Whatever happen to Global Warming?

[Rob_Merritt]

I thought about bumping an old thread but I think enough time has past and information changed that we should just begin the conversation from the start.
No secret I am not a believer in global warming so I am biased but I think opinion is being to swing away from seeing Global Climate change as a current man made threat.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8299079.stm

[Bahimiron]

So Global Warming is caused by Mr Mxyzptlk?

[Rob_Merritt]

If by "Mr Mxyzptlk" you mean the sun and the oceans? Yeah sure.

[Brian Seiler]

Sort of.

By natural processes. It's a reasonable minority argument from the scientific community. It's entirely possible that human CO2 production has little or no influence over global temperatures, given the amount of crap we fart out as compared to the amount generated by the globe overall. Unfortunately, the scientific global warming discussion often gets wrapped up in the environmentalist effort, which is as much about stopping corporations from doing business these days as it is about saving the world (arguably more, and one of the founders of Greenpeace agrees on that one).

The mainstream scientific consensus is still that human production of greenhouse gases has SOME influence on global climate, and even the stuff in the linked article doesn't contradict that. The question is how significant of an impact it has, which we're basically guessing at, since there aren't a lot of extra Earths around for us to do experiments on and get a definitive answer.

[CheesyPoof]

I thought about bumping an old thread but I think enough time has past and information changed that we should just begin the conversation from the start.
No secret I am not a believer in global warming so I am biased but I think opinion is being to swing away from seeing Global Climate change as a current man made threat.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8299079.stm

There is no doubt that climate on the Earth varies due to various reasons. It it didn't we wouldn't have had the ice ages. However, the effect of adding billions of tons of CO2 to the atmosphere is also pretty well understood too,in that it produces a greenhouse effect. The issue is that we don't really know how these two forces interact, i.e. natural climate shifts combined with more greenhouse gasses.

If a downswing is being counteracted by greenhouse gasses 'great', we aren't screwing ourselves, but if an upswing is being exacerbated by greenhouse gasses, uh oh.

[BobJustBob]

I thought about bumping an old thread but I think enough time has past and information changed that we should just begin the conversation from the start.
No secret I am not a believer in global warming so I am biased but I think opinion is being to swing away from seeing Global Climate change as a current man made threat.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8299079.stm

This is how you write when you reject science.

[Wader]

There's a couple problems with the article (I would do some googling of the scientist they quote in the section where it talks about warming being caused by the sun. He's an interesting guy...), but my biggest problem is that whole "1998 was the hottest year ever" thing they throw out in the first sentence.

Its absolutely true that 1998 was the hottest year ever. But that says nothing about trends. I think the trend toward warming is pretty hard to deny, considering the 10 hottest years in the past 150 are (in order from hottest) 1998, 2005, 2003, 2002, 2004, 2006, 2001, 2007 and 1997.

[CLWheeljack]

Unfortunately, the scientific global warming discussion often gets wrapped up in the environmentalist effort, which is as much about stopping corporations from doing business these days as it is about saving the world (arguably more, and one of the founders of Greenpeace agrees on that one).


Oh, for Pete's sake.

[Phil_Stein]

Global Warming is a complex topic, and I don't think this article does a stellar job of explaining the complexities and uncertainties to the layman. Not that I've seen a great popular-oriented article that does, recently.

[Anti-Bunny]

Global Warming is a complex topic, and I don't think this article does a stellar job of explaining the complexities and uncertainties to the layman. Not that I've seen a great popular-oriented article that does, recently.

I really liked potholer's lectures on the subject (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52KLGqDSAjo)

[Mark Asher]

There's a consensus among scientists that we are contributing to global warming. I don't think of these people as a group as having a political agenda.

The impact of global warming could be catastrophic. If there are steps we can take that might slow or even stop global warming, why not err on the side of caution? Even if it's a natural occurrence, if there's something we can do to intercede, shouldn't we?

[Hawkeye Fierce]

Unfortunately, the scientific global warming discussion often gets wrapped up in the environmentalist effort, which is as much about stopping corporations from doing business these days as it is about saving the world (arguably more, and one of the founders of Greenpeace agrees on that one).Good lord, fuck you. Oh, Greenpeace agrees? Double fuck you. Can I use Operation Rescue to characterize all pro-life activists?

To put the position clearly: I'm for environmental controls aimed at curbing climate change because I believe, in the long run, it will actually cost less than doing nothing. But no, clearly I want to burn all corporations to the ground. Fuck you thrice.

[Brian Seiler]

The impact of global warming could be catastrophic. If there are steps we can take that might slow or even stop global warming, why not err on the side of caution? Even if it's a natural occurrence, if there's something we can do to intercede, shouldn't we?

Not necessarily. Every action comes with cost. If we want to actually do something productive about global warming, even assuming that it's tightly correlated to CO2 production, we're basically going to have to tell China they can't have a production infrastructure or cars. We're also going to have to figure out what's to be done about the truly catastrophic amounts of released CO2 that come from entirely natural processes - like plant decay. Making manufacturing and energy production plants more efficient also costs one hell of a lot of money. It's possible that in the next five years the Earth will be struck by a gigantic asteroid that will eradicate all life as we know it, but you don't see us scrambling to build a gigantic space laser to blow up the offending death rock that would totally kill us all, but, you know, probably isn't out there. At some level, there's a dollar amount that you can't justify spending on the threat of global warming because it's not a threat that we can ever be completely certain about.

There's also alternatives that nobody seems to even want to consider - why not adapt to a hotter planet? Why not figure out how to live in a world with no polar ice caps? If it turns out that global warming IS inevitable and not particularly influenced by human activity, we're going to have to do that sometime, so maybe instead of trying to avoid something that we have only the slightest amount of control over, we should be readying ourselves to adapt to the eventual climate change this planet IS GOING TO GO THROUGH. Maybe it'll be in a thousand years and maybe it'll be in a hundred years, but the climate, one of these days, is not going to be what it is now. It's just naive to think that we can keep things the way they are now for ever and ever and ever.

The best evidence that we have right now suggests that there is a general warming trend over the long term, but that long term trend has a tiny problem with the past decade having not conformed to the trend line over the short term. That doesn't make it necessarily wrong - that means that something has happened that we don't necessarily understand. It could be wrong. It could be that if our carbon dioxide output has increased on positive slope M for the past fifty years but averaged temperature has been following an entirely different trend that there is another, more significant factor in global warming than our cars and power plants. It's worth investigating, and it's a good reason why we probably shouldn't be shutting down all of our coal plants and moving to a strictly agrarian society in response to the looming specter of awful horrifying climate change.

[Huzurdaddi]

The impact of global warming could be catastrophic. If there are steps we can take that might slow or even stop global warming, why not err on the side of caution?

Because is costs to address CO2 emissions. That means other things are not being done. So we have to do a cost benefit analysis. Do you drive a car? Why? It is dangerous, you could die, over 100 people die per day in the US alone in car fatalities. You drive a car because the benifit outweighs the cost. Similar analysis should be done for climate change.

However, the effect of adding billions of tons of CO2 to the atmosphere is also pretty well understood too,in that it produces a greenhouse effect.

Thank you for illustrating the problem. Over the next 100 years how much does the temperature of the planet change if we continue adding CO2 at our current rate, if all else remains equal? The models that I have read about (and I understand that most models agree on this point) is 0.5C. The economic impact to humanity of that approaches 0.

The problem is the feedback effects which we are attempting to model, but are fantastically hard to model correctly (yes it is easier to model long term trends than short term weather but it is still an art and not a science ATM). Yes, the models seem to be converging, however saying that we understand what will happen is using a loose definition of understand, IMO.

[Wader]

There's also alternatives that nobody seems to even want to consider - why not adapt to a hotter planet? Why not figure out how to live in a world with no polar ice caps? If it turns out that global warming IS inevitable and not particularly influenced by human activity, we're going to have to do that sometime, so maybe instead of trying to avoid something that we have only the slightest amount of control over, we should be readying ourselves to adapt to the eventual climate change this planet IS GOING TO GO THROUGH. Maybe it'll be in a thousand years and maybe it'll be in a hundred years, but the climate, one of these days, is not going to be what it is now. It's just naive to think that we can keep things the way they are now for ever and ever and ever.


Isnt the problem with this that climate change (especially a world with rising sea levels) predominately affects the world's poor, a group who has the least ability to adapt to a hotter world? I agree that the US could come up with ways to survive in a "hotter" world, but I dont think its about the US. Adapting would cost a huge amount of money in technological innovations, and people are loath to put that amount of money into anything that doesnt directly benefit themselves. Add that to the fact that I still have relatives who deny any warming trend, much less one that is man made.

Is a country like Bangledash going to be able to "adapt" to losing 70% of its land area? (I think that would be in line with your "no polar cap" world)

Climate change may not be stoppable, but it could be. Adaptation is an option, (the only option if climate change is not man-made, or we dont do anything to stop it), but if it is man-made, are the adaptation costs greater than the costs of stopping or slowing it?

[Brandon Clements]

Over the next 100 years how much does the temperature of the planet change if we continue adding CO2 at our current rate, if all else remains equal? The models that I have read about (and I understand that most models agree on this point) is 0.5C. The economic impact to humanity of that approaches 0.

The problem with the '.5C increase' is that it's a global average, not necessarly local to a particular geographic area. Not every area is going to increase by half a degree centigrade uniformly.

[Kraaze]

There's a consensus among scientists that we are contributing to global warming. I don't think of these people as a group as having a political agenda.

The people making lucrative careers out of studying global warming have all sorts of disincentives to actually come out and say "Oops, sorry, false alarm" even if they discover that to be the case.

[Tim Partlett]

For me the real inconvenient truth is that while there is a consensus among scientists that humans are influencing global climate change, there's also a consensus among scientists that nuclear power should be expanded. If we'd all moved ahead with nuclear power, like the French, the amount of CO2 would be significantly reduced already. But who has pushed most for nuclear power to be pushed from the agenda? Environmentalists.

[cliffski]

Not necessarily. Every action comes with cost. If we want to actually do something productive about global warming, even assuming that it's tightly correlated to CO2 production, we're basically going to have to tell China they can't have a production infrastructure or cars.

It is possible to produce cars that do not emit the same C02s as the reinforced 6 ton monster trucks western mothers currently shuttle the kids to school in.
And it is possible to have industry that not does emit insane amounts of energy and cause environmental damage.
And if you don't already have lots of entrenched old-style old-tech like the west, its actually EASIER to start from scratch with cleaner industry. Just in the way that its easier for Africa to go direct to solar energy without having to go through coal energy first.

What some people would call "costs to business" I would call "ways to make business more efficient in energy use, and actually more efficient and profitable overall".

I bet if global warming could be fixed in a way that manufactured chocolate chip cookies as a by-product, and cost zilch, then everyone would be falling over themselves to express how fiercely they believed the science.
Just because a scientist tells you bad news, does not automatically mean he/she is wrong.

[Brian Seiler]

Climate change may not be stoppable, but it could be. Adaptation is an option, (the only option if climate change is not man-made, or we dont do anything to stop it), but if it is man-made, are the adaptation costs greater than the costs of stopping or slowing it?

You hit on the nuance, but you're still a little off. The cost of delay is always greater than the cost of adaptation because delay is doomed to failure. You can slow down the Earth getting hotter, but there's no scenario in which it's not going to happen. In the extreme case scenario, when the surface of the sun balloons out and cooks us to a cinder, but probably some time before then. Before there were ever gas powered automobiles and cow farts there were climatological cycles, and we've got little reason to believe we can avoid that in the future.

That doesn't mean that delay is entirely worthless, but it means that we have to contemplate living with a world that is significantly different than the one we live in now, which I just plain don't hear nearly enough of. If we've got a reasonable plan for doing something about providing livable area for the world's poor that would be flooded out (and it's not just the poor - I live in Houston and my damn house would probably be under water too) then we should be doing everything within reason to slow down the changes long enough for us to get it in place, but too often it seems like advocates for action against climate change want to keep things the way they are now....basically forever, and that's just not going to happen.

[cliffski]

The people making lucrative careers out of studying global warming have all sorts of disincentives to actually come out and say "Oops, sorry, false alarm" even if they discover that to be the case.

As a guy who is married to a research scientist, I find it very very very difficult to believe that there are many scientists in the world who will risk completely trashing their reputation and knowingly spouting incorrect crap in order to earn the huge megabucks that apparently (news to em) researchers make.

And even more unlikely that such scientists would not be torn apart by peer-review.

[cliffski]

For me the real inconvenient truth is that while there is a consensus among scientists that humans are influencing global climate change, there's also a consensus among scientists that nuclear power should be expanded. If we'd all moved ahead with nuclear power, like the French, the amount of CO2 would be significantly reduced already. But who has pushed most for nuclear power to be pushed from the agenda? Environmentalists.

scientists can give you the facts, they should not determine policy.
Scientists can say "X is happening, caused by Y"
Its politicians and economists job to work out what to do about X, and which option to select.
A lot of economists point to nuclear being stupidly expensive if unsubsidised and with the true cost calculations made. Thats not a political or a scientific point of view, but a financial one.

[Huzurdaddi]

The problem with the '.5C increase' is that it's a global average, not necessarly local to a particular geographic area. Not every area is going to increase by half a degree centigrade uniformly.

For love of christ, stop being irrational and stop making me argue the right wing position.

There is no debate among rational people: if the increase is only going to be 0.5C (unlikely, the feedback effects are quite real -- but still somewhat unclear), then the rational response is to simply apply aid to those regions, the overall cost would be far less.

If you are arguing the opposite side side then you are an irrational hippie green and deserve to be lumped into the same group as the Jesus freaks.

PS: I am not aware of models that describe in detail the economic impact of a rise in temperature of 0.5C, however unless the temperate changes cause laser beams to evaporate New York, Paris, Shanghai, and London then I would be willing to make a large bet that the cost will be far lower to simply apply aid.

[Brian Seiler]

And if you don't already have lots of entrenched old-style old-tech like the west, its actually EASIER to start from scratch with cleaner industry. Just in the way that its easier for Africa to go direct to solar energy without having to go through coal energy first.

EXCELLENT. DO THAT THEN.

Burning fossil fuels is a stupid way to get power when what you're really after is all solar energy anyway. It should be pretty easy to write down the figures for building enough nuclear/solar/oceanic thermal energy conversion plants to power a given population center and the cost to build fossil fuel plants to do the same job. If it turns out that "green" (I hate that term) energy is cheaper, then for the love of weasels jump on that train. I favor anything that is cheaper than everything else.

What some people would call "costs to business" I would call "ways to make business more efficient in energy use, and actually more efficient and profitable overall".

True and false, unfortunately, depending on how you're determining "efficiency." Requiring that every coal plant in the United States be replaced with solar power....just about.....tomorrow, that's going to crush the economy, because existing solar facilities are going to have demand for their energy skyrocket and we may very well not have enough geographical space to meet the demand and still tie into our current infrastructure. Some alternative energy sources are grossly inefficient - wind, for instance, eats space like nobody's business. The most efficient alternative is probably solar power satellites, but every time I say that with a straight face somebody looks at me like I just accused Bill Clinton of being a reptillioid from the planet Omicron Persei 8.

I completely agree that burning fossil fuels and dumping the byproducts into the air is damned inefficient and it would be excellent to find an alternative that didn't do that so much. Venus indicates that hurling carbon dioxide into the air in massive, tremendous quantities is probably not a good idea. Now, unfortunately, the human contribution to the total CO2 output of the Earth actually isn't that significant (I've heard as low as 3%), so we're probably boned either way, but that doesn't mean we need to be working the sidecar lever on this downhill slide to hell if we can find another alternative that doesn't have that problem. However, if we're not the primary mover and shaker in climate change, which I also believe, but only a contributor at best, that also means that all of these people (looking at you Al Gore) who want us to do things that could endanger our economic well-being can go hump frogs and we can do more reasonable things to scale back our output until we don't have to put out any more. The study originally linked in the first post indicates that while we might be contributing, the problem of climate change is a hell of a lot more complex than just "stop making carbon dioxide," probably not significantly within our ability to influence on the largest of scales (though we can hopefully do things to affect it in the short term to keep the entire population of Indonesia from drowning or whatever horrible thing we think is going to happen next week if we don't teach elephants to live entirely on meat and poor people around the Equator to live in clouds or whatever it is that we're supposed to do three years ago to fix things last Tuesday), and definitely not worth giving yourself an ulcer.

[Brandon Clements]

For love of christ, stop being irrational and stop making me argue the right wing position.

There is no debate among rational people: if the increase is only going to be 0.5C (unlikely, the feedback effects are quite real -- but still somewhat unclear), then the rational response is to simply apply aid to those regions, the overall cost would be far less.

If you are arguing the opposite side side then you are an irrational hippie green and deserve to be lumped into the same group as the Jesus freaks.
I'm not sure what exactly is irrational about pointing out that a global average isn't going to be uniformly applied across all local areas.

[MikeJ]

Thank you for illustrating the problem. Over the next 100 years how much does the temperature of the planet change if we continue adding CO2 at our current rate, if all else remains equal? The models that I have read about (and I understand that most models agree on this point) is 0.5C. The economic impact to humanity of that approaches 0.

So the 2007 IPCC report gives a range for 'business as usual' of 1.4C to 6.4C by 2100. 6.4C sounds pretty bad. Admittedly, this isn't the 'CO2' at current rate scenario, but lack of action will almost certainly lead to a much higher rate of emissions (plus other greenhouse gases).

Now 6.4C sounds pretty scary to me, especially since that's not the end of the warming. Maybe this high end estimate is driven by feedback loops that we don't understand, but I don't want to find out in 40 years that the feedback loops are just as bad or worse than we thought.

[Tim Partlett]

scientists can give you the facts, they should not determine policy.
Scientists can say "X is happening, caused by Y"
Its politicians and economists job to work out what to do about X, and which option to select.
A lot of economists point to nuclear being stupidly expensive if unsubsidised and with the true cost calculations made. Thats not a political or a scientific point of view, but a financial one.

You mean like the Royal Academy of Engineering report (http://www.countryguardian.net/generation_costs_report2.pdf) which found electricity from wind power was almost twice as expensive to produce as from nuclear power?

We absolutely should analyse the economics of energy alternatives. A broad basket of solutions would be ideal. The problem is that the environmental debate tends to sideline nuclear power as an alternative energy source. It is seen as "dirty" despite the fact that it is carbon clean.

The idea that nuclear power is somehow uneconomic is exposed as a lie by the fact that France is hardly buckling under the burden of 87% nuclear power (11% hydroelectricity), and is producing some of the cheapest electricity in the world with hardly a carbon atom escaping its shores.

France produces just a thirteenth of the carbon/kwh of green friendly Denmark, but Greenpeace utterly opposes nuclear power.

[Huzurdaddi]

So the 2007 IPCC report gives a range for 'business as usual' of 1.4C to 6.4C by 2100. 6.4C sounds pretty bad. Admittedly, this isn't the 'CO2' at current rate scenario

You're killing me.

The IPCC report (which is very nice, people who are interested in climate change should read it) is including various feedback effects, of course. Since they are far greater than than the CO2 effects.

Maybe this high end estimate is driven by feedback loops that we don't understand

Sorry about jumping in the 1st line, I did not read this. Yes it is including feedback loops. I think we understand them to some level but it seems that they are very difficult to model.

but I don't want to find out in 40 years that the feedback loops are just as bad or worse than we thought.

But we don't live our lives like that in any other activity, well other than eco-insanity. I am fully for putting far more governmental dollars into research on this topic, not only because I work in HPC and would make a killing, but also because it is the right thing to do. :)

[Tyjenks]

http://lugar.senate.gov/graphics/energy/alternatives/electricity/coal.gif

[wisefool]

That could be because if I decide to smoke, and die a few decades early from lung cancer, I presumably only hurt myself.

Disruptive climate change has the potential to hurt a great many future generations.

[Anti-Bunny]

http://lugar.senate.gov/graphics/energy/alternatives/electricity/coal.gif

I like how Mercury and Sulfur just goes... somewhere.

[Mordrak]

http://lugar.senate.gov/graphics/energy/alternatives/electricity/coal.gif

Really? From what I've heard there's still safety problems with CO2 injection systems and the necessary effort transporting it to suitable injection sites (let alone finding them). It's a neat idea, but not really feasible with current infrastructure.

[arctangent]

I'll just throw this into the mix, re the OP:

http://scienceblogs.com/islandofdoubt/2009/10/et_tu_bbc.php?utm_source=networkbanner&utm_medium=link

Here's the headline to a BBC story posted Oct. 9: "What happened to global warming?" Nothing wrong there. It's almost exactly the same as a talk on the subject I delivered the previous evening at the Saluda Community Library here western North Carolina.

But here's the opening paragraphs:



This headline may come as a bit of a surprise, so too might that [sic] fact that the warmest year recorded globally was not in 2008 or 2007, but in 1998.

But it is true. For the last 11 years we have not observed any increase in global temperatures.

And our climate models did not forecast it, even though man-made carbon dioxide, the gas thought to be responsible for warming our planet, has continued to rise.



The story, by BBC climate correspondent Paul Hudson, who, as a climate correspondent, might be expected to have at least a passing familiarity with the science associated with his beat, goes on to present "both sides" of the debate. He found two skeptics who have long argued against the mountains of evidence on which the case for anthropogenic global warming is built, and gives them yet another platform.

Key to the skeptic's point of view is the notion that the hottest year on record is now more than a decade in the wrong direction. But as Hudson should know, there is no widespread agreement among climatologists that 1998 was the hottest year. It's the sort of thing that Fox News likes to quote, and British audiences do tend to hear it more than those of us on the other side the Atlantic because it's what the UK's Hadley Center data show.

But the Hadley data constitute just one set. Another set, this one from the Goddard Institute for Space Studies at NASA, says 2005 was warmer. If you want to know why there's a difference and, more importantly, whether it matters, you can read this excellent, but a little technical, explanation at Real Climate.

The rest of the post is a more technical discussion and a graph. The comments are interesting as well.

[Brian Seiler]

I like how Mercury and Sulfur just goes... somewhere.

In refining, "somewhere" is a big open pit. Elemental sulfur is a byproduct of refinery processes - they literally have more of the stuff than they know what to do with. As far as I know, there's no problem with eggy fart poisoning in and around refineries.

The mercury, though - that's another issue.

[Eric T Cheng]

I wonder what were the opinions of the climate change deniers of the ozone layer depletion over Antarctica and the drastic changes the world did in regards to CFCs. Cutting out CFCs in air conditioners and refrigerators cut into businesses' profits and yet changes were made. Could it be because that AC and fridge industries' lobbyists didn't have as much pull as the oil companies' lobbyists?

Unless you work for an oil company, what is your direct stake in denying the possibility that climate change is happening? Look beyond the politics (ie. leave Al Gore out of it). If we take action now, we can hopefully prevent major environment disasters in the near and distant future. If we don't take action now, we risk major environmental disasters. And remember, environmental disasters aren't local or regional -- a drought on the other side of the world would affect crop prices (see the skyrocketing prices of rice the past year) as well as unstable political regimes and thus possible civil wars (see the Sudan).

Is it so bad to be conservative in the amount of fuel you burn? Commute or carpool. Not only will it cut down on fuel but it'll save you money. Any European or Canadian will tell you that Americans pay too little for their gas.

[Brian Seiler]

I wonder what were the opinions of the climate change deniers of the ozone layer depletion over Antarctica and the drastic changes the world did in regards to CFCs. Cutting out CFCs in air conditioners and refrigerators cut into businesses' profits and yet changes were made. Could it be because that AC and fridge industries' lobbyists didn't have as much pull as the oil companies' lobbyists?

No - it was mostly because they had a better publicity campaign; it's the same reason there aren't more nuclear power plants and many cities have publicly funded paper recycling programs.

Unless you work for an oil company, what is your direct stake in denying the possibility that climate change is happening? Look beyond the politics (ie. leave Al Gore out of it). If we take action now, we can hopefully prevent major environment disasters in the near and distant future. If we don't take action now, we risk major environmental disasters. And remember, environmental disasters aren't local or regional -- a drought on the other side of the world would affect crop prices (see the skyrocketing prices of rice the past year) as well as unstable political regimes and thus possible civil wars (see the Sudan).

Except that, maybe if we take action now, we also risk disasters. What happens if it turns out that the sun is about to enter a low-energy cycle and every step we take to limit global warming now is one more step further into the cold, frozen wasteland that awaits us in fifty years' time? If we take action now that makes energy more expensive in both developed and developing nations, how many more people do you thrust over the line into poverty? For that matter, what in the chuffing hell are you planning on doing with all those hybrid car batteries when they die in four or five years?

This is my point - there is no simple answer to any simple problem here and radical action is NEVER advisable. Making a bunch of byproduct that you don't use that might be contributing to warming up the planet is probably not a good idea and you should probably figure out an economical way to work around that, but the importance of the issue is not so great that we should find the five beardiest gentlemen in the world and throw all of our worldly possessions at them in the hopes that they will figure out how to mitigate something that we don't even know how much of an effect we have on it. I wouldn't deny climate change - climate changes. It's done that a few times in the past couple billion years and I imagine it'll do it a few more. There are economically viable "environmentally friendly" alternatives to some of the things we do that are wonderful ideas (i.e. nuclear power). Hell - plastics are made out of petroleum, and I'd much rather have my car run on sunshine and kitten farts and still be able to buy Gladware that I can throw in the garbage next time I make stinky cheese soup than burn up all of my disposable dishes getting to work. That doesn't mean that there's an impending crisis over which we should lose sleep and suffer deep and abiding guilt. In this case, we can't even be certain how much of a problem there is and what the proper thing to do about it would be. If the U.N. were to suddenly mobilize the world's military forces in a radical attempt to wipe out all burning of fossil fuels anywhere and basically battered China into destitution and then twenty years from now we figure out, oh, well, I guess we didn't have THAT much to do with it after all, what are you going to tell the millions of people you starved or froze to death?

Long story short - calm down. Don't worry so much about it. Wasting things is wasteful and using less of things is always better than using more when you achieve the same results. The things you want are pretty much the things that the economy as a whole wants and it'll get there. If there's some sort of catastrophe in the future, it won't be your fault, or my fault, or quite possibly any human's fault, and if there's not, well, so much the better.

[WarrenM]

it's the same reason there aren't more nuclear power plants and many cities have publicly funded paper recycling programs.
Around here, plastic recycling is now the law. If you're caught throwing away plastic instead of recycling, it's a $500 fine (or so my wife tells me).

[Brian Seiler]

Around here, plastic recycling is now the law. If you're caught throwing away plastic instead of recycling, it's a $500 fine (or so my wife tells me).

I don't know so much about plastic - paper recycling, however, is the height of stupidity; mostly a make-work project to give people jobs moving around garbage. I'm just old enough to remember when recycling became popular and why - it was because we thought there was some kind of landfill crisis because some idiot sent a barge full of trash to New York and the harbor wouldn't let him dock it there, so you ended up with The Lisa Tree floating about the world's oceans, except made entirely of garbage. We don't recycle paper because it makes environmental sense (it doesn't - you can make more trees, and if anything you're actually sequestering carbon by putting it back in the ground that you're not putting away by not growing more trees), but because of a mistake in reasoning from back in 1980-whatever that now has a political life of its own and will quite probably never die.

For some limited resources - like copper and aluminum and basically all that shit that people can leech out of your computer parts - it makes sense to recycle, but for paper, it's nonsensical. I don't know what the economics are on plastic. Hell - having worked in a finishing plant I'm not even entirely sure how it works, since the granules get treated with additives after you've formed them to make them workable for specific purposes, and I've got no idea what the order of operations and precedences is for food-grade polypropylene vs. medical grade vs. whatever the hell else.

[Damien Neil]

I like how Mercury and Sulfur just goes... somewhere.

Oh, it goes somewhere all right:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/13/us/13water.html

So three years ago, when Allegheny Energy decided to install scrubbers to clean the plant’s air emissions, environmentalists were overjoyed. The technology would spray water and chemicals through the plant’s chimneys, trapping more than 150,000 tons of pollutants each year before they escaped into the sky.

But the cleaner air has come at a cost. Each day since the equipment was switched on in June, the company has dumped tens of thousands of gallons of wastewater containing chemicals from the scrubbing process into the Monongahela River, which provides drinking water to 350,000 people and flows into Pittsburgh, 40 miles to the north.

[cliffski]

Long story short - calm down. Don't worry so much about it.

If there's some sort of catastrophe in the future, it won't be your fault, or my fault, or quite possibly any human's fault, and if there's not, well, so much the better.

I know this may seem a bit off the wall to you, but I'm not so interested in whose fault it is, but what the chances are off it happening, and what I can do to prevent it or mitigate it.
I dont even care if its mostly the chinese governments fault, it will still affect me, its still irrational just to stick my head in the sand and hope for the best.

Riddle me this:
Do you think there is a 1% chance that in your lifetime, man-made climate change will have a drastic affect on the world in which you live?
Do you think there is a 1% chance your house will burn down this year?

And given those answers, if you are not worried at all about climate change, why do you insure your house?

As stated before, when the possible downside is huge, even if the statsitical chance of an event is low (and i dont think thats true), its rational to act.

[Brian Seiler]

Riddle me this:
Do you think there is a 1% chance that in your lifetime, man-made climate change will have a drastic affect on the world in which you live?
Do you think there is a 1% chance your house will burn down this year?

And given those answers, if you are not worried at all about climate change, why do you insure your house?

I know you're trying to be clever, but I'm kind of required by law to insure my mortgage and I suspect that I might be required to insure my home. I know it poops on your fun, but, there you go.

But to answer your question, no, I'm not convinced that there is a 1% chance that man-made climate change will have a drastic effect on anything because I'm not entirely certain what influence we can have over climate change in the first place. If the climate changed, yes, things could get wicked weird, which is why I would like to figure out how to live in a situation other than the very narrow climate band that humans have become accustomed to. Build a goddamn sea colony or learn to live on the moon or build one of those freaky asseded dome cities that Ken Levine had in the 19-effity-50s or SOMETHING other than stubbornly sitting in the way of the planet itself suggesting that it wants to be different and stubbornly shouting "NO!" because there's at least a chance that we're already boned if we're going to be boned, either because we already broke everything or because we couldn't stop it from breaking if we wanted to.

In other words: more commuter travel to Mars and less trying to make me feel guilty because I live in the suburbs, environmental movement.

Also, compared to my total earnings, the cost of home insurance is pretty close to invisible for me. Just to take a wildly inappropriate example by slapping together random things I remember in my head from this thread, raise the price of a gallon of gasoline in the United States to three times what it is today and you can call that a lot of things, but I don't think invisible is in the list. The "green" (how do I hate that term) ideas that I favor, I favor because they're economically better ideas. Solar power satellites and nuclear power plants and cars with better fuel efficiency are cheaper for me and let me look forward to a future of reinforced plastic exoskeletons that let me play bocce ball with the skulls of my enemies. I like that future. I certainly don't think that there's some sort of looming godawful catastrophe lurking just beyond the horizon, however, that will end the world in sudden and dramatic fashion.

[Huzurdaddi]

I wonder what were the opinions of the climate change deniers of the ozone layer depletion over Antarctica and the drastic changes the world did in regards to CFCs. Cutting out CFCs in air conditioners and refrigerators cut into businesses' profits and yet changes were made. Could it be because that AC and fridge industries' lobbyists didn't have as much pull as the oil companies' lobbyists?


It could be that you are an idiot? The science behind CFCs was simple in comparison (chemistry), established, and most importantly, directly observable. This compares very favorably with climate change. Further, the problem with CFCs was inexpensive to clean up in comparison. Finally, it seems like it was a good deal (http://www.gcrio.org/doctorgc/index.php/drweblog/C86/).

God damn greens. I swear.

[Tyjenks]

Should have said that I am not a proponent of Clean Coal, just throwing it in the jumbled mix.

I like how Mercury and Sulfur just goes... somewhere.

Yeah, I thought that was funny too.."We'll just put that to the side for now"

Really? From what I've heard there's still safety problems with CO2 injection systems and the necessary effort transporting it to suitable injection sites (let alone finding them). It's a neat idea, but not really feasible with current infrastructure.
My guess is they drew up a fancy process that seems relatively doable and they will worry about all those minor quibbles later once the multi-billion dollar construction contracts have been doled out and the extra special states have been awarded the sites on which these contraptions will be built.

[cliffski]

I know you're trying to be clever, but I'm kind of required by law to insure my mortgage and I suspect that I might be required to insure my home. I know it poops on your fun, but, there you go.


LOL.
So you wouldnt bother insuring your house against fire otherwise? right? And apparently its so insignificant a cost (yeah right) you dont notice it.
Yet dont let those evil communist hippies dare encourage the govt to raise fuel taxes! because that would result in total economic collapse and a feral wilderness like europe (our cars are way more efficient :D)

You look both ways when crossing the road? You got a smoke alarm?
Why bother dude. You hardly ever get hit by cars, and houses very rarely burn down.

And I dont see the largest collection of scientific opinion every assembled in human history trying to persuade you to buy a smoke alarm or be aparnoid about crossing the road.
You are not acting rationally.

[Kraaze]

As a guy who is married to a research scientist, I find it very very very difficult to believe that there are many scientists in the world who will risk completely trashing their reputation and knowingly spouting incorrect crap in order to earn the huge megabucks that apparently (news to em) researchers make.

And even more unlikely that such scientists would not be torn apart by peer-review.

This is one of my favorite fantasies about scientists, that their little cult rituals will somehow keep them on the straight and narrow of having no no bias and valuing accuracy over all other considerations.

History is full of examples of scientists who had amazing discoveries but got ridiculed by other scientists for daring to challenge the comfortable status quo. I'm not saying the same is happening with global warming, but I'm also not going to accept any claim that it definitively is not happening.

[Thrag]

Except that, maybe if we take action now, we also risk disasters. What happens if it turns out that the sun is about to enter a low-energy cycle and every step we take to limit global warming now is one more step further into the cold, frozen wasteland that awaits us in fifty years' time? If we take action now that makes energy more expensive in both developed and developing nations, how many more people do you thrust over the line into poverty?

For that matter, what if aliens land and it turns out they are wiling to trade CO2 for the cure to cancer, and we have already stopped producing so much CO2! Imagine all the people we'd be condemning to die of cancer!

[Thrag]

I wonder what were the opinions of the climate change deniers of the ozone layer depletion over Antarctica and the drastic changes the world did in regards to CFCs. Cutting out CFCs in air conditioners and refrigerators cut into businesses' profits and yet changes were made. Could it be because that AC and fridge industries' lobbyists didn't have as much pull as the oil companies' lobbyists?

Actually, industry lobbyists used the exact same propaganda against CFC regulation, they also used the same propaganda against the SO2 cap and trade system. They will use the same propaganda against the next issue that might hurt their profits. They will cry over and over about how doing anything will utterly destroy the economy sending modern civilization back into a dark age where everyone is poor. Any regulation at all will devastate the entire economy. The science isn't settled. If we do something it could have side effects who can't even imagine, so out of fear of everything we must do nothing, etc.

Just because those predictions turned out to the utterly and completely false hasn't stopped them from using them again. In some cases it's the very same lobbyists who campaigned against CFC regulation, SO2 regulation, smoking dangers, etc. that are lobbying against any actions to regulate CO2.

[Thrag]

This is one of my favorite fantasies about scientists, that their little cult rituals will somehow keep them on the straight and narrow of having no no bias and valuing accuracy over all other considerations.

Peer review certainly isn't perfect, but to call it a "cult ritual"? Really?

[Eric T Cheng]

It could be that you are an idiot? The science behind CFCs was simple in comparison (chemistry), established, and most importantly, directly observable. This compares very favorably with climate change. Further, the problem with CFCs was inexpensive to clean up in comparison. Finally, it seems like it was a good deal (http://www.gcrio.org/doctorgc/index.php/drweblog/C86/).

Yes, I know it was worth it and that the science was behind it.

And please refrain from the personal attacks.

God damn greens. I swear.

Who are you referring to a green? Is it wrong to be environmentally conscious? I live in goddamn Vancouver, it's hard not to be. But don't assume I'm a fucking hippie.

[Huzurdaddi]

Yes, I know it was worth it and that the science was behind it.


< sarcasm >Yes, I am sure you do.</sarcasm>

And please refrain from the personal attacks.

And please refrain from being an idiot.

[Cubit]

What is your problem, Huzurdaddi? Can't help but sink the discussion with that type of rhetoric?

[Bill Dungsroman]

For love of christ, stop being irrational and stop making me argue the right wing position.

There is no debate among rational people: if the increase is only going to be 0.5C (unlikely, the feedback effects are quite real -- but still somewhat unclear), then the rational response is to simply apply aid to those regions, the overall cost would be far less.

If you are arguing the opposite side side then you are an irrational hippie green and deserve to be lumped into the same group as the Jesus freaks.

Eat dicks (http://www.newscientist.com/data/images/archive/2571/25713301.jpg). You really think it'd be relatively cheap to save the Siberian and Alaskan forests, do you?

[Calistas]

For me the real inconvenient truth is that while there is a consensus among scientists that humans are influencing global climate change, there's also a consensus among scientists that nuclear power should be expanded. If we'd all moved ahead with nuclear power, like the French, the amount of CO2 would be significantly reduced already. But who has pushed most for nuclear power to be pushed from the agenda? Environmentalists.

One point I have heard is that while the nuclear reactor has a low CO2 impact the mining and production of the fuel is extremely dirty. I can't confirm this statement, and haven't seen anything on it around the place, but I bring it up in the hope that someone may know more.

[Jason McCullough]

Well, theoretically we could tax the shit out of carbon and see what happens. If nuclear is cheaper then it'd get built.

[Quaro]

Why do you think environmentalists are stopping nuclear power? Businesses won't build plants without 100% government loan guarantees. Nuclear is expensive and slow so it's seen as financially risky. That's pretty much it.

What might make nuclear economically viable? If the environmentalist have their way and start taxing or capping carbon. Suddenly coal isn't so cheap and carbon free alternatives like nuclear make business sense. Environmentalist are probably the only group that could save nuclear, otherwise, why not just build a cheap coal plant?

[Calistas]

History is full of examples of scientists who had amazing discoveries but got ridiculed by other scientists for daring to challenge the comfortable status quo.

...You don't understand how science works. :(

[alexlitel]

Except that, maybe if we take action now, we also risk disasters. What happens if it turns out that the sun is about to enter a low-energy cycle and every step we take to limit global warming now is one more step further into the cold, frozen wasteland that awaits us in fifty years' time? If we take action now that makes energy more expensive in both developed and developing nations, how many more people do you thrust over the line into poverty? For that matter, what in the chuffing hell are you planning on doing with all those hybrid car batteries when they die in four or five years?Dude, Roland Emmerich's not going to read your screenplay, so get over it.

[DanVerssen]

People stopped caring about global warming when the economy tanked.

When people have a job and enough money to go to the movies on the Saturday night, they can afford to care about climate change. When they're out of work and getting foreclosed on, the fate of some tree squirrel in a distant forest isn't a real big priority.

[Tim Partlett]

Why do you think environmentalists are stopping nuclear power?

Because they are? There's a whole number of reasons that governments (except for France) don't get behind nuclear power, and the green lobby is one of them. The fact that people like Greenpeace help fuel ignorance on the subject is also a major issue.

What might make nuclear economically viable? If the environmentalist have their way and start taxing or capping carbon. Suddenly coal isn't so cheap and carbon free alternatives like nuclear make business sense. Environmentalist are probably the only group that could save nuclear, otherwise, why not just build a cheap coal plant?

If environmentalists have their way, nuclear power will be shut down. If we want energy independence and near zero carbon emissions, France has shown us the way. In 1973 their response to the oil crises was to use the resource they had in abundance: technology. Within 10 years they were nearly 100% powered by nuclear and hydro power.

They now have among the cheapest energy in Europe (only countries with massive hydroelectric resources tend to do better) and they have so much electricity that they are the world's largest exporter of it.

Ten years. Nearly zero carbon emissions. Electrical energy independence. Economically viable. Existing technology.

When cars go electric, France will be independent of Russia and the Middle East, and living off cheap, clean energy. No wonder the French love nuclear power.

[DTG]

No wonder the French love nuclear power.

There's still quite a bit of opposition to it in France from sections of the public. Same as the U.S.

But the government had the balls to not cave in every time some screeching minority showed up on TV with their babies wearing skull masks and death shrouds. They took the 70's oil scare seriously and made serious decisions, and stuck to them. Here in the U.S., we've had nothing but Shoreham, NY since then....terrific.

[Tyjenks]

There's still quite a bit of opposition to it in France from sections of the public. Same as the U.S.

But the government had the balls to not cave in every time some screeching minority showed up on TV with their babies wearing skull masks and death shrouds. They took the 70's oil scare seriously and made serious decisions, and stuck to them. Here in the U.S., we've had nothing but Shoreham, NY since then....terrific.Wow, I wonder what that's like...its like some beautiful dream.

[Thrag]

Here in America we also responded to the oil crisis. Unfortunately the message of "if it's cold, put on a sweater instead of turning up the heat" wasn't popular and instead the message of "keep consuming, in fact start consuming more" won out. Even to the point where a president had the solar water heater on the white house removed as a metaphorical middle finger to the notion of conversation and sound energy policy.

[Phil_Stein]

If we want energy independence and near zero carbon emissions, France has shown us the way.

I'm guessing that nuclear power in the US, if adopted more widely, would largely displace coal. We have considerable coal resources - I doubt we import much of it (I'd guess we're a net exporter). Whereas, I think we import uranium (though I think it's a smaller component of total electricity production costs for nuke plants than coal is for coal plants).

Anyways, for the US, nuclear power is less about energy independence, and more about an electricity source that is potentially better environmentally than coal.

I'm generally pro-nuclear power for the US, but let's not oversell it.

[Quaro]

Because they are? There's a whole number of reasons that governments (except for France) don't get behind nuclear power, and the green lobby is one of them. The fact that people like Greenpeace help fuel ignorance on the subject is also a major issue.

If environmentalists have their way, nuclear power will be shut down. If we want energy independence and near zero carbon emissions, France has shown us the way. In 1973 their response to the oil crises was to use the resource they had in abundance: technology. Within 10 years they were nearly 100% powered by nuclear and hydro power.

They now have among the cheapest energy in Europe (only countries with massive hydroelectric resources tend to do better) and they have so much electricity that they are the world's largest exporter of it.

Ten years. Nearly zero carbon emissions. Electrical energy independence. Economically viable. Existing technology.

When cars go electric, France will be independent of Russia and the Middle East, and living off cheap, clean energy. No wonder the French love nuclear power.

You seem to be proposing a top down approach where the gov picks the winning tech specifically for the next half a century. I'd rather see the government price externalities like carbon (and possibly even independence) into the market. That will make nuclear more competitive than coal, but also allow any other technologies with similarly good environmental profiles.

Nuclear has little to nothing to do with energy independence or the oil scare. There are hardly any oil electric plants in the US. We could go 100% nuclear and it would barely change how much oil we use.

In terms of what the gov should be doing -- I think the smart move is a smarter grid. With longer more efficient transmission, there are many more options for power generation. So the wind corridor can sell power to other parts of country where wind doesn't make sense, etc.

It may also make sense to subsidize some nuclear plants just to keep the industry knowledge alive in the US until businesses are willing to look at nuclear again.

[Linoleum]

Why do you think environmentalists are stopping nuclear power? Businesses won't build plants without 100% government loan guarantees. Nuclear is expensive and slow so it's seen as financially risky. That's pretty much it.

One reason it's risky is environmental groups can tie up the multi-billion dollar capital expenditure project that comprises a building nuclear plant for years with a relatively small financial outlay.

Of course, once they start doing it to large scale solar and wind projects as well, which they will, the agenda gets a bit more naked.

I think the most significant finding in the coming years in the climate change debate is going to be the general realization of the shit quality of a lot of the data used over the past couple decades and that incestuous peer review led to methodologies that were...sloppy.

[jeffb]

Does it really matter if global warning is a natural process or not? It seems like a waste of time arguing about the cause of what will lead to earth becoming uninhabitable, ignoring short term costs what exactly is wrong with changing to technologies that have less impact on our home?

Is the US really going to risk becoming completely isolated from the international community by doing nothing?

[Omniscia]

And on a related note... (http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20091014/ts_afp/britaincanadaarcticclimateenvironmentscience)

LONDON (AFP) – The Arctic ice cap will disappear completely in summer months within 20 to 30 years, a polar research team said as they presented findings from an expedition led by adventurer Pen Hadow.

[Tim Partlett]

I'm generally pro-nuclear power for the US, but let's not oversell it.

Nuclear has little to nothing to do with energy independence or the oil scare. There are hardly any oil electric plants in the US. We could go 100% nuclear and it would barely change how much oil we use.

When responding to me would it be too much to ask to notice that I'm not American and I'm not specifically discussing US energy production? In fact could we keep the discussion globally focused, as there are many non-Americans here.

In Europe natural gas is commonly used to generate electricity, or directly to heat homes or cook food. My home country of Britain generates around 40% of its electricity through natural gas alone, and plenty more homes have natural gas heating/cooking.

Energy independence from Russia in the short term, and the middle east in the long term, is a key issue of European energy policies. If you'd been in Hungary last winter when Russia cut the gas you'd know that :).

Also, as we move towards electric cars, the electricity grid will affect how much oil we use globally. Nuclear and wind power are perfect for electric cars that charge up overnight, as both continue to produce power 24/7 even when most people are asleep.

[Robert Sharp]

Does it really matter if global warning is a natural process or not? It seems like a waste of time arguing about the cause of what will lead to earth becoming uninhabitable, ignoring short term costs what exactly is wrong with changing to technologies that have less impact on our home?


Well, yeah, it pretty much matters a lot. If it's a natural process, then all this money spent on lower emissions would be for nothing. It wouldn't stop anything, and we would be better served spending those resources on finding ways to protect ourselves from the effects of climate change (increased number of hurricanes, extremely cold weather in Europe, raised sea levels, etc.). We aren't asking whether we should combat warming itself, as though we have a way of lowering the temperature if it's natural. We really don't (AFAIK). So the question is whether we can do anything to slow it down or limit the number, which assumes that we are at least part of the cause.

I've been told (by a scientist who has studied a good bit of the materials out there) that the magic number is 2.5Celsius. That's what we want to limit warming to, if possible. But if it's a natural trend, we really don't have much say over it at all.

[Calistas]

Well, yes we do. I don't think anyone can really claim that the sort of hikes in atmospheric CO2 and other global warming gasses, unprecedented in history, can have no discernable impact on the climate. Those who do are silly.

But, even if this fairytale world of absolutely uniquely fast environmental change coincidental with human activity is true there are still proposals that should be considered. At the moment the geo-engineering of space reflectors and upper atmosphere seeding are still a bit sci-fi, but they will be less so in ten years and they (and other approaches) may be what's required to reduce the pace and impact of climate change. New Scientist had a really good aticle on this recently.

[Nellie]

What happens if it turns out that the sun is about to enter a low-energy cycle and every step we take to limit global warming now is one more step further into the cold, frozen wasteland that awaits us in fifty years' time?

Can we use this rationale for everything?

I was going to come into work this morning boss but what if I'd accidentally written some code that made my computer self aware? I could have created skynet and nearly wiped out the whole human race so I stayed at home instead.

[Brian Seiler]

Can we use this rationale for everything?

I was going to come into work this morning boss but what if I'd accidentally written some code that made my computer self aware? I could have created skynet and nearly wiped out the whole human race so I stayed at home instead.

That's my point. Trying to prevent a disaster that we don't know whether we can stop it anyway and we know for a fact that we're going to have to deal with at some point in the indefinite future with no plans for dealing with the eventual catastrophe seems to me to lack something. We know with a great degree of certainty that we're not the only aspect influencing climate change, but everybody seems to be focused on stopping it instead of adapting. To me, it sounds a lot like the ESA - a lot of effort to stop the world from ever changing ever.

[Houngan]

Clean-er coal, I'll grant you, but there are still some problems:

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2553/4014399500_d04292e680.jpg


But overall, this does help with CO2 emissions , not so much with the other nasty bits.

Carbon sequestration from crop waste is a big, big thing we could be doing that is carbon-negative and pays for itself with gas and oil byproducts.

If you want to make the economics argument, here it is. Biochar:

1. Makes most soils more productive
2. Takes a shitload of carbon out of the atmosphere
3. Is profitable for the farmer, gas and oil byproducts more than pay for the effort to produce it
4. Is stable in soil for millennia

Ancient Aztec secret, indeed.

H.

[Nellie]

That's my point. Trying to prevent a disaster that we don't know whether we can stop it anyway and we know for a fact that we're going to have to deal with at some point in the indefinite future with no plans for dealing with the eventual catastrophe seems to me to lack something. We know with a great degree of certainty that we're not the only aspect influencing climate change, but everybody seems to be focused on stopping it instead of adapting. To me, it sounds a lot like the ESA - a lot of effort to stop the world from ever changing ever.

ESA? European Space Agency?

It could well be that we're just making something that was going to happen anyway happen faster and more severely than it otherwise would and if we turned off the oilwells, factories and coal mines tomorrow it'd take decades for the effects just stop getting worse, let alone show any signs of getting better so I'm quite happy to agree with you that we should be both looking into ways of limiting our impact AND dealing with the after effects.

I'm more inclined to think that we're approaching a "perfect storm" rather than just looking to climate change. We've fucked over the oceans, we've already got over a billion people malnourished, we're clearing forests at an unprecedented rate which we know has huge impact locally if not globally (see drought in Kenya as an example), cheap oil is starting to look pretty scarce etc etc etc.

So it just seems pretty unlikely to me that we can do all of this and have no impact whatsoever or that just trying to treat the symptom rather than cause is a decent long term strategy.

[Brian Seiler]

ESA? European Space Agency?

Endangered Species Act.

[Nellie]

Granted I've only had a quick skim over it on everyone's favourite fictional Encylopedia, but what's wrong with the ESA? As far as I can see it's aim is to prevent species going extinct through over development or over exploitation. Doesn't seem too daft an idea to me.

[Brian Seiler]

Granted I've only had a quick skim over it on everyone's favourite fictional Encylopedia, but what's wrong with the ESA? As far as I can see it's aim is to prevent species going extinct through over development or over exploitation. Doesn't seem too daft an idea to me.

Without getting too derailed, it's very poorly written. Species can be endangered in one area and not in another for....well, basically arbitrary reasons related to who draws a map. It fails to recognize the fact that, you know, sometimes species die and seems to be framed in the mindset that if we just clap hard enough, the world will always stay the way it is right now. I mean, I know that people need to drink water and everything, but there's that blind extra-retard salamander that lives in your underground river that you've mislabeled an aquifer, so we're going to have to go ahead and make that a giant pain in the ass to get to, despite the fact that this entirely useless creature is mostly only valuable as an historical curiosity and object of general derision (can you tell that I spent most of my childhood in San Marcos, TX?). What should be a law against hunting things that there aren't many of for sport is instead a law that's most commonly used to prevent development to protect derelict evolutionary dead ends, when it's not being frankly misapplied just to stop development of land for the sheer hell of it, because some people are just, you know, like that.

Maybe it's just where I'm at in my life right now, but it seems like way too much of all things green is devoted to digging in your heels and trying to keep the world from ever changing ever instead of trying to make the best out of what you've got. I love reasonable propositions - like, for example, carbon sequestration from crop waste, or subsidies to help encourage development of nuclear power (though you really only need to subsidize that because building a new plant is more expensive than using the shitty old one that's been sitting over here for the past however many years - as far as I know, the technology itself is cost-competitive with fossil fuels), or higher fuel efficiency standards for automobiles. Ending climate change, however, is not a reasonable goal because it's definitely not entirely in human hands and maybe not even primarily within our ability to control. I guess it's just another symptom of how anything even remotely political invariably departs the realm of rhetorical reality as soon as it becomes a recognizable concept these days, but the doomsayers (who are largely overblowing the implications, for which I will never forgive them, because it makes me side with people like Bill O'Reilly) in particular have started to rub on my nerves.

[Adam B]

Granted I've only had a quick skim over it on everyone's favourite fictional Encylopedia, but what's wrong with the ESA? As far as I can see it's aim is to prevent species going extinct through over development or over exploitation. Doesn't seem too daft an idea to me.

But what if those species were going to go extinct anyway? What if we're all just wasting our time, man, and the universe is going to do what it wants so chill out, you know?

[Hawkeye Fierce]

So basically this thread has just turned into Brian's private little rant about environmentalism. Oh well, not like it started well anyway.

[RSofaer]

We're not trying to prevent the climate from changing because that's good in and of itself. There will always be animals and ecologies. We're trying to prevent the climate from changing because this is the climate that's best for humans.

[Blackadar]

So basically this thread has just turned into Brian's private little rant about environmentalism. Oh well, not like it started well anyway.

I stopped reading when people started claiming only a .5C increase, that there wasn't a 1% chance of global warming having a drastic effect or that we're only contributing 3% of the greenhouse gasses. If people want to believe junk science, let 'em. I just find it interesting that many of the so-called "scientists" that are publishing these "facts" were the same guys that worked for Big Tobacco back in the 80s publishing studies that said smoking won't hurt you.

Climate change goes beyond a few flooded areas. For example, right now the glaciers in the Himalayas are melting (except in one small corner of the chain, where they are growing). Hundreds of millions of people rely on these glaciers for drinking water throughout India, Tibet, China and southeast Asia rely on this water. What kind of socioeconomic ramifications can you project if in the next 30 years rivers like the Ganges start to dry up? We're not talking just about mass migrations here - we're talking about battling over shifting resources by countries that have nukes. Can anyone see the potential problem here? That's just one fairly minor potential impact of climate change.

Can we adapt to climate change? Surely we can. But there will be haves (for example, the Sahara Desert may become a lot greener) and have-nots (the American Southwest may become virtually uninhabitable). And there are going to be a lot of competition for resources, especially if they (like drinking water) become more scarce. The danger isn't totally in the direct impacts of a 3F change in average temperature. It's what happens because of that change.

[Midnight Son]

I'm getting the fuck away from the East Coast before sea level rise becomes obvious to even the most obtuse Virginia Beach resident. I'm thinking Shenandoah Valley.....

Then again, it might not become obvious for 30 years....

Or much sooner....

Or not.....

Aaack!

[Robert Sharp]

But, even if this fairytale world of absolutely uniquely fast environmental change coincidental with human activity is true there are still proposals that should be considered. At the moment the geo-engineering of space reflectors and upper atmosphere seeding are still a bit sci-fi, but they will be less so in ten years and they (and other approaches) may be what's required to reduce the pace and impact of climate change. New Scientist had a really good aticle on this recently.

Thanks. I (clearly) didn't know that. In any case, it would change where our resources should be directed, so it still matters which side is right.

Oh, and to add to Blackadar's list, desalination of the oceans would affect the gulf stream, leading to a much colder Europe, which is what I was referencing above. Also, the number I've seen as the current consensus is that we've already seen a 1.5 celsius rise, not .5. Adar, is that the number you've seen?

[Huzurdaddi]

I stopped reading when people started claiming only a .5C increase

Reading is fundamental.

Greens. Comical. I guess you are better than the religious wackos that preceded you.

[Blackadar]

Reading is fundamental.

Greens. Comical. I guess you are better than the religious wackos that preceded you.

Over the next 100 years how much does the temperature of the planet change if we continue adding CO2 at our current rate, if all else remains equal? The models that I have read about (and I understand that most models agree on this point) is 0.5C.

Tell me I have a comprehension problem again. Or are you going to claim that you're not advocating that it's a .5C increase and were just posting this as some sort of miscellaneous example?

That's the kind of carefully crafted but inane and ultimately irrelevant comment that tends not to further the discussion. Did all of a sudden we stop the increase in CO2? Did that happen while I was in the toilet or something? Because last time I knew, we were pumping out more shit into the atmo than ever. So while that's a great caveat, you might as well talk about future fresh water usage without considering population growth, or the impact of solar energy without considering cloud cover.

So if you want some REAL studies that include both the rate of CO2 change and the possible impact on the average temperature, learn something by going to http://www.ghgonline.org/predictions.htm.

Flat-Earthers. Comical. I guess you are the religious wackos that have been there all along.

[Blackadar]

Thanks. I (clearly) didn't know that. In any case, it would change where our resources should be directed, so it still matters which side is right.

Oh, and to add to Blackadar's list, desalination of the oceans would affect the gulf stream, leading to a much colder Europe, which is what I was referencing above. Also, the number I've seen as the current consensus is that we've already seen a 1.5 celsius rise, not .5. Adar, is that the number you've seen?

What I've seen is about 1.5 Fahrenheit. I think that's .8C or so. Of course, the polar regions are much warmer than that. In addition, temperatures are expected to rise another .5 to 2 degrees since more recent emissions already in the atmosphere aren't yet reflected in climate systems.

What's funny is me being called a "green". Actually, I'm pretty pragmatic about climate change. Frankly, we can adapt. But as I said before, there will be winners and losers and we better be damned prepared to deal with the consequences that will occur when the losers found out they got the short end of the stick. Furthermore, the more someone stands to lose, the more drastic their actions become, so it's in our best interest to ensure that both the amount and rate of change is moderated to make it easier to adapt and accommodate.

[Huzurdaddi]

Tell me I have a comprehension problem again. Or are you going to claim that you're not advocating that it's a .5C increase and were just posting this as some sort of miscellaneous example?


LOL green. Read it again. Slowly.

I'm sure you will get it.

Actually, I am sure you won't.

[Blackadar]

LOL green. Read it again. Slowly.

I'm sure you will get it.

Actually, I am sure you won't.
com⋅mu⋅ni⋅ca⋅tion

 /kəˌmyuhttp://sp.ask.com/dictstatic/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.pngnɪˈkeɪhttp://sp.ask.com/dictstatic/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.pngʃən/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [kuh-myoo-ni-key-shuhhttp://sp.ask.com/dictstatic/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.pngn] Show IPA Use communication in a Sentence (http://ask.reference.com/web?q=Use+communication+in+a+Sentence&qsrc=2892&o=101993)

See web results for communication (http://ask.reference.com/web?q=communication&o=100049)

See images of communication (http://ask.reference.com/pictures?q=communication&o=100049)

–noun
1. the act or process of communicating; fact of being communicated.
2. the imparting or interchange of thoughts, opinions, or information by speech, writing, or signs.

As such, if for some reason "I'm not getting it", the fault is in part yours. So if you think I'm somehow misinterpreting your words, please feel free to clarify. Or continue to go look at midget porn. Either way, it's amusing to me.

[Brian Seiler]

So....wait. What you're telling us is that you love watching people enjoy midget porn?

I think this just turned into a party.

[Blackadar]

So....wait. What you're telling us is that you love watching people enjoy midget porn?

I think this just turned into a party.

Hell, who DOESN'T enjoy watching people watching midget porn?

[Huzurdaddi]

Thank you for illustrating the problem. Over the next 100 years how much does the temperature of the planet change if we continue adding CO2 at our current rate, if all else remains equal? The models that I have read about (and I understand that most models agree on this point) is 0.5C.

Which I then followed with to give context:

The problem is the feedback effects which we are attempting to model, but are fantastically hard to model correctly (yes it is easier to model long term trends than short term weather but it is still an art and not a science ATM). Yes, the models seem to be converging, however saying that we understand what will happen is using a loose definition of understand, IMO.

Seriously. Is this unclear? CO2 by itself does little to affect climate. However, it sets off feedback effects (which then may have secondary feedback effects) which can amplify the effects. The modeling of the feedback and especially the secondary feedback (in particular: clouds) is daunting.

[Blackadar]

Which I then followed with to give context:



Seriously. Is this unclear? CO2 by itself does little to affect climate. However, it sets off feedback effects (which then may have secondary feedback effects) which can amplify the effects. The modeling of the feedback and especially the secondary feedback (in particular: clouds) is daunting.

So obviously I did understand it:

That's the kind of carefully crafted but inane and ultimately irrelevant comment that tends not to further the discussion. Did all of a sudden we stop the increase in CO2? Did that happen while I was in the toilet or something? Because last time I knew, we were pumping out more shit into the atmo than ever. So while that's a great caveat, you might as well talk about future fresh water usage without considering population growth, or the impact of solar energy without considering cloud cover.

Read it slowly, you might get it.

[Huzurdaddi]

So obviously I did understand it:


Wow. Clearly not. Well Green we're done here.

[Blackadar]

Wow. Clearly not. Well Green we're done here.

Yes, I suppose you are, fuckwad.

[Calistas]

Thanks. I (clearly) didn't know that. In any case, it would change where our resources should be directed, so it still matters which side is right.

Yup, and no worries. The NS issue is worth digging up. It goes through all of the technical options to reduce global warming, looking at cost, feasibility and effectiveness and it's an interesting read!

[Nellie]

But what if those species were going to go extinct anyway? What if we're all just wasting our time, man, and the universe is going to do what it wants so chill out, you know?

Then you can build your condo when it does go extinct.

I'm not reading it as some misguided attempt to keep Pandas going because they look cute rather stopping you going Panda hunting or chopping down the last of its natural habitat to build on it thus forcing it into extinction/captive survival only because you wiped the last of them or their habitat out in the wild.

Maybe I'm reading the law literally but the intent doesn't appear to be to try and save species from extinction that are off down an evolutionary blackhole.

[Calistas]

The very idea that we can declare what is or is not an evolutionary black hole is laughable.

[Nellie]

Perhaps a bad choice of words and I'll concede that I can't find a species except, if you believe some naturalists opinion, the Panda that appears to be going extinct despite man's best efforts rather than because of it.

[Calistas]

I think we could concur that the loss of the Panda wouldn't, perhaps, be the end of the world, but we can't say the same for most species :)

[Brian Seiler]

The very idea that we can declare what is or is not an evolutionary black hole is laughable.

Wouldn't we kind of know for sure, though, when we looked around one day and there weren't any of them around any more?

This is getting pretty far afield, but when one breed of dinosaur eats all of another breed of dinosaur because it turns out that fat, slow, three-legged slug lizards suck at getting away from fast bipedal killing machines, we call that natural and the result of evolution. When a bunch of turds with flippers start thinning out because they're collectively too stupid to get out the way of a loud spinning blade, that's not. What's the difference between those two scenarios?

[Nellie]

Several million years of evolution?

You don't see a difference between something dying out because it doesn't adapt to its naturally changing habitat and something dying out because we went in a cut all the trees down in 20 years or drained the swamp to build a shopping mall?

[Brian Seiler]

Actually, not really. One is an animal changing its environment to be more hospitable to it. Another is....an animal changing its environment to be more hospitable to it. I mean, I like pandas and everything (though koalas are apparently a bunch of sons of bitches and should all die in a fire or something), but what's the real difference here?

[Nellie]

Then there isn't really much point trying to have a discussion with you.

Fish could just choose to live on land right?

[YouWho]

Time is the difference. Evolution works over generations.

[Brian Seiler]

Probably not, but if a sudden explosion in the beaver population or something built a dam and led to an entire lake being drained and the unique and special fish species inside dying, that would be natural, wouldn't it? The results here are the same as if people drained the lake to build affordable tract housing - dead species of freak strange individual fish.

I'm trying to figure out what the difference is here between what homo sapiens does and what every other animal does, because I'm honestly not getting where you're coming from.

[Houngan]

Ok, so the argument is that since man is natural, then anything he does is just evolution in action, right? You don't get that the purpose of the ESA is to try and curb unintended consequences that have a deliterious effect on us, right? Biodiversity is good for everyone, including humans, and as such we're trying to keep ourselves from becoming our own "evolutionary black hole."

Of course, it turns out that we'll likely do that with non-animal phenomena before we manage to extinction our planet to death, but there you go.

I'm assuming you aren't nearly as stupid as the others in the thread are assuming, although they can hardly be blamed as ham-handedly as you're making your argument. If you're just wanting to bat around "natural" for a semantic discussion, then you should say so, clearly.

H.

[Nellie]

I'm trying to figure out what the difference is here between what homo sapiens does and what every other animal does, because I'm honestly not getting where you're coming from.
There's a small matter of scale even if you want to discount that we drain that swamp or clear that forest knowing in advance that it's going to wipe out hundreds of species of plants and animals.

[cliffski]

Also we have opposable thumbs, and tools, and now we have mechanical diggers and all sorts of major techology that magnifies our impact on the eco-system out of all proportion.
Its true that species wipe out other species over time. However, there may be some self interest in us curbing our ability to do that.

I'd love to think no species is dumbass enough to just fuck up its own environment and cause its own extinction, but easter island suggests otherwise.

[cliffski]

Is the US really going to risk becoming completely isolated from the international community by doing nothing?

Your special friends here in the UK are doing fuck all as well, don't worry!

[Enidigm]

I'd love to think no species is dumbass enough to just fuck up its own environment and cause its own extinction, but easter island suggests otherwise.

That's because almost no species has the ability to limits it's own success and growth (including, basically, ours).

[cliffski]

Ah but we do. We can make decisions for the global common good. I can decide to eat less, even if I'm hungry, because doctors tell em to lose weight. And I can decide to even become a vegetarian or change my lifestyle entirely if I really need to. In fact, the vast majority of us fight our natural urges, both appetite and sexual, all the time. We are the only species on Earth that does this.
So in theory, we can be the first species on earth to actually stop ourselves from heading to extinction.
Until it means 1 auto worker loses his job, at which point governments tend to just give up :(

[Kraaze]

Ah but we do.

Not really. It seems that way sometimes, but it doesn't really work overall. If someone makes a choice to consume less and leaves resources on the table, then someone else will come along and consume them. Overall limitations on consumption or reproductive behavior are basically nonworkable.

[TheTrunkDr]

Ah but we do. We can make decisions for the global common good. I can decide to eat less, even if I'm hungry, because doctors tell em to lose weight. And I can decide to even become a vegetarian or change my lifestyle entirely if I really need to. In fact, the vast majority of us fight our natural urges, both appetite and sexual, all the time. We are the only species on Earth that does this.
We're also one of very few species that have near constant sexual urges and are able to satisfy any appetite within moments. Most animals don't have to worry about the possibility of excess.

[Adam Eayrs]

Overall limitations on consumption or reproductive behavior are basically nonworkable.

You must be defining 'limitations' very narrowly. Mating and consumption have been closely intertwined and highly regulated for the greater part of human history. That individuals are able to make those choices for themselves is a novel outcome of industrialization. That they aren't self-denying is the outcome of a positive feedback loop in our internal reward system that will probably lead to our demise.

[Houngan]

Reproduction is almost never self-denying, by definition. There are some animals that switch reproduction on and off based on environmental inputs, but the input is always a negative one.

TSG's point is valid for the species, although you folks are correct that as individuals we can make a different choice. The tragedy of commons applies to this discussion, and considering our reproductive act/reproduction ratio is immensely out of balance (thank god) then there will always be reproduction to fill every niche available.

H.

[Cubit]

Obama is gonna swing Copenhagen, on the way to pick up his Nobel.

http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSTRE5AO2F120091125