyle unimpeded." That's not what I call a real market, or Pareto-optimal.
11% was in reference to my rather safe claim that we can find ways to deal with atmospheric carbon that are at least 10 times as economical as emissions reduction.
TallDave:
That Watts fellow is a radio weatherman -- hardly what I'd call a leading researcher (curiously there's no mention of this educational background on his site). Anyway, no matter what his credentials, his chief hobby horse -- an attempt to undermine the case for AGW by alleging insufficient data -- was thoroughly debunked by government researchers with the NOAA:
Emphasis mine.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Watts_%28blogger%29
Nice try.
Yes, real scientists made that point quite emphatically
...
That Watts fellow is a radio weatherman -- hardly what I'd call a leading researcher
Who said he was a researcher? He just wrote an article. The researchers are the people in the article.
For God's sake, if you're going to try to debate this at least make some kind of sense.
Dog of Justice:
You mean like "True Believers" in evolution, or "True Believers" in quantum mechanics, or "True Believers" in special relativity?
Please. You don't know what you're talking about. At the very least you should have the intellectual honesty to avoid making groundless slurs targeting the global research community examining this stuff.
http://globalchange.mit.edu/pubs/abstract.php?publication_id=990
I mean "True Believers" who not only think global disaster within the next century is all but certain if we do nothing to actively manage climate, and that spending trillions on emissions reductions makes sense, but also persecute men like Levitt and Dubner who do nothing more than discuss what might be a better solution to the same problem. The common characteristic is an intolerance of others doing what they want.
I am agnostic about whether it'll be important for us to actively manage global climate within the next century. I'm a Caltech alum and finishing my PhD this year on time series, so I do in fact understand the research you're referring to. Regarding the linked paper, that kind of time series modeling is only as good as the assumptions fed into it. Yes, if the assumptions turn out to be sufficiently accurate, the conclusions follow. But that's far from clear at this point... and real scientists will admit that.
And it is already clear that emissions reduction is an economically retarded strategy w.r.t. AGW.
Hagios:
The denialist community's hockey stick nonsense has been thoroughly debuked on numerous occasions in periodicals that publish PEER REVIEWED articles:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/myths-vs-fact-regarding-the-hockey-stick/
Really, Hagios, the hockey stick brouhaha jumped the shark a half decade ago.
Since then, we've found out the hoaxey stick used bad data like Yamal and that Mann flipped over data that disagreed with his pre-assumed conclusions.
So you think that China and India massively stunting their economic growth and leaving two billion people to poverty and misery qualifies as "getting their acts together"?
Always good to be reminded that I'm on the right side of this issue.
Dog of Justice:
Right. You've already mentioned you disagree with most of your science peers on this issue. We get it.
Well, fortunately for the planet the vast majority of your Caltech colleagues disagree with your non-scientific views on climate change, and in fact the university is a leading source of research into AGW:
http://www.enn.com/climate/article/23784
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/08/090817190638.htm
http://esciencenews.com/articles/2009/02/04/caltech.scientists.lead.deep.sea.discovery.voyage
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/34953_Caltech_Study-_CO2_At_Highest_Level_in_15_Million_Years
http://media.caltech.edu/press_releases/13099
Okay, what is it with you and replying to one comment while talking about another one entirely?
(emphasis mine)
You obviously don't understand what "scientific" means. Science doesn't just advance by adding more decimal places of precision, so to speak. Many of the most interesting advances overturn previous understanding in some manner.
It's not only possible for two scientists to have opposing views both of which are scientific, it's essential for the success of the whole enterprise. Furthermore, I'm not even arguing that AGW isn't happening; I said I'm agnostic about it (partly because many of the methods of inference currently being employed would have predicted an Ice Age danger back in the '70s). Agnosticism is the proper default attitude of a scientist. Your attitude is that of a religious fundamentalist (even if your theology is different), and I decided long ago that they were not worth my time. I'm not replying to any more posts of yours under your handle, ever, unless you change this.
Er, no. I think that the very substantial wealth gap between such countries and the developed world means the former -- with considerable justification IMO -- will successfully resit the efforts of the international community to implement CO2 curbs for a number of years -- possibly a period of time stretching toward two decades or so. But I also think that eventually -- IF current rich countries can lead by example between now and then -- the Indias and Chinas of the world will be cajoled/pressured/shamed into taking substantive action. Again, this isn't going to happen by 2012 or 2017. But by sometime in the 2020s, I think it will (and must).
Dog of Justice:
Sure. In the absence of evidence, agnosticism IS the proper attitude of a scientist. But that's not the situation at hand, is it, Dog? We're talking about a situation that features vast quantities of peer-reviewed research yielding empirical data that has gradually, over a substantial period of time, built an overwhelmingly strong case -- one supported by every reputable research body on the planet -- in favor of A) The AGW hypothesis, and B) The desirability of international action to combat this phenomenon.
Ignoring the traditions and responsibilities that accompany the scientist's role because of political ideology doesn't make you some kind of noble, hero-skeptic. It makes you wrong. And irresponsible. If you are indeed a PhD candidate and Caltech alum (which I must say I find dubious; and rather sad if true).
Um, no. That would be you, Dog. Religious fundamentalists (like you) rely on faith. I rely on the evidence yielded by peer-reviewed research -- which has long since coalesced into overwhelming international scientific consensus.
I hope you're good at keeping promises.
This sentence is characteristic of the worst sort of close-minded dismissal of other people's views. Call something "concern-trolling" and then you don't need to address the actual arguments.
The argument is about where to start. Megan McArdle was arguing for starting with geoengineering. She was also saying that she doesn't think that emissions reductions are politically doable in the rich world. To quote her: "Most of Europe's reductions have been achieved via the collapse of the East German and other post-Soviet industrial economies, Britain's 'dash for gas" after the energy sector was privatised, and purchases of questionable offsets--not from actual reductions as a result of greenhouse policy."
Megan has provided some evidence to support the assertion that we're having real problems starting with an emissions control regime in some rich European countries.
Personally I'd be quite happy to move towards a brand new future in which we could stop assuming that anyone who disagrees with us not merely on the big issues but on the implementation is "concern-trolling".
TallDave:
Pretty good, I'd say, since Lindsey Graham joined the fight. Fortunately the desire to be viewed favorably by future historians remains a powerful inducement for some politicians to occasionally do the right thing.
http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=509551
Of course, even if W-M is not enacted, the government will probably impose C02 curbs using its power to regulate industry to protect the environment:
http://www.epa.gov/nsr/fs20090930action.html
Man -- the shrillness of the responses to anybody straying from party line of "the world is heading towards AGW catastrophe, and there is only one solution" makes me skeptical. Levitt is getting a real world lesson on what happens to dissenters to the AGW theory.
The climate progress reaction to the statement "every religion has its heretics...."; well, methinks they doth protest too much. You can practically see the steam coming out of their ears. I guess that one hit a little too close to their low-carbon-footprint, built with renewable materials home.
Levitt has hit the nail on the head: as soon as the majority of Americans figure out that reducing their carbon usage is wayyyyy more than buying a Prius and using better lightbulbs and is more like a 30% to 40% cut in their material standard of living; any meaningful carbon reduction is dead in the water.
The idea of a "free lunch" from things like adaptive tactics ( the dike around NYC) or geo-engineering that promises all the benefits of carbon use you had with none of the nasty environmental hits drives environmental moralists crazy.
To those environmental moralists, the whole AGW thing is the perfect issue to force the move from evil western consumer society back to the good old days of low impact, organic subsistence farming.
This is one of the two or three most ill-informed things I've read on Megan's blog. At worst we're talking about slower growth in the already exceedingly high level of living standards found in rich countries like the US. Perhaps you care to enlighten us next with account of the planet's 6,000 years of natural history.
The global warming types want to reduce CO2 by at least 80% from 1992 levels. You say that will result in only a slower growth in our already exceedingly high standard of living. Do you believe people in the bottom fifth of national income won't miss that difference in growth (I think it would be a reduction in absolute GDP)? Who will lose their jobs: pinheaded ivory-tower professors and ivy-league policy wonks, or people making a living in energy-intensive industries?
I've worked in the petrochemical and energy businesses for 33 years, and it amazes me how little people in this country know about energy: where it comes from, how it is used, and how it impacts their daily life. If you like the current recession, then you'll love the cap-and-trade carbon tax.
Will they notice it? I doubt it. It's difficult to notice what you don't have. It's like asking your grandaprents how did they live without the internet. Just to be clear, I fervently desire that the economy and living standards grow as rapidly as is possible, consistent with correct policy on climate change. The numbers I've seen suggest exceedingly modest dampening of growth.
So what? Does that make you an expert on economic growth, or the effects of carbon taxation on said growth, or on living standards?
Oh, I think people will notice an 80+% reduction in carbon fuels very much. But then, I guess if you are not one of those unfortunates in the bottom fifth, well, who gives a damn about them. You got yours, right?
I like the way you truncate my sentence, just a little dishonest, eh? I was speaking of energy production and usage. What, pray tell, is your expertise?
At worst we're talking about slower growth in the already exceedingly high level of living standards found in rich countries like the US.
This is one the most ill-informed things I've ever read on Megan's blog.
Who needs economic growth anyway? If only people had thought this way in the exceedingly high living standards of the 1950s, then most of us would be living under the current poverty line.
All of us. I'm not suggesting otherwise.
Incoherent. Nobody wants anybody to get poorer. What we're talking about is, um, getting richer at a modestly slower pace. As Krguman recently put it when writing about Markey-Waxman:
Emphasis mine. (Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/25/opinion/25krugman.html?ref=opinion )
In short, most sensible people will take that deal -- 80% richer and a healthier planet for themselves and future generations -- than the unbridled greed that requires taking enormous risks with our our planet's future. Again, I like economic growth as much as the next person (far more money for socialist programs!).
But at what cost?
Incoherent. Nobody wants anybody to get poorer.
It's quite coherent, you just don't realize that if we lived at 1950s standards most of us would be below the current poverty line, which is right about where the average income was back then.
In short, most sensible people will take that deal -- 80% richer and a healthier planet for themselves and future generations
Most people will not trade 30% of their income gain to chase CO2 fairies that may or may not make the slightest difference to climate.
The Boxer-Kerry bill proposes a 83% cut in carbon emissions in the next 40 years. BTW-- that is an 83% cut for a country that will have 36% more people (309mm to 420mm )people living in it than we do today.
So 80% less energy usage for 36% more people will only result in slower growth? I find that to be fantasy.
Maybe the magic unicorns that will supply us our deficit free non-rationed healthcare will also fart a limitless supply of non-carbon based energy.
market karma: CBO predicts an 80% increase in GDP per capita between now and 2050 if we enact Markey-Waxman. Obviously a big part of this ability to overcome more expensive energy flows from the fact that we use energy with massive inefficiency under the status quo. Still, it might be helpful if you, like, made some attempt to google up a factoid or two before revealing your utter cluelessness.
TallDave:
No. Utterly incoherent. Nobody's talking about going to back to "1950s standards." And nobody's even talking about remaining at 2009 standards. Again, CBO predicts a 80% increase in per capita GDP between now and mid century. That sounds pretty good go me if we can achieve it in conjunction with robust reductions in GHG emissions.
Most people are abandoning the party of climate change denial, TallDave, so on the political calculus you're just plain wrong, and that's without getting into the specious suggestion about people having to give up "30% of their income." Whatever.
No. Utterly incoherent. Nobody's talking about going to back to "1950s standards."
Neither was I. Try to follow the argument. My point was if living standards hadn't risen since the 1950s, we'd all be poor by today's actual standards. This is why rising standards matter.
Most people are abandoning the party of climate change denial, TallDave
Obviously you haven't been following this year's trends in Party ID. The party of climate alarmism is dropping fast.
Please enlighten us about all the other ideologically driven efforts to reengineer economies and societies.
There is no need for a model. Just some very large ledger to count the dead.
THAT is the basepoint of this discussion.
Derek
Right. Raising the gas tax equates to Pol Pot and Stalin. Brilliant.
TallDave:
Um, yeah. What does this have to do with curbing greenhouse gasses?
Of course they do. Which is why anybody concerned about rising lving standards will be happy to know that full implementation of Waxman-Markey is consonant with an 80% rise in US GDP per capita between now and mid century:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/25/opinion/25krugman.html?_r=3
That's a good one. Republicans are at historic lows everywhere outside the Old Confederacy:
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2009_09/020010.php
I guess when you can't actually, you know, win elections, fantasizing about "party ID" is the best you've got. Sad.
Shrug. And Dems were at historic lows a few years ago. Welcome to politics.
2010 is looking very ugly for Dems. They won't pass your CO2 fairy appeasement bill when people keep hearing it costs thousands per household.
The link should be to The Anatomy of a Smear, where Dubner describes Romm feeding Caldeira the exact quote he would like to have from him, which according to Dubner Caldeira declined to do.
Yes, yes, I know--China's government is making noises about environmental sustainability.
China's building a coal plant every week. And since neither they or India accept the flimsy scientific rationale, they're more than happy to watch the West engage in pointless economic self-mutilation that makes them relatively more competitive.
At the risk of being a China cheerleader, it's just not true that China is only paying lip service to diversifying its energy portfolio.
It's true that currently, like the US, China meets much of its electricity demand with coal. However, I sense an urgency and a willingness to be bold and to experiment in China that's greater than nearly anywhere else in the world.
Sure, their motivation is probably more about national security than the environment, but especially given their GDP, they're ahead of much of the world in energy innovation.
For example, out of 50 nuclear reactors under construction worldwide, 24 are in China, including the world's first next-gen AP1000 based reactor. It's anyone's guess how next-gen nuclear will turn out, but China is at the forefront.
China generates 15% of its electricity from hydro, compared to 7% in the US.
China ranks 4th in the world in installed wind power capacity, at 15 gigawatts, compared to 29 gigawatts in the US. And that's with an economy that's 1/3 the size of the US.
So while it might be popular to moralize about how evil china is with their reliance on dirty coal, we should probably save the indignation. I wonder what the US's carbon footprint per dollar of GDP looked like when we were at a similar point in our economic development.
They get more from hydro because they don't have environmentalists who protest dams. Same with nukes.
I'm not sure about wind, but Ted Kennedy didn't live there to complain about it ruining his view.
TallDave,
You're right, but my point was just that China is serious about diversifying its energy portfolio - perhaps more serious than anyone.
The US and China have somewhat similar electricity generation mixes when you factor out natural gas. We're 60% coal and they're 80% coal. Natural gas is 22% in the US and almost nothing in China - They just don't have it available.
OTOH, we're learning that even natural gas has its own environmental issues as we learn about drinking water supplies getting contaminated by shale hydro-frac'ing chemicals in NY and PA - there's no free lunch I guess.
Definitely. Hydro is a no-brainer, economically speaking; it's by far the cheapest source of power. Nukes make sense because fossil fuels have huge price fluctuations, while nukes are extremely stable.
Magellan, if you want seriousness about diversification, try Britain. Installed base is 35% coal, 34% gas, 15% nuclear, 6% oil, 6% hydro, 4% wind, 1% other renewables. And they're planning to build more nuclear and renewables.
I don't promise that Britain is the most diversified country in the world. But they're certainly more diversified than China.
However, I sense an urgency and a willingness to be bold and to experiment in China that's greater than nearly anywhere else in the world.
I think this shows how ignorant you are about the rest of the world. France was 58% nuclear, and 23% hydro in 2008 in terms of power generating capacity. Germany had 23.9 GW in 2008 of installed wind capacity.
And as for boldness and experimentation, installing hydro plants, nuclear plants and wind plants isn't exactly experimentation any more. The United Kingdom is experimenting with wave-powered plants. Europe as a whole and the USA are experimenting with carbon capture and storage with the intent of scaling it up to large-scale. The USA developed gas extraction techniques from shale (maybe not good for the environment, but they're innovative and bold).
including the world's first next-gen AP1000 based reactor
Which is being built by a Westinghouse-Shaw consortium, both US companies.
So while it might be popular to moralize about how evil china is with their reliance on dirty coal, we should probably save the indignation.
And hopefully spend the energy we save by passing the indignation on getting our facts right? If you're going to claim that the USA is ahead of the world in terms of innovation, it's probably a good idea to gather a bit more evidence than that it's been installing old, proven technologies, and it's brought a new reactor design from a couple of US companies.
TracyW says
I think this shows how ignorant you are about the rest of the world.
...on getting our facts right? If you're going to claim that China (sic) is ahead of the world in terms of innovation, it's probably a good idea to gather a bit more evidence
Ouch. Hostile much! Also, talk about straw-men.
I didn't claim that China was ahead of the entire world, I said NEARLY everyone. And my point was that China's doing pretty darn well, especially when you consider their GDP and per capita income. Anyhow, MM didn't question Britain, France, or Germany's commitment to energy diversification - nor did I.
...the AP1000... Which is being built by a Westinghouse-Shaw consortium, both US companies.
Exactly zero next-gen reactors are under construction in the US - We can argue about the reasons, but this isn't very bold. China is building them. We aren't.
Look, I don't have any special interest in China. I was as surprised as most people when I stumbled on their wind and nuclear numbers accidentally, while doing research on worldwide wind power deployment. IMO, the conventional wisdom about China is wrong and it keeps getting repeated uncritically, as was the case with MM. I wanted to pass on a few relevant facts. That's all.
Magellan:Ouch. Hostile much!
Yes, fairly hostile. When someone makes grand claims about how a country is ahead of the world, I'm rather unimpressed when it turns out that they haven't bothered to check any part of the world outside the USA.
I didn't claim that China was ahead of the entire world, I said NEARLY everyone.
So by nearly everyone, you were mentally excluding the Americans and the Europeans? You also ommitted the Indians and the Russians, both countries also have a coal/gas/nuclear/hydro mix. India is planning to build 79 GW of installed capacity during the next 5 years (to an existing 149 GW), including 15 GW of hydro and 4 GW of nuclear. Russia is planning to build 40 new nuclear power plants by 2030. One may have doubts about whether these goals will be achieved, but they certainly are bold. I don't think any of them are planning on building the first ever type of a nuclear power plant, but their plans for construction are certainly bold. If you need to exclude the Americans, the Europeans, the Russians and the Chinese to support your claim that China is ahead of nearly everyone, you're rather redefining the world "nearly".
You may not have explicitly questioned the Europeans' dedication energy diversification, but when you said "...my point was just that China is serious about diversifying its energy portfolio - perhaps more serious than anyone", you were implicitly questioning their dedication. Unless you're going to argue that the Europeans aren't anyone.
Exactly zero next-gen reactors are under construction in the US - We can argue about the reasons, but this isn't very bold.
On the other hand, natural gas generation from shale was bold. Large-scale CCS is bold.
And while we're at it, the French are already constructing the first third-generation nuclear power plant, at Flamanville 3.
IMO, the conventional wisdom about China is wrong and it keeps getting repeated uncritically, as was the case with MM. I wanted to pass on a few relevant facts. That's all.
The problem is that the conclusions you drew from the facts are misleading, because the facts you used are incomplete.
Wow - I seem to have stepped into some sort of nationalistic beehive.
Sorry if I didn't pay due respect to Europe and the UK for their many renewable/alternative energy achievements. Sure, France is the undisputed leader in nuclear and Germany has been both bold and innovative with solar and with wind. Overall, the Eurozone has shown great leadership. That's a given. Honestly, my original point was that china in moving into the same league as these countries in terms of things like wind and possibly nuclear.
With "nearly," I was considering that China beats out maybe 180 of the 190+ countries in the world in terms of demonstrable efforts to diversify its energy mix away from fossil fuels. But as I said before, they're still at 80% coal and they plan to stay there for the foreseeable future, so I'm not delusional.
Perhaps I was grading China on a curve, because they rank 100th out of 194 in per-capita GDP. In that context, saying that they're in the top 10 or so does mean they beat nearly everyone.
But in reviewing current GDP numbers, I'm reminded that China has eclipsed Germany, France, and the UK in nominal GDP, so maybe they don't deserve the handicap anymore. Fair enough.
Finally, I feel the need to restate that I'm no China cheerleader. As TallDave pointed out, China is able to implement their bold policies because they jail and otherwise repress popular opposition to their plans. They're no role model for the west.
But people need to face the facts and understand that China often acts smart and strategically. Assuming they're an energy backwater that only builds coal plants is factually incorrect and possibly dangerous.
Of course, the biggest reason for so little progress on CO2 reduction is that essentially no political activists are actually concerned about CO2.
Especially not the environmental lobbies. They're simply using it as a stalking horse for their anti-industrialization agenda. If they were actually concerned, if they actually believed their apocalyptic rhetoric, they'd be busy demanding the construction of nuclear power plants.
When the Sierra Club, say, makes a national call for the government to replace all of the Tennessee Valley Authority's coal power generation with nuclear power plants, then we might see some action to really reduce emissions.
"When the Sierra Club, say, makes a national call for the government to replace all of the Tennessee Valley Authority's coal power generation with nuclear power plants, then we might see some action to really reduce emissions."
said another way (and I wish I could properly cite whomever said this first): I will believe its a crisis when the people saying its a crisis start behaving like its a crisis.
You mean like dropping something relatively trivial, like universal health care, in favor of solving the crisis ASAP?
I wish I could properly cite whomever said this first): I will believe its a crisis when the people saying its a crisis start behaving like its a crisis.
I think that honor goes to Glenn Reynolds.
Actually, what you describe here is what conservatives rightly decry as dirigisme. What contemporary liberals support -- and reasonable conservatives like David Cameron and Arthur Laffer -- is taxes on C02-based fuels. That way the market gets to decide the most efficient way to transition to a post carbon economy.
But it sure is a lot funner to parody the positions of the people who are inconveniently winning elections, ain't it?
It most assuredly is not "the market" that has annihilated nuclear plant construction in the US. Are solar or wind power saddled with anything even remotely resembling the regulatory minefields that have been built around nuclear? Who's responsible for this massive market distortion?
Not entirely, no. Although nuclear's massive cost disadvantages have at least something to do with its, um, uncompetitive market position. But what's your point? Aside from the fact that I wasn't making any claims with respect to this subject, are you claiming the government should not very carefully regulate the nuclear power industry?
I will claim that, to the degree the government does get involved, it's blatantly obvious that France is the example to follow. Any AGW alarmist who does not acknowledge this is either ignorant or is being dishonest about their priorities.
Although nuclear's massive cost disadvantages have at least something to do with its, um, uncompetitive market position
No, government simply did not allow them to be built.
And it isn't always at a disadvantage. Our power here in IL was actually relatively cheap during the runup in petroleum/NG due to it being mostly nuclear.
Nuclear's "massive cost disadvantages" are largely due to the hostile political and regulatory environment.
Construction or expansion of a nuclear power plant triggers political opposition. Every delay costs money. Unpredictable delays cost more money. The uncertainty about the delays make financing the project impossible. Then the activists triumphantly proclaim nuclear power uneconomic.
Catch-22.
Although there's plenty of truth in the "regulatory minefield" statement, that's not what's holding back nuclear. IMO, it is the market that's holding back nuclear right now - the capital market that is.
The truth is that even in the US with our nutty risk-taker bankers, capital markets won't touch nuclear. The financing spigot is shut off.
The bulk of active nuclear construction is in China (gov't money) or by still-regulated monopolies where the utilities have captured their state's regulatory infrastructure to transfer all of the project risk onto ratepayers. No free markets there.
I'm not saying nuclear is a bad idea. There's lots of promise in newer technology like the AP1000 design. OTOH, today it's still very risky and capital markets want an ROI commensurate with the perceived risk. With nuclear, you essentially have to pay for all of a plant's future output up front, and the higher cost-of-capital from the higher risk pushes the cost per megawatt for nuclear out of sight. It's like trying to afford a house with a 20% mortgage - the numbers just don't work.
So to recap - If markets decide, nuclear stays asleep until it can prove itself and re-open the financing spigot - except in places where markets don't decide where the experimenting will continue and may possibly bear fruit.
The risk is practically all political.
the risk is practically all political
I'm not sure I buy this. The new NRC licensing model has the reactor designs pre-certified, with the big fight over site licensing.
That's pretty good from a financing-cost standpoint because you don't have to commit much capital until after the site is approved.
I think the real concern is around the viability of the new designs, particularly from an actual all-in cost standpoint and a time to build standpoint. IMO, it's plain old fashioned project risk - will these designs perform?
As I said, in about 5 years we'll know a lot more and there's a chance that the landscape for nuclear could completely change. Sure, we'll still have the NIMBY fights, but if oil's sitting at $100-200 a barrel, or the planet's on fire, IMO, we'll find a way.
What contemporary liberals support
Of course, I didn't say anything about "liberals". I spoke of the environmental lobby, which encourages dirigisme all the time. If they took global warming seriously, they would be actively demanding nuclear power, instead of opposing every attempt to license a new nuclear plant.
But it sure is a lot funner to parody the positions of the people who are inconveniently winning elections, ain't it?
Not as fun as inventing strawmen, apparently.
What Kurgman, Avent, Gore and the others have done is construct a religion that demands dirigisme, which they say is based on science and therefore cannot be questioned.
People who do question the science tend to come from outside of the academic/upper middle class literary circles and are disposed of as existential others called 'denialists'.
People who come from within academic/upper middle class literary circle and who do not question the science but who do question the dirigsme or religion cannot be dismissed as 'others'. So they must be disposed of by other means, however intellectually dishonest.
That's what's happening to Dubner & Levitt.
My own two cents: if you're not allowed to ask questions, it isn't science any more.
Nonsense. Taxing carbon is a method for using market forces to combat AGW. It's literally the furthest available course of action from "dirigisme" save no government action at all.
No government action at all sounds perfect.
Tell you what: everyone who believes this junk AGW science can voluntarily cut their own emissions, and leave the rest of us alone.
To be fair to them, the concern is externalities. Externalities don't respond well to individual-level action.
True.
OTOH, imaginary externalities respond to individual action quite well.
There's plenty of people who want to tackle climate change for non-dirigiste reasons, but Levitt & Dubner's attackers are not among them.
Bob W: Well, the real question is whether or not the "regulatory environment" you characterize as hostile is warranted. I'm personally open to more nuclear plants, and strongly suspect that improvements in technology will improve their "popularity." But at the end of the day the technology is dangerous. And it creates waste that's difficult to dispose of. It's not surprising that the various difficulties flowing from the controversies surrounding nuclear power have increased its price.
Dog of Justice: Even were that the case, there exists no known method whereby the scaredy-cat general public can be forced to relinquish its fears and magically accept the "all is sunlight and roses" view of nuclear power possessed by the libertarian technocracy. To put in another way, to the market, political risk is just as real as any other kind.
Relyt: Right. Fair characterization. Dubner and Levitt are most definitely not being "allowed" to ask questions. The govenrment is pulling their book off the market as we speak. And instead of selling several hundred thousand copies their publisher is losing its investment.
What you really mean is: they're not being allowed to peddle their denialist bullshit without being called on it. Too bad.
Who is responsible for creating this intractable political risk you talk about? It certainly didn't exist 50 years ago.
Perhaps you should focus your ire on them for doing real damage to humanity's ability to deal with the upcoming crisis (assuming there is one). Instead of those of us who are trying to rationally figure out how to make the best of our current situation by considering options beyond the single, absurdly inefficient track preferred by our liberal elite.
Dog of Justice: Um, the Soviets (Chernobyl)? The Americans (Three Mile Island)? Osama bin Laden (fears of nuclear terrorism)?
As has been pointed out, the costs to people's living standards flowing from GHG curbs will be barely noticeable. What you're really sore about is that taking action on climate change requires doing something not spontaneously produced by the free market. And, that, as every Galtian knows, is heresy.
This explains some (though far from all) of the political risk in 1989.
It does not explain it in 2009.
As for nuclear terrorism, France has a higher density of Muslims than we do, but they don't seem to worry so much about that particular issue. Why?
If so, that means the GHG curbs won't be significant enough to plausibly make a difference, so what's the point?
There are other contexts where I have no problem with what some would characterize as interference with the free market. I'm not a doctrinaire libertarian. My problem with emissions controls as an anti-AGW measure is that it's (i) really, really dumb, and (ii) also has undesirable geopolitical consequences such as transferring more power from the US to autocratic China.
This thread is a great example of why we so desperately need a near limitless and almost costless supply of energy, whether that be fusion or space-based solar beaming or whatnot.
We already have the technology to yield a society that emits very little CO2 and pollutants (compared to today): Nuclear power, hydrolysis and hydrogen fuel cells, etc.
What we don't have is a single source of energy that is so cost-efficient and plentiful that people stop arguing about utilizing it.
Personally, I have no freaking clue why the U.S. doesn't already utilize 85-90% nuclear power and 10% renewable (hydroelectric, solar, wind, geothermal, etc). Nuclear is far more efficient, far safer, and with far easier to contain waste products than coal, oil, and natural gas. Nevertheless, it's by no means a multi-century solution.
Obama, who has been dissapointingly lacking in "Apollo" style-programs, would receive my support (limited to the program) of a massive price/race for a global energy solution.
Joe
To be fair, there's issues with load balancing if you take nuclear much above 80% or so. But 80% nuke, 10% hydro, 10% coal would be just fine as an energy mix.
Scientist vs Fanatic
S: Given our current state of ignorance
on this subject, the most we can say is X.
F: Give me Unlimited Power, NOW, or the world
will come to an end !!!
That was then, and this is now; The data are in,
and only a fanatic, or a charlatan, can ignore
the many scientists who _are_ qualified to have an
opinion, saying it is Game Over for Global Warming.
The bad news is that we may be in for a cooling
trend severe enough to decrease harvests, and
rapid enough to affect those now living;
In plain English: Famine.
P.S. Any practical, reversible, planetary
temperature engineering will be done from orbit.
Wow. This is the highest bullshit-to-word ratio that I've seen in a blog comment for a while. Not one assertion is true.
Excellent post, M. Sums up the debate nicely.
You just described Plan B: don't have carbon reduction within an "acceptable" timeframe. As one of the many who are convince that agw is pure bullshit, my biggest problem is that Plan B should be Plan A.
Exhibit #298,376 in the case to show that MM's definition of "libertarian" is a liberal who wants to pretend that she isn't.
The left has already solved climate change.
Look at how much our economy has shrunk since the left took over Congress, or, if you prefer, since Obama became president. With lower economic output, there is lower carbon emissions.
And to this an energy policy that is likely to guarantee high oil prices for the foreseeable future (the price of oil has already doubled during the Obama presidency), and this is likely to curb consumption.
And with Obama's policies ensuring a decade or more of minimal/subpar economic growth, our carbon emissions are likely to continue going down, or, at most remaining steady.
Megan sez: -no one is willing to amp up their constituents' energy bills, especially during a recession. (This does not make me happy, so please hold the righteous anger. The universe is not here to please me, or you.)
It doesn't make you happy? Eh?
Amping up energy bills and all that entails in a recession *would* make you happy?
OooooooK.
As I always say, I will take the global warming alarmists seriously when more than just a handful of them start advocating the replacement of coal fired power plants with nuclear ones. Without that, their goals are laughable when not just downright stupid.
Amen to this. I think it is Glenn at Instapundit that says he'll start taking AGW seriously when all those screaming that the sky is falling start acting like the sky is actually falling.
This is simply not true. Nuclear energy is clean, but it's also more expensive on the long run. It shouldn't be off the table, because it may be the solution for some specific locations. But, in general, it's not a option for replacing coal.
It is more expensive now, but it is the only alternative to coal/gas for baseline production. Environmentalists vastly underestimate just how much energy will be needed 50 years from now. The world will use at least twice the energy it does today, and probably quite a bit more than that. There is simply no way wind and solar can cover this- it is a moving target, and a target the requires a seriously big energy supplier. 50 years from now, minus a major investment in nuclear, we will be burning more fossil fuels than we do today.
If fossil fuel utilization is going to drop significantly, then nuclear is going to be the major replacement, otherwise we will just have to agree to be significantly poorer in the future. However, I know enough about human nature to discount our willingness to suffer that fate voluntarily.
In the long run, it's the only option for replacing coal, because you can't use solar or wind for base load generation.
Yancey and Megan
Base load is a problem. A renewable energy solution depends on grid energy storage and the evolution of batteries. The grid would require massive investments in infrastructure, although nuclear also has that problem.
Batteries... It kind of depends on the evolution of technology. In general, capacity and durability has gone a long way in the past 10 years. But it seems we're not quite there yet. It depends on what you believe the trend will be. Some talk about a version of Moore's law for battery technology but, of course, nobody really knows.
So I guess there's some tough choices to make.
http://www.nucleartourist.com/basics/costs.htm
We do! See this talk by Google's Eric Schmidt. There are plans and solutions, and some that may actually save money in a 20 to 30 year window.
You're misrepresenting China's efforts. China is not just making noises. It's investing massively in renewable energy - while, yes, still building coal plants everywhere.
Let's not forget that global warming is one of the two existential threats to the world today, the other being a large-scale nuclear conflict. If there was ever a time for throwing our weight around, this is it. The U.S., China, India and the EU are responsible for the lion's share of planetary emissions. And the EU will most likely be on board with us on pressuring China and India (it is already doing it on its own).
By the way, all indicators of global warming have been revised, and all indicators say that climate change will be faster and worse than expected. Projections from MIT now estimate the expected rise in temperate for 2100 to be of 5˚C. This will be devastating.
Most forms of geoengeneering are:
1) Extremely expensive, and with guaranteed horrible side effects, but the benefits are uncertain. An often used metaphor for it is chemotherapy - it will screw up your body for sure, to the point that it may kill you faster than cancer. And it may very well not cure you.
2) Most importantly, geoengeneering isn't a substitute to emission reduction. Rather, it is something that may have to be done in addiction to cutting emissions, if we don't act soon and/or warming occurs faster than expected.
3) Geoengeneering technologies (except for massively planting trees) are in general much less developed and more speculative than renewable energy technology.
Please see this video at least for the first 4 minutes (if you're not hooked up by then, there's no point in seeing the rest). It addresses all points above, and it updates the scientific results presented in "An Incovenient Truth".
This is far from obvious. One of the nicer things about engineering is that, once it works at all, it tends to be very scalable. The engineering required to predictably reduce average planetary temperature by 5 degrees Celsius is not likely to be qualitatively very different from that need to reduce temperature by 5.5 degrees... and the side effects are not likely to be qualitatively different, either. And I don't see any realistic emissions reduction regime having more than 0.5 degrees worth of impact, especially given the unpopularity of nuclear power.
Irrelevant if renewable energy is simply incapable of achieving the necessary scale. Speculative beats futile any day of the week.
That said, I'm not totally pessimistic about solar energy. In principle, we should actually be able to scale that up as far as we want to. But the logical course of action, if there actually was a crisis, would be to ramp up nuclear energy production first, to buy time for solar tech to advance.
Whatever the geoengeneering solution, it will be more expensive the more we will have to do of it. But this is not the main issue. There are some positive feedback points that we hope to avoid by curtailing emissions, because they will make avoiding global warming much more difficult. So, for instance, if too much permafrost melts, enormous quantities of carbon will be released in the atmosphere, so that a geoengeneering solution will have to counter carbon emissions from new sources.
Renewable energy already has the necessary scale, and it is already cheaper than nuclear.
The problem is that emissions reduction is so inefficient that the probability of avoiding some sort of critical threshold with it is negligible. If there is such a threshold nearby and we're on track to cross it within the next 50 years if we don't change anything, it's reasonable to say it's at least 95% likely we'll still cross it if government policy tries to track the alarmists' suggestions. While you can argue that 5% is better than nothing, the sane thing to do is focus on how to address the 95%... and in developing the necessary techniques, the 5% effect will almost inevitably be reduced in significance to a rounding error.
If it does, why are folks like Al Gore saying we need to cut back on energy usage? And as for "cheaper than nuclear", who's exporting electricity, France or Germany?
"pressing" China
Er, no, Yancey. But why suddenly all this conservative/libertarian enthusiasm for central planning?
If we price CO2, the market will decide which energy sources will take us to the post-carbon future. No need for hand wringing about nuclear vs. solar vs. wind vs. geothermal.
If I didn't know better, I'd swear some of you were being selective in your admiration of markets.
Jasper,
I have no interest in central planning whatsoever, but I can't take seriously people who do but are incapable of understanding the inherent contradictions in their positions.
I consider the entire issue moot anyway. The idea that we will stop burning fossil fuels any time in the next 100 years is a delusion.
I consider the entire issue moot anyway. The idea that we will stop burning fossil fuels any time in the next 100 years is a delusion.
Yancey: I don't think I've ever heard a plausible case made that says we're going to stop burning fossil fuels between now and 2109. The question is how much or how little will we use.
It's not a market, it's a tax.
Calling it a market doesn't make it a market.
Update: Smart point from Kevin Drum It's also worth noting that even if we eventually resort to geoengineering, our job will be a lot easier if we've already made some progress on reducing greenhouse gases.
Not necessarily. It depends how much poorer we are as a result of emissions controls.
By the way, all indicators of global warming have been revised, and all indicators say that climate change will be faster and worse than expected. Projections from MIT now estimate the expected rise in temperate for 2100 to be of 5˚C. This will be devastating.
Most forms of geoengeneering are:
1) Extremely expensive, and with guaranteed horrible side effects, but the benefits are uncertain. An often used metaphor for it is chemotherapy - it will screw up your body for sure, to the point that it may kill you faster than cancer. And it may very well not cure you.
2) Most importantly, geoengeneering isn't a substitute to emission reduction. Rather, it is something that may have to be done in addiction to cutting emissions, if we don't act soon and/or warming occurs faster than expected.
3) Geoengeneering technologies (except for massively planting trees) are in general much less developed and more speculative than renewable energy technology.
Please see this video at least for the first 4 minutes (if you're not hooked up by then, there's no point in seeing the rest). It addresses all points above, and it updates the scientific results presented in "An Incovenient Truth".
By the way, all indicators of global warming have been revised, and all indicators say that climate change will be faster and worse than expected
Except reality.
http://www.blurtdaily.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/0_22_beck_carlin_450.jpg
TallDave: Glenn Beck is to "reality" what you are to socialism.
Note how Glenn Beck stands in front of the portion of the chart that shows how actual temperature is oscillating up and down around the predicted path. We're in a recent down-portion of the oscillation.
Those who believe that chart don't understand concepts such as trends and variance around the trend.
Heh. It's like Pavlov.
Sorry guys, Glenn Beck's presence in front of the chart doesn't alter it's reality, and if we're in the down-portion of the oscillation around that line there should be some gigantic warming pretty soon.
Or you can just keep claiming the oscillation is bigger, I guess.
Oh, look!
A temperature time-series that begins in 1990! And that shows the decline of yearly temperatures from the 1998 all-time record!
The thing with TallDave is, it doesn't matter how many times a particular point has been debunked. Possibly due to a tragically damaged long-term memory, he just rehashes them a few days later.
I wonder why Glenn Beck didn't show this cool graph, where we can see that, yes, the 2000's were not as hot as 1998, and that, yes, this is still the hottest decade on the record.
Meanwhile, climate scientists unfamiliar with Dr. Beck's research are saying that global warming is worse than predicted.
On record? How long have we been keeping satellite data? 40 years is nothing in geologic time idiot.
Oh look, Nimrod can't read a graph!
It's a comparison of predicted to actual, Nimrod. It doesn't matter when it starts.
yes, this is still the hottest decade on the record.
Depends on the graph.
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/uah_jun09.png
Traically, you're too fucking stupid to even read the article you linked, so you've once again embarassed yourself for my amusement. It doesn't say temperatures are rising faster, it says CO2 is rising faster.
Gee, CO2 is rising and temperatures aren't. How could that happen? Maybe Dr. Nimrod knows.
About the Kevin Drum update - I don't know if people realize this, but a 100-year 7˚C rise in temperature is more or less a Mad Max scenario.
7°!!!
That's like moving from New York to Cuba!
The mixed rum drinks, the bikinis, the loud music... it's a nightmare.
I think your comment about journalistic ethics and etiquette is not appropriate to the situation. Romm is not a journalist. He is a physicist and advocate for a cause and, as in a legal matter, advocates often produce a phrase for which they ask for concurrence. It happens in a court room all the time.
Hence it is not a reason to not take the source seriously.
Nimed,
I've been following this issue for years, and literally every single day is a new report that the old findings are wrong and that the real warming is much worse. This mantra is repeated over and over again as if no one is noticing that you guys use the same freakin line every time.
At some point people will start wondering that if you keep getting the prediction wrong every single time you make one, why should we trust the prediction?
Or, alternately, are you just faking it?
Actually, one of the few real scientists in the field has noted the PDO appears to be in a 30-year cooling cycle, so we may not see any warming through 2030 or so.
Most predictions were either right or too cautious, and some of them are now data.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e2rt1QWC-9Q
Skip to 1:32 to see how much the Arctic has shrunk in 6 years.
Specifically, what failed prediction did you have in mind?
Oh let's see, the Artic was supposed to be ice free this year, instead it grew...
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/09/07/how-have-the-scientists-done-on-arctic-sea-ice-forecasts-this-year-maybe-not-so-good/
...the methane prediction was way off...
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/10/that-worrisome-methane-beast-apparently-is-still-not-awake/
...then there's this fun graph you've apparently already forgotten.
http://www.blurtdaily.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/0_22_beck_carlin_450.jpg
Seriously, step out of your echo chamber sometime. I think all the CO2 in there is damaging the few neurons you have left.
Another great piece of reasoning from STD - arctic ice increases slightly in 2 YEARS (and it's still not certain!), while decreasing at a pace of 7,7% since 1987. Therefore, artic ice is not shrinking!
Oh, and concerning the 2008 increase:
Now, there really is doubts concerning the relative contributions of several greenhouse gases to global warming (but no doubt that they cause Earth temperature to rise). Of course, the occurrence of global warming is not in question, not the fact that it is man-made, since we have large emissions of all the usual suspects. But, of course, what the Glenn Beck graph suggests is that there is no global warming - which, again, climate scientists do not dispute. That is, except for those who are bribed. And Glenn Beck. And STD.
Hilariously, none of that has anything to do with whether the prediction was wrong.
Seriously, get some oxygen before you lose lower brain functions too.
Oooh here's another good one.
http://rankexploits.com/musings/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/monctongraph.jpg
It doesn't have Glenn Beck in front though. Maybe I'll photoshop him in later.
An even better graph.
http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-7715-Portland-Civil-Rights-Examiner~y2009m8d18-Carbon-Dioxide-irrelevant-in-climate-debate-says-MIT-Scientist
Still no Glenn Beck, though. Sorry. It does have this fun quote:
@ Nimed: Max BS
Nolo Contendere
Other weavers on the thread may note a maximal
contrast between the attitudes of S and N :)
The question is academic for a '46 Model like me,
even if the rapid cooling scenario comes true, but
you youngsters will have to live, or die, with the
consequences of your choices, so do not succumb
to Target Fixation on winning the debate;
"Fallen Angels" is a fine adventure story, but as
Poul Anderson (I think) pointed out, "Adventure"
is defined as somebody else having a Hell of a
rough time, a thousand miles away.
Once again, Stupid TallDave (short: STD) demonstrates the inability to follow an argument. As it has been pointed out over and over again every time global warming comes up - yearly fluctuations around a tendency are meaningless, and 1998 has hotter than expected, and that's precisely the reason most graphs use 5 or 10 year averages (like, for instance, this one). But to STD, the lines in a graph in Glenn Beck show are just too damn pretty! Surely they must mean something!
Because STD combines his natural stupidity with a drive to excel (his motto: "be all you can be"), we can always rely, for any given topic, on STD choosing the most absurd and stupidest possible line of argumentation. Some people have disputes on what to do about AGW. Others, while not accepting that global warming is man-made (already a respectably stupid attitude), nevertheless accept the reality of the warming itself.
But not STD. He is convinced that the agreement between the most prominent experts on the planet is a Communist plot for world domination. And, as the facts dissipate the doubts of a handful of old skeptics, STD they will naturally make STD's beliefs ever stronger.
Being called stupid by a submoron like yourself is a compliment.
Still too fucking stupid to realize the argument was over whether the temps were meeting the PREDICTIONS?
Come on Nimrod, five year olds can follow a basic argument.
Jesus man. Stop embarrassing yourself. It's pretty basic and 2 people have already explained this to you.
There are stochastic fluctuations around the predictions you talk about. Those "predictions" you mention are trends - They should be correct only on average.
You're the one who should be embarassed. For God's sake, can you not read the thread? Nimed asked for predictions that were wrong. I just gave half a dozen.
If the stochastic fluctuations are too large for predictions, then obviously they should stop making predictions that could easily be wrong. Try to pay attention: the whole point of the discussion is that natural variation is too large for the predictions they're making.
And some of their predictions are NOT going to be correct even on average. Look at the hurricane data -- it's fallen off the chart, despite Al Gore and company insisting they were going to get worse.
You're the one erroneously interpreting a trend line as a prediction for every year, and then screaming WRONG PREDICTION. And no, stochastic fluctuations are not too large for predictions. The range between the peak year, 1998, and today is about 0.15 Celsius. That's about the difference between 1976 and 1978, or 1916-1918, and the temperatures where on the rise then.
That's why you should take a measure less sensitive to fluctuations (for instance, 10 year moving averages). Now, if the 2000 decade was cooler than the 90s, or the 2010-2019 period was cooler than 2000-2009 - that would be surprising. But the first one is clearly not going to happen (in spite of 1998).
Again, yearly variations are pretty meaningless. You can't possibly be this obtuse - for some reason, you're desperately trying not to understand this, and making a fool of yourself in the process.
Simple Simmons,
You're the one erroneously interpreting a trend line as a prediction for every year, and then screaming WRONG PREDICTION
It's a not a trendline, it's the IPCC prediction. And it's wrong. The thread was about wrong predictions, I didn't suggest the topic. That was your buddy Nimed.
Again, yearly variations are pretty meaningless.
I agree the yearly arctic ice predictions aren't especially meaningful (but they did make them, so they're fair game), but the temperature predictions aren't just wrong for one year. Neither is the methane, or the hurricane.
Now, if the 2000 decade was cooler than the 90s, or the 2010-2019 period was cooler than 2000-2009 -
That's an equally meaningless yardstick for whether predictions have been wrong. The satellite trend is .1 degree per decade. IPCC predictions are much higher. So even if every decade is warmer, that doesn't mean the IPCC predictions are right.
You can't possibly be this obtuse - for some reason, you're desperately trying not to understand this, and making a fool of yourself in the process.
Says the guy who can't tell a prediction from a trendline, or one year from five.
Nimed (what kind of a name of is that?) STFU.
You are a STD, douchebug. FOAD.
Second only to his awe-inspiring stupidity is the talent of STD (if you just tuned in, that's Stupid TallDave) to frenetically link to various lunatic "sources" without bothering to examine them. STD's strategy is simple (well, it kinda had to be). If you are too stupid to argue, perhaps you can dazzle other stupid people with sheer link quantity.
So he links a lot of articles from a site
And so he links an examiner.com article from a "respected scientist". This skeptic, like others, is already famous for his disinterested skepticism:
Meanwhile, what do the most prestigious science journals have to say about the whole matter? Nature, for instance, concludes from 2008 that:
- Other greenhouse gases (besides CO2) are also worrying;
- Arctic summer sea ice is in rapid decline;
- Warming is already having an impact;
- The hockey stick holds up (meaning a method of inferring the mean temperatures of the last 1300 years had been attacked previously and received independent confirmation) - therefore "recent warming is greater than at any point in at least the past 1,300 years";
Nature magazine eagerly awaits the contributions of Doctor Glenn Beck and his laboratory associate, Doctor STD, Stupid Excelsior.
No, Dr. Nimrod, that isn't a Nature peer-reviewd study, it's just one writer's opinion, and it's been proven wrong since.
It's come out recently that the Yamal series is essentially based on one tree and was not a representative sample, the bristlecone problems are well-known, and when Mann ran into some data that went the opposite way, he did what any good propagandist would do: he just turned it upside down!
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/17/iq-test-which-of-these-is-not-upside-down/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/05/music-of-the-rings-the-yamal-tree-ring-controversy-continues/
Most damning of all, it took over a decade for all this to come out, because unlike real scientists Briffa and Mann went to great effort to avoid revealing their data and methods. That isn't science, that's agitprop to delude gullible fools like yourself.
What a douche... It's not a peer-review study - it's a summary of the main findings of peer-review studies in 2008.
About bristlecones, here's what the article says:
Mann's findings has been vindicated by independent methods. Which is the opposite of what STD says. Again.
Hey genius, did you notice the respective dates?
Nimed,
Uh. You can't trust people on the take from government. They will do anything to keep their iron rice bowl filled. If Lysenko says that you can breed using acquired traits then there will be plenty of science to confirm it.
In any case the question is now political and the early onset of winter (read all the tomato posts about it) in the USA the past couple of years and the recent day with 4,500 of various low temp records broken and an early start to the skiing season around the country are going to kibosh AGW plans in the USA.
Heck - the Democrat controlled US Senate is on record that it will not vote to export jobs to China and India. i.e. if China and India keep increasing their rates of CO2 emissions the US will not entertain any cuts.
So we will find out if CO2 actually drives climate. My guess? Not.
But if it did I think planting trees is the answer. When they stop growing so fast we cut them down (and build houses out of them) and plant more. As long as growth exceeds decay we are taking CO2 out of the atmosphere. And if we get short of CO2 we can just burn the houses.
Here is a bit on Antarctic Ice. And it IS worse than originally thought:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/19/west-antarctic-ice-sheet-may-not-be-losing-ice-as-fast-as-once-thought-grace-readings-overestimated/
for AGW believers.
Another sign that the worm has turned. Two years ago on discussions like this the non-believers were in the minority. Now it is the acolytes of Al "I'm going to make billions on carbon trading" Gore who are in the minority.
Of course there is no way to know for sure but is it possible that the so called proponents of Climate Catastrophe are being paid by Al to push his agenda? He and his friends stand to make a LOT of money if they can get Congress to act in the fashion they desire.
One would think that we shouldn't make life-altering economic decisions based on data time spans that represents blips in geologic time. There are no climate trends from the last 200 years that you can extrapolate out the next 100. But those "climate scientists" who do so because that's what keeps their funding.
Ok, so there's a lot of ignorant fellows in this thread, but, of these, TallDave @9:19 is the biggest idiot. Essentially because he is a poseur - as ignorant as the rest, but he not only pretends that he knows something about climate change, he actually thinks that his simple-minded objections have escaped experts in the field. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing, indeed.
This is his idiotic reply to Jasper
Hmm... No TallDave, you're the one who doesn't understand science, as we shall see.
Firstly, the technical difficulty of performing experiments doesn't constitute a proper basis for weaker and stronger "scientific proofs". Secondly, Newton's laws is a theoretical body, but the curvature of the Earth or the speed of sound (and you can't mix sound with light) are phenomena, just like the speed of a falling apple - you don't "prove" them in the same sense you prove Newton's laws. TallDave is confounding a theory with specific hypothesis - if Newton's laws are correct, then an apple falls from a tree at a certain constant acceleration; if both Newton and gas laws are (approximately) correct, than sound propagates in our atmosphere at a certain speed - and in water at a different speed, using the same theory.
Yes, it's going to a very silly place.
But evolution also made a lot of wrong predictions. Most of the hypothesis of common ancestry and specific trees of life have been rejected (and rearranged) by posterior evidence, published rates of mutation have been miscalculated by orders of magnitude, and so on. And many current hypothesis are almost certainly wrong too. Yet, in spite of these predictive failures of the past, we didn't reject the theory of evolution! How can this be?
Reviewing each others papers, using each other's data... is what's supposed to happen in a scientific field. What you don't want is scientists working in isolation and duplicating each other's work, specially on a field where data can be very expensive to collect.
Furthermore, TallDave suggests that the practice of climate science is politicized (and not, say, the various spokesmen for green movements or fossil fuels industries). Here, it helps that you performed research on a non-social field to know how profoundly ignorant this statement is. Climate scientists are spread throughout the globe, and they come from very different cultures. But if there's one thing that they have in common, is that they have a hard sciences background - several branches of physics and chemistry, mathematics, engineering. Anybody who works in the field can guarantee you that in general these people don't pay much attention to politics. And, although there are certainly exceptions, the great majority of them are certainly not going to compromise their careers by skewing either experimental results or their interpretation.
But let's come back to
There's a lot of scientific phenomena that are explained by positive feedback processes, starting with pretty basic chemical reactions. And we know that CO2 retains heat in the atmosphere. Now, the problem is, it also has other complicated effects, and there are other gases that trap heat on the atmosphere. So, while CO2 almost certainly plays a non-negligible role, it's not clear how big a role YET. But no scientist doubts that, if some phenomenon dumps enough CO2 in the atmosphere, the Earth will get warmer. We know this because we know very well the basic properties of the CO2 molecule. And, in case you're wandering, trees won't start spontaneously growing fast enough to restore equilibrium, at least for hundreds of years. That's because there are lots of other limitating resources for vegetation - sunlight, terrain, water, nutrients, etc.
So, while it's not clear that CO2 is driving global warming right now, it will certainly do so through a positive feedback mechanism in the future.
But consider how arrogant it is to say that, because CO2 "follows climate change" (actually, it follows the beginning of warming periods), it "makes cause/effect relationship extremely dubious". TallDave seems convinced that no climate scientist has ever thought of this before and accounted for it.
Of course, what most scientists claim is that CO2 almost certainly wasn't responsible for the onset of periods of global warming, but that it acted as an amplifier (possibly its main amplifier). Alternatively, it's possible that CO2 may have just been a by-product of a warming planet, not significantly contributing for the warming itself. But, once again, we know that, at a molecular level, CO2 is a relatively efficient heat trap. That's why CO2 is a very plausible candidate gas.
One last very stupid comment:
Jasper said
TallDave replied
Get it? Because the potential biomass of Earth increases increases with warmth, there won't be mass extinctions and existential threats.
Put aside the fact that the relationship between heat and biomass isn't quite that simple, evidenced by the fact that deserts aren't teeming with life. The most important point is that it doesn't matter, either for existing species or for mankind's well-being, that Earth will be able to support more undifferentiated biomass on a warmer climate.. What matters is that current species, specially long-lived species, won't be able to adapt rapidly enough. Yeah, something will eventually fill the gap. But will almost certainly won't be something we are adapted to.
Humanity almost certainly will survive. But, right now, our lives are adapted to the current average temperatures - our ports and some of our cities are near the present coastline. We inhabit the parts of the planet that are hospitable right now. We have built our urban centers near the present sources of fresh water - springs, rivers, etc.. We cultivated crops in places that have a favorable climate for those crops - that's why we planted them there. And all our infrastructure is adapted to our current local weather patterns.
This doesn't mean that we can't adapt to a change in Earth's climate - the question is how fast, and at what cost. A rapid change in average temperatures and weather patterns changes all these the factors mentioned above. It will create food and water shortages, and with them instability in the world. It will multiply conflicts near nations' borders. It will dislocate populations. It will cause mass suffering, specially in the developing world. It is, in sum, something we really want to avoid, even at the cost of a slower economic growth in the next 50 years.
The facts of climate change:
- The Earth is steadily getting warmer since at least 100 years ago.
- The range of annual fluctuations is smaller (about 5 times) than the observed rise in temperature since the beginning of the century.
- A number of causes contribute to the rise of average temperatures.
- Of all the sources of warming, changes in the composition of the Earth atmosphere are by far the most likely explanation.
- Other sources, like variation in solar activity, affect planetary average temperatures. But even the scientists that research solar variation don't attribute global warming to solar activity.
- There are a number of gases that, if present in the atmosphere, will cause a greenhouse effect. Some of these are carbon dioxide, methane, water vapour and nitrogen trifluoride. This is not controversial, and follows from the molecular properties of these gases.
- Human activity has dramatically increased the atmospheric concentration of most of these gases.
- We know that the planet ecosphere propitiates mechanisms for the occurrence of positive feedback processes, so that temperature rises and drops can occur very rapidly. Some of these changes in temperature are hypothesized to have been responsible for documented mass extinctions of species in the past.
- The properties of Earth dynamics are dependent on the time scale considered. For instance, day-to-day variations are chaotic, but average monthly temperatures are more stable (January vs. February), due to the large effect of seasonal sunlight exposure. Similarly, annual variations also have a chaotic regime, but five year averages have a more stable regime. And average temperature are not the only variable subject to fluctuations. As a consequence, yearly data points tell us almost nothing about trends.
- There are still many unknowns in AGW, and many specific predictions, particularly yearly predictions, will be wrong. There is still a lot we don't know, including rates of ocean absorption of gases, hidden natural sources of some gases, etc. Some of these predictions will fail to estimate the impact of putative global warming causes, temperatures, or proxies of temperature. Overestimations and underestimations will continue to occur in the following years. To cherry-pick results from one of the 2 groups is intellectually dishonest.
- In spite of this, anthropogenic global warming theory is not by any means impervious to falsification. For instance, a single year in which average temperatures would drop to 1960s levels would seriously call into question global warming. As it would, say, another 10 years of non-rising temperatures that couldn't be explained by an already known and anticipated counterbalancing effect (such as solar variation).
- similarly, the anthropogenic nature of global warming is equally falsifiable. If it would turn out that cloud formation has a much greater impact on temperature than what is now estimated, warming would no longer be man-made. That's also the case if, for instance, there are natural sources of methane released to the atmosphere that are still unaccounted for.
As a rule, it's a healthy attitude not to rely too much on authority arguments. That said, whenever a seemingly very obvious failure in climate change theory crosses your mind, take the time to consider the possibility that very smart people, people who have dedicated their whole professional life to the field, may have thought about it before, instead of immediately assuming that they are dumb or corrupt.
Once again an appeal to authority.
Firstly, the technical difficulty of performing experiments doesn't constitute a proper basis for weaker and stronger "scientific proofs".
Yes, in fact it does. This is a central tenet of empiricism. The more removed from direct experience, the more suspect an observation is. Since you can't go outside and test relativity, you must rely on authorities with fancy equipment.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empiricism
Get it? Because the potential biomass of Earth increases increases with warmth, there won't be mass extinctions and existential threats.
Given that you just quoted me, it's pretty hilarious you then mischaracterize me in the next sentence. I did not say there would not be mass extinctions or that it wasn't an existential threat, I said an Ice Age was a far, far greater existential threat. Good job beating up that strawman though.
The most important point is that it doesn't matter, either for existing species or for mankind's well-being, that Earth will be able to support more undifferentiated biomass on a warmer climate.. What matters is that current species, specially long-lived species, won't be able to adapt rapidly enough.
Sorry, this is still very, very stupid. Most life that we depend on is better suited for higher temps, because -- guess what? -- they evolved during the much longer period when Earth was warmer.
But no scientist doubts that, if some phenomenon dumps enough CO2 in the atmosphere, the Earth will get warmer
This is just reductio ad absurdum. Obviously if the atmosphere became 90% CO2 that would have some effect. But NO scientists can claim to know with any certainty whether the amount we've dumped, which is measured in PPM, has had any effect.
And you totally failed to address the major point there -- CO2 doesn't appear to ever drive climate historically, it follows. At best it seems to be a small positive feedback.
whenever a seemingly very obvious failure in climate change theory crosses your mind, take the time to consider the possibility that very smart people, people who have dedicated their whole professional life to the field
Meaningless appeal to authority. And you're going to lecture me on science?
- The Earth is steadily getting warmer since at least 100 years ago.
The Earth has been:
1) getting warmer since the end of the LIA in 1850 or so
2) getting warmer since the end of the last major ice age ~ 10K yrs ago
3) getting colder since Antarctica moved over the pole tens of millions of years ago
- The range of annual fluctuations is smaller (about 5 times) than the observed rise in temperature since the beginning of the century.
The century began 9 years ago. Are you talking about 1900?
- Of all the sources of warming, changes in the composition of the Earth atmosphere are by far the most likely explanation.
Based on what? We know it was warmer in the MWP, despite various attempts to hide this by climate "scientists." Natural variation seems far more likely.
@ Sam Roberts
Verbose, aren't you ? No Smiley.
Two questions for you:
1) What would it take to falsify
your hypothesis ?
2) How large a percentage of the
smart, educated, experienced, _honest_
people qualified to have an expert opinion
on any scientific issue would have differ
on that issue, to prove it "unsettled"
science ?
I believe I've already answered 1). Quoting:
As for 2), it's pretty simple, really - it's not a matter of opinion, it's a matter of science. Peer-reviewed scientific articles in Nature, Science, PNAS, PLOS or other prestigious general or specialty journals that would call into question global warming would make the issue unsettled.
But note that many things, I would say most things, in climate change are still very much unsettled. For instance, although there is an agreement that the origin or warming is atmospheric, scientists don't agree about which gases contribute the most to warming. And, of course, current computer models have wide margins of error, etc.
And there's also great uncertainty about the specific impact of changing climate patterns on the planet ecology. There's talk about swarms of insects, the effects of rising oceanic acidity on fish populations, and so on. But none of it is considered very reliable. Epidemiology and Ecology models are, in general, fairly hopeless, because the basic agents are themselves very complicated, so you have to assume a lot. Molecules behave much more nicely than complex organisms because, even if you make certain simplifications to make the models tractable, at least you usually know what you're leaving out.
Peer-reviewed scientific articles in Nature, Science, PNAS, PLOS or other prestigious general or specialty journals that would call into question global warming would make the issue unsettled.
Fortunately, there are quite a few such articles. Unfortunately, they don't appear to have penetrated your little bubble. You might check out papers on the PDO, ENSO, cosmic rays (a new study out today), and this....
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/28/forecasting-guru-announces-no-scientific-basis-for-forecasting-climate/
It has been an interesting couple of days. Today yet another scientist has come forward with a press release saying that not only did their audit of IPCC forecasting procedures and found that they “violated 72 scientific principles of forecasting”, but that “The models were not intended as forecasting models and they have not been validated for that purpose.”
There is a science to making forecasts. AGW models violate those principles right and left because AGW isn't a scientific forecast, it's just some computer modelling of certain people's opinions.
luispedro@2:23 for the realistic pessimism
Nimed@10:50 and @11:55 for the hilarious bitch-slapping
TreJoe@3:58 for the non-partisan optimism
page_rank@8:29 for the by far most interesting contribution
Mr. Sam,
Species come and go. The Earth has never been static.
It is right and dandy that you have all the science on your side. It doesn't matter. You are losing the political battle in America, China, India, and just to get you where it hurts: Italy.
I probably forgot the Russians, Saudi Arabians, Iraqis, and did I mention Africa?
And besides how do I know you are not a shill for Al "I'm going to make billions from carbon trading" Gore?
I have no way, and no interest, in proving to you that I am not an Al Gore shill. How do I know that you aren't a James Inhoffe shill?
Besides, I would you assume that we are on different sides of a political battle? If you are right and I win, or if I am right and you win, it's obviously bad for both of us.
Perhaps most surprisingly, why would I sympathize with a country that keeps electing Berlusconi?
Regarding the countries you mentioned - the U.S., the E.U., China and India are by far the entities that matter most. Maybe Brazil if they continue to grow at the current pace. The rest of the world should, of course, also agree to reduce emissions, but it's not crucial.
Nonsense. The world's largest economy -- the European Unions -- is moving forward with the latest version of its cape and trade regime. And in the world's second largest economy, the US, voters recently had the opportunity to reward the party of climate change denial with political power. They manifestly failed to do so. The effort to get developing countries to take action is obviously a challenge. But delay in this area is both expected and planned for.
Jasper,
The EU is passing laws and its members are ignoring them. Italy is planning a LOT of new coal fired plants.
And they are not the only ones.
I will say this. You and Al Gore (how much is he paying you?) have convinced the media (well enough of it - Glenn Beck is not taking Al Gore's money) that the Plant Food is a killer gas.
But ordinary folks who actually go outside are not convinced.
And you know - even the IPCC is not fully convinced. Unstoppable CO2 forcing has been over forced by some mysterious uber force and cooling can be expected at least until 2020. Possibly 2030. And pay no attention to those solar guys who predict cooling until 2055 or 2060. What do they know? And besides once the cooling is over it will be worse than we thought. And temperatures will rise so fast that the ice caps on Mars could melt over night. Or the tundra could get so gassy that it will fill the air with effluents of former and current plants and animals. Which will lead to the Earth coming out of its permanent (for humans) ice age and back to the balmy temperatures of old. Which will be bad. Because the Earth hasn't been that hot for millions of years. And besides all the creature who were alive when it was hot are dead. So give Al Gore all your money. (how much is he paying you?)
MSimon:
You don't know what you're talking about. It is widely acknowledged that the EU program experienced difficulties in the early going. It is likewise widely acknowledged that EU program -- having gotten the kinks out -- is working well, as an MIT study reported last year:
Source: http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2008/emissions-0610.html
I think we ought to be more concerned with what the consensus is in the scientific community, don't you?
If by "not fully" you mean they say the case is only 90% instead of 100% proven, we're in agreement. So your side is left -- as usual -- basing policy (or non policy) on faith that the scientific community is wrong, and that the more severe scenarios won't come to pass. In short, yours is the position that favors recklessness. Meanwhile the people who formulate policy based on evidence are getting on with the work of healing the planet.
I think we ought to be more concerned with what the consensus is in the scientific community, don't you?
No, we should be concerned about what the science says.
No, we should be concerned about what the science says.
Which is why every single scientific body on the planet -- and just about every government (and even that hotbed of starry-eyed liberalism called the CIA) accepts the validity of the AGW hypothesis.
You're confusing "science" and "consensus" again.
Einstein was once told a book had been written called "100 Scientists Against Einstein." He shrugged and replied, "If I was wrong, wouldn't one be enough?"
@ Sam Roberts: False Science
I am answered:
1) you do give specific ways that
AGW theory could be proven false.
They (all?) require some future
event which provides new data;
Does this imply that the present
data and/or methods provide no
means of falsifying the theory ?
How convenient.
2) Not so fast:
First you make a qualified appeal
to the authority of experts, next
you require peer reviewed articles
in professional journals, which is
a double consensus filter on the
opinions of _individual_ experts.
Hmm..I am not clear, on point 2.
Thought experiment:
A very rich and powerful person
assembles all the experts, gives
them a dose of truth serum, and
asks "would you bet your life
on the truth of the AGW theory ?
Let us have a show of hands."
I am asking you: what percentage
would raise their hands, and would
you be among them ?
1) That's usually how science works. If it's still in the running, that means that it hasn't already been falsified. We talk about falsifying observations of relativity in the future tense, we talk about falsifying observations of phlogiston theory in the past tense. While there's certainly controversy over AGW theory, there's been no silver bullet. Cause for skepticism is there, but an actual falsification hasn't yet happened.
Alsadius,
Here's a question I like to ask AGW proponents: what would falsify AGW for you? How many years of flat or falling temps?
Skeptics like myself are generally open to the idea that CO2 is driving climate. There just isn't very convincing proof of this theory, and we resent the way politics has hijacked science in this debate.
Regarding geoengineering, I think most people would agree that planting trees is good, especially where more trees used to be. Also, regardless of the effect on the climate, most people can conceive that a society, which uses less energy to function, could be more esthetically pleasing than one which uses more, and it is the dependence on excessive energy use which is of concern. So an underlying question is “why is conservation of energy use so difficult?”
The other day I was in a friend’s attic crawl space, covered in insulation, repairing several areas where heat had been escaping. The evidence that something was wrong had been ice dams over the eves last winter. I realized that the couple hundred dollars of work I was doing amounted to properly finishing an insulation job that had cost thousands, and that my friend’s savings from what I was doing would probably add up to much of the savings from all the rest for a fraction of the cost. Aha. The marginal rate of return to him from the first dollar spent on insulation, for conservation purposes, would have been less than the marginal rate of return on the last dollar spent, finishing the incomplete project.
This is contrary to the marginal rates of return for money spent using energy to heat the house. For example, starting with an uninsulated house that is not heated, the first dollar spent using energy to heat it will yield a greater degree of comfort than the last. Then, once comfort is achieved, the first dollar spent on insulation will yield less savings in energy than the last, as the insulation system becomes more effective at producing savings the closer it is to being completed. If we extrapolate this principle to the economy as a whole, there is a hint why conservation of energy in general is so difficult, and consumption of energy in general is so easy. Money invested in conservation will achieve its highest return in the future, and money invested in using energy will achieve its highest return immediately. In addition, money invested in conservation projects that are only partially completed will never achieve its highest return.
It seems to me that the only way, in a public policy sense, to equate conservation with energy production as exchangeable, as policy-makers have done for a long time, is in the presence of a tax on energy use that is used to subsidize energy conservation measures, dollar for dollar. Oh, and, bless me, I did geoengineering yesterday and planted a tree.
Dear Catastrophists,
All you have to do to get people off of fossil fuels is to make the alternative fuels cheaper. Then you don't have to convince any one or buy politicians. In fact if you can do that general wealth would rise.
All you have to do to get people off of fossil fuels is to make the alternative fuels cheaper.
Dear Flat Earth Denialist: Taxing carbon-based fuels will make "alternative fuels cheaper" relatively speaking. That's the whole point.
Why yes, I do deny that the Earth is flat.
And I don't think anyone has yet proposed a tax measured in the thousands of percent, which is what it would take to make fossil fuels more expensive than alternatives. Right now, they're not even in the same ballpark.
It appears that the EU will not tax itself for the sake of preventing Climate Change caused by plant food.
EU Climate Talks Break Down
EU Fails
I guess the EU is not as serious as some of the above commenters thought.
BTW to make coal equal to solar PV (at current prices) the net cost of electrical energy from coal has to rise about 3X. Of course if that happens electric cars are totally non-viable. Heh. Unless gasoline goes to $6 or $8 a gallon in the USA. A price which is currently politically unfeasible.
And of course you have to consider the industries which would leave the country. That could be fixed with a trade war.
Well as you can see it all gets political and complicated.
The easier thing to do is to lower the cost of PV and wind electricity. About 5 or 10 years more development should do the trick.
What is the hurry?
There is no hurry.
With ten to thirty more years of cooling coming we have time to work out an economical solution.
What's really amusing in this debate is that while you hear about Artic ice constantly, you hear almost nothing about Antarctic ice -- which is a bit odd considering that's where the majority of the ice is.
I give you one guess as to why.
This evidence suggests that Antarctica, where 90% of the land based ice in the world resides, is increasing in mass. And this fact is ignored or downplayed in virtually every mainstream report available today, and indeed the mainstream press continues to infer that Antarctica is melting at an alarming rate. But on balance, the ice mass in Antarctica is not melting, it is probably getting bigger.
http://www.ecoworld.com/climate/antarcticas-ice-mass-is-it-really-losing-ice-gaining-ice-or-both.html
A 2002 analysis of NASA satellite data from 1979-1999 showed that areas of Antarctica where ice was increasing outnumbered areas of decreasing ice roughly 2:1.
http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/topstory/20020820southseaice.html
There's nothing amusing about the well-documented, steady warming of Antarctica, nor the denialist community's efforts to obstruct action to do something about it.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v457/n7228/abs/nature07669.html
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/02/antarctic-warming-is-robust/
You "hear" less about Antarctica because of its relative remoteness: the vast bulk of the developed world's media outlets are situated in North America and Western Europe -- in other words in the northern half of the northern hemisphere. Naturally the Arctic garners more attention.
Again, you're arguing against a point I didn't make. I was talking about ice, which is clearly growing in the Antarctic.
Anyways, Antarctica is probably not warming either. The study that purported to show it was is deeply flawed.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/4332784/Despite-the-hot-air-the-Antarctic-is-not-warming-up.html
"A deeply flawed new report will be cited ad nauseam by everyone from the BBC to Al Gore, says Christopher Booker. ther example last week was the much-publicised claim, contradicting all previous evidence, that Antarctica, the world's coldest continent, is in fact warming up, Antarctica has long been a major embarrassment to the warmists. Al Gore and co may have wanted to scare us that the continent which contains 90 per cent of all the ice on the planet is heating up, because that would be the source of all the meltwater which they claim will raise sea levels by 20 feet.
However, to provide all their pictures of ice-shelves "the size of Texas" calving off into the sea, they have had to draw on one tiny region of the continent, the Antarctic Peninsula – the only part that has been warming. The vast mass of Antarctica, all satellite evidence has shown, has been getting colder over the past 30 years. Last year's sea-ice cover was 30 per cent above average.
The study is destroyed here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/04/18/what-happens-when-you-divide-antarctica-into-two-distinct-climate-zones/
You "hear" less about Antarctica because of its relative remoteness
ROFLMAO. Right, because so many more people live at the North Pole. It has nothing to do with the fact Antarctic ice is growing.
Again, you're arguing against a point I didn't make. I was talking about ice, which is clearly growing in the Antarctic.
So? What's your point? The relative abundance of H20 in various parts of the world does absolutely nothing to weaken the case for AGW.
The study is destroyed here:
Not it's not. As has been pointed out, that website you keep blessing us with is an aggregator of the work of climate cranks.
Right, because so many more people live at the North Pole.
No, because so many more influential media outlets -- and vastly more climate scientists -- are much closer to Arctic than the Antarctic.
So? What's your point? The relative abundance of H20 in various parts of the world does absolutely nothing to weaken the case for AGW.
Nice job beating up that strawmwn. The point, which I stated above, is that the hysteria over Arctic ice is silly.
Not it's not. As has been pointed out, that website you keep blessing us with is an aggregator of the work of climate cranks
Merely calling people cranks doesn't actually refute anything they say. But it's a great way to avoid debate. Way to channel Al Gore.
No, because so many more influential media outlets -- and vastly more climate scientists -- are much closer to Arctic than the Antarctic.
Sure, it has nothing to do with the fact one is factually less inconvenient to climate alarmism.
Something else you don't hear much about is the fact despite all the warming since 1950, the rate of sea level rise has been flat -- we're actually UNDER the long term trendline (which, again, is flat at .4mm/year). That suggests sea level rise, the great bogeyman of AGW, will probably only amount to 4-5 cm by 2100.
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/wp-images/sea_level_update_fig2.JPG
And those hurricanes Al Gore said would get worse and worse? They've fallen off the chart -- the lowest number ever recorded. Yet another AGW prediction shot down by reality.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/19/hurricane-katrina-victims-have-standing-to-sue-over-global-warming/
So in summary, the evidence argues there are most likely no consequences to using every last joule of fossil fuel energy.
No... The water that melted so far is above the Arctic Sea, and it's not supposed to make the sea levels rise. Sea waters will only rise when the land ice melts.
Again, pretty basic stuff.
I'm not sure where anything there says otherwise.
Anyways, sea waters have been rising since the end of the last Ice Age.
You implied that the "great bogeyman of AGW", as you call it, is not occurring. In fact, melting over land is not supposed to have kicked in yet. And that is despite the fact that the melting of the ice caps occurred faster than expected.
You implied that the "great bogeyman of AGW", as you call it, is not occurring.
It isn't. And I didn't just imply that, I've stated it repeatedly and provided proof -- but not in this thread.
In fact, melting over land is not supposed to have kicked in yet.
Nor will it. The temperatures over Antarctica are far too cold. If the MWP didn't make a dent, current temps won't either.
Remember, Antarctica glaciated at considerably higher temperatures than today's.
err, s/b "but the ice post was not in this thread"
BTW, you do know the major reason the Earth is relatively cool right now, right? (Hint: it isn't in the atmosphere)
Wrong. As the US government -- summarizing years of peer-reviewed scientific research -- reported earlier this year:
Emphasis mine.
Source: http://downloads.globalchange.gov/usimpacts/pdfs/climate-impacts-report.pdf
Past 30 years, or roughly the length of time we've been able to use fancy equipment to measure anything. So this really tells us nothing about whether the changes in 30 years are meaningful or not, since we didn't have the same kind of equipment prior to that point and there are many different kinds of informed guesses/assumptions one can make about past conditions.
Interestingly, many of those assumptions show warmer temps than these days, but pre-industrially. So how could it be super-warm pre-industrially (but when humans were around), and that was clearly ok and livable then, but now it would be bad?
That's actually something i haven't seen explained by AGW at all.
Not hard to explain. PDO positive temperatures rise faster. PDO negative temperatures fall faster.
We get these climate alarms about every 30 years just as the PDO cycle is about to change direction. You know the drill: "It has been (warming) cooling for 30 years and if this keeps up we will (burn) freeze to death."
http://anhonestclimatedebate.wordpress.com/2009/08/02/climate-change-alarmism-timelin/
Well guess what? I believe the PDO changed sign in 2003 or 2005. We are in for an ice age scare in 30 years more or less.
http://www.businessandmedia.org/specialreports/2006/fireandice/fireandice.asp
This report was produced by an advisory committee chartered under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, for the Subcommittee on Global Change Research, and at the request of the U.S. Government.
Oh, well, that changes everything. If the people who have been pushing this nonsense agree with each other, then who cares about actual data like sea levels not rising any faster.
If the people who have been pushing this nonsense agree with each other
Right. As has been repeatedly pointed out, many years of steadily growing evidence based on hard science has coalsesced into scientific consensus that the AGW hypothesis is compelling, overwhelmingly probably, and implies dangers sufficiently grave to warrant international action. One hopes you realize that your repeated harping on "agreement" weakens, not bolsters, the case for your Luddite views, by pointing out the paucity of opposing views among credible researchers.
Actually, we're finding more and more holes in the science. I've linked quite a few.
I would be curious to know how close a Carbon Tax would be to a broad-based consumption tax or VAT?
If the overlap is great, and you could convince me that those in power would reduce other taxes if one were implemented, instead of throwing the money into other programs.....
This comment thread reads like the proceedings of an intelligent design convention. I didn't know libertarians were into this shit.
OTOH, Ayn Rand did say that quantum mechanics was corrupt physics, so I guess there's already a tradition.
Yes, the Church of AGW has a lot in common with creationism.
You're quite the annoying one - I can see why people call you STD.
Just one idiot. You seem to be about as stupid. I think I'll dub you Simple Simmons.
Eh eh - it's spreading...
Generally speaking, it's always better to either ignore or mock STD than to discuss something with him. He will not only continuously quote crappy sources and discuss in bad faith, he will actually deliberately omit information that goes against his positions (he once cut the center part of an excerpted text).
Generally speaking, it's always better to either ignore or mock STD than to discuss something with him.
That's how leftists think, folks.
Nimed, I hope you jest. How sad is that? You're actually making me feel sorry for poor STD.
But let's not forget that STD is not the only boob in this thread. This is a symptom: there's a great study made by the National Science Foundation regarding attitudes towards global warming. You should check it out.
http://www.researchchannel.org/prog/displayevent.aspx?fID=572&rID=21211
Nimed's probably right, though. If you attempt to engage me on the facts, this usually happens:
Awww, you two make a cute and easily-debunked couple.
That's typical Nimrod stupidity.
She wet her pants over that omitted excerpt, but didn't realize it required time travel to be relevant (it said a standard has been adopted in the 1980s that a 2006 study said wasn't being followed). And she's so fucking dumb she still brings it up as though it's proof of something other than her being utterly brain-dead.
But it's so easy and fun to shoot down the various Nimrod stupdities, it's hard to resist engaging.
Nimed, you have seemed to have struck another STD's nerve. He has now lost his temper about the episode you mentioned, plus he's bragging about some guy's comment. Sadness all over.
And in his haste, he is now apparently hitting the wrong reply buttons. By the way, is he usually all over the place like in this thread? Or does he, like, work for a living?
LOL.
And apparently STD is under the impression that I'm a "she". Which leads me to conclude that STD's interactions with women and communists have one thing in common - they're largely imaginary.
Regarding his comment frequency, yes, it's usually like this. He may be unemployed, or just have a very undemanding job. Think of STD as the village idiot of this blog.
Thanks of the link, will definitely watch the video. I've seen a Krosnick talk at NYU once - he seems very good.
Simple Simmons,
Aww, did my throwing your creationism comment back in your face hurt your wittle feewings? Maybe Nimrod can wipe your tears.
Anyway, this is fun. Lefties post ridiculous things, we research the facts, we make a blog post out of it, if we're lucky Glenn links and millions of people learn something. It's a wonderful little alchemy.
LOL Nimrod, if you act like a screechy liberal bitch you can't be surprised when people assume you're a woman.
Happily married over here. Also a six-figure income. Lots of spare time, too.
Oh joy! STD is the gift that keeps on giving.
He comes back with staggering revelations. In response to Nimed's suggestion that his contact with the opposite sex might be somewhat scarce, he reveals the details of his personal life we've all been waiting for - he is happily married! Presumably, to a woman.
He also wants to share that he earns a comfortable salary that leaves him lots of time to maintain his parallel life as Spreader of the Truth. Well, that's a relief.
Also, Nimed, you're a girl. Take that!
LOLOL. It gets better and better.
But Simmons, how could you have missed the part where STD's personal hero, Glenn Beck, will link all the impeccably sourced information STD painstakingly collected so far in this thread, and announce it to millions, MILLIONS of bemused viewers, thereby lifting our favorite happily married man to fame and fortune?
And then he'll take STD by his hand and give him a tour of the War Room, while outside temperatures fall abruptly, causing a new Ice Age and killing Al Gore and all the commies and shit.
I must confess I myself can hardly wait!
Oh, you've got to be shitting me. Guys, I must confess there's something to the "you're a girl!" accusation. For instance, I'm crying of laughter right now!
The need to justify himself... the Glenn Beck fantasy... it's too much!
I propose a toast. To STD! May he continue to be a beacon of truth in this increasingly mad, communist, glaciating world. Cheers!
Not Glenn Beck, Glenn Reynolds. The Instapundit.
I think he's getting around 10M page views right now.
I get about front-paged maybe once a month or so.
I'm still not sure I believe Nimrod is a man, though. Seems awfully bitchy.
This comment thread reads like the proceedings of an intelligent design convention. I didn't know libertarians were into this shit.
Generally speaking, I don't think many of them are. What you tend to find here are hard core Galtians (my word for them) who reflexively oppose anything not spontaneously provided by the market. Obviously, government-imposed curbs on greenhouse gasses are in violation of their creed, even if holding this position makes them look like clueless luddites and tinfoil hat-wearing conspiracy buffs.
Taking Charge of Our Climate
Politics|Sciences|Economics
Poor choice of insulator.
Corrosion weakened joints
are guaranteed to fail.
The last time Congress considered
Space-Based Solar, the economics
turned on the recent invention of
a light-weight microwave generator,
which factor was excluded from the
evidence read into the record, thus
producing a negative opinion. They
are mostly lawyers; Why be surprised ?
Yes, the Church of AGW has a lot in common with creationism.
TallDave: No it doesn't. First, it's not a "church" -- it's rather the steadily solidifying consensus of the vast majority of scientists doing serious work in climate research. Creationism is simply a religion-based fable.
But it's so easy and fun to shoot down the various Nimrod stupdities, it's hard to resist engaging.
You haven't shot down anything, TallDave. The vast majority of the researchers doing serious science on climate change reject your flat-earther denialism dressed up as "skepticism" and accept the case that AGW is a significant threat justifying international action.
"The vast majority of the researchers doing serious science on climate change" are environmental activists.
Enjoy your cargo cult.
"The vast majority of the researchers doing serious science on climate change" are environmental activists.
Not sure if that's true, but I would hope every well-informed resident of the planet -- not just climate scientists -- engages in some form of activism given the stakes involved. But at any rate, when one considers that climate researched are better acquainted with the dangers posed by climate change than most lay people, it's not surprising -- and frankly heartening if it's true -- to learn they engage in activism.
, it's not surprising -- and frankly heartening if it's true -- to learn they engage in activism.
It's not quite as heartening when they're practicing activist science (e.g. Yamal) and all reviewing each other's papers.
the climate changes all the time. given that humans are demonstrably stupider (shrinking brains from poor agriculture-based diets), i don't think AGW is going to bring us into mad max land. we can't even reconstruct technologies used by pre-columbian societies-- it seems unlikely we are impressive enough currently to destroy the world with a few extra cook fires.
Congratulations, Nimed. Your patient rebuttals of TallDave's inane "arguments" have proven yet again he's a deeply confused, delusional and very angry chap who knows he's on the losing side of history and science. By my count that makes the record 73-0 in your favor.
What's funny about that STD's quote is the sheer lack of self-awareness. I mean, how lame can you get? The overall childish tone of his comments and jokes also point to a case of arrested development.
But I must disagree with you on one thing - you were the patient one, both in addressing his usual "scientific" facts and non sequiturs, and in ignoring his asinine remarks for way longer than it could be expected of you.
STD isn't worth your time. You should either mock him if you want to have some fun, or simply ignore him. Save your serious exchanges of arguments to other commenters.
What's funny about that STD's quote is the sheer lack of self-awareness. I mean, how lame can you get? The overall childish tone of his comments and jokes also point to a case of arrested development.
ROFL if that isn't lack of self-awareness the phrase has no meaning.
Hear ye, hear ye! STD has apparently regressed to an even earlier stage of his infancy. He is now compulsively aping other people's accusations.
What? No, no. YOU'RE the one who regresses and apes people.
Hear ye, hear ye! STD has apparently regressed to an even earlier stage of his infancy. He is now compulsively aping other people's accusations
Simple Simmons,
I practice reciprocity. I am polite to those who are polite to me,
Nimrod, Some Retard, and you cannot say the same. Plus, I've debunked all your arguments.
Your jealousy amuses me.
Did you hear that STD? 73-0! That's way more than the score Nathan of Brainfertilizer Fame (lol) attributed to you. Wait, it must be quoted so it's counts as an official proof of my superiority.
There.
LMAO I see someone is so jealous they had to do a similar post to inflate your poor battered ego...
Your jealousy amuses me.
I don't know if "jealousy" is the right word. But I will admit to being rather envious of your capacity for self-delusion. In some ways it must be easy to go through life cocooned in blissful ignorance.
AHAHAHAH. Precious!
Actually, it was a bit harsh. But I dare say completely deserved, considering TallDave's, pardon me, STD's general trollish behavior.
Some Retard,
I don't where I would get the idea Nimed was a screechy liberal.
BTW, I'm happily married.
Simmons, I hear you, and hope you have scrolled down. STD feels the need to repeat that he is happily married, and again in response to the comment about women. Let there be absolutely no doubt about this point! No other personal juicy stuff, though, so I'm a bit disappointed...
I wonder if he is married to a communist woman. That would take care of the necessary credentials on both points.
LOLOLOL! I never expected to get that much mileage out of that little joke. Poor Dave, he just can't help himself.
Let's not focus too much on the personal details, though. The endless fountain of stupidity clearly provides more than enough material.
Glad you're having fun.
Too bad you've lost the debate,
Yet another self-proclaimed victory (strangely ended with a comma). STD's glory shines too bright!
I think I was already recognized as 18-0, tyvm.
Seriously, you're attacking commas now? I think you need some Midol.
Hmmm? No, that's not right. You should not make a mockery of this important process of determining the victors, STD. According to record of non self-proclaiming victories, you have an 18 point lead over Jasper, but Nimed is beating you 73 to 0. Let's be serious about this.
Right now, your best chance to win is basically Glenn Beck showing up, linking you to millions (MILLIONS!), you climb up on his white horse and you both ride into the sunset.
Climate change is a symptom and not a cause. So is species extinction and soil erosion. When you have so many symptoms at once... and you don't even understand how soil works yet.. you might also suggest "clean coal" as a viable solution. I think climate change is a hoax and if it is not - we should somehow only deploy technology based solutions (I don't know why but it's a strong gut feeling I got while reading sci-fi in engineering school).
@ Hugo Pottisch: AGW hoax ?..Tech Fixes only..SF & Eng
Engineers work with natural law, violations of which
are punished painfully, predictably, and promptly;
It makes for a humble, conservative, approach.
The commenters above claim to be doing science,
but have no observations or experiments as proof
of their theoretical conclusions, just a cloud
of statistical smoke-and-mirrors which they
_claim_ as fact; If the Space Aliens have been
in-system, keeping records, for the past 1M
years, _they_ have a valid statistical data base,
and possibly the results of experiments lasting
for millenia; We ephemeral humans know nothing.
Science Fiction is the repository for 50 years
worth of contingency planning for the future
of the human race; No wonder you picked up a
cautionary attitude toward reckless rocking
of the cradle.
The truth is winning:
http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1386/cap-and-trade-global-warming-opinion
There has been a sharp decline over the past year in the percentage of Americans who say there is solid evidence that global temperatures are rising. And fewer also see global warming as a very serious problem -- 35% say that today, down from 44% in April 2008.
As I've shown here, it's quite easy to destroy the AGW mythology.
And here is the final piece of information that settles the global warming "controversy" for all time.
That's right kids, it's an opinion poll! You know, like the ones who provide definitive proof that the Earth was created 6000 years ago by a bearded old man.
But it seems that people are somewhat less skeptic about AGW. Thanks to STD's great link, one discovers that more people believe in anthropogenic global warming that those who don't believe in global warming at all. OH, and 65% of the American public find the matter either very or somewhat serious.
All in all, pretty good news. Thanks a bunch, STD.
A poll? Wooow. No wonder STD is confidently blurting stuff like "As I've shown here..."
There's one additional suspicion that has received confirmation beyond all doubt in this latest STD comment: STD doesn't read the sources he links!
Some Retard,
And here is the final piece of information that settles the global warming "controversy" for all time.
Great job attacking an argument I didn't make. I crown you King Some Retard, Glorious Beater-Down Of Strawmen. Your paper mace is in the mail. All hail his majesty!
A majority (53%) of independents say there is solid evidence of warming, including 33% who say it is mostly caused by human activity. But this is far lower than in April 2008 when 75% said global warming was happening and 50% said it was due to human activity.
Yep, it's good news all right.
Sam, now look what you've done. You're being unfair to STD. Don't you know that to STD winning is, huh, losing by less than the last time?
Any minute now he will momentarily interrupt his whining to declare yet ANOTHER victory. Joy!
And notice how he tries to convince himself - "Yep, it's good news alright." They should charge for this.
But I disagree, he will not need to blow his own horn this time - don't forget that any minute now, Glenn Beck will be linking STD's posts to millions, Nimed. MILLIONS!
A 22% drop since April 2008 isn't good news?
And you guys claim I'm the dumb one?
Come on, at least make this a challenge...
Oh well, enough fun watching you guys humiliate yourselves. Tome for work. Maybe I'll toss you a hat-tip when I blog all these wonderful links. In my absence, you may console yourselves with the belief I'm just fantasizing all this. Remember, faith is key in every great religion; skepticism is for scientists.
Ah, you see, the drop is all that matters. Don't cite the actual numbers! The drop, let's talk about the drop! Pretty please!
Or, as Nimed put it - "Don't you know that to STD winning is, huh, losing by less than the last time?"
One interesting question is, what sort of woman would (happily) marry STD? Maybe he'll tell us when he returns. We know she has to be some sort of female version of Glenn Beck, and have serious self-esteem issues. What else?
Well, I'd say that's very dependent on how much he was willing to pay for a good time the fist time he met her. I would put my money on a fair amount of freak factor. STD's masochistic tendencies are pretty evident - nobody is THAT stupid.
I must say, Simmons, I hope the woman doesn't look too much like Beck physically. With any luck, the similarities will be limited to a propensity to talk about about hemorrhoid operations and other ass-related matters. And possibly putting it on film.
Well, if that's true, than STD's wife wins hands down the prize for the most productive hole of the couple.
But curiously, the orifice that gushes the greatest quantity of shit is still STD's mouth.