Climate Change

[garo]

Originally Posted by cheesehead

Based on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerta_Keller and http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/20...ter_impact.php it looks to me like she's doing good science investigating a possible alternative to or modification of the Alvarez hypothesis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alvarez_hypothesis), but perhaps you're referring to something else?

I was just referring to her early life. Quite interesting.

[ewmayer]

Originally Posted by cheesehead

Ernst,

Are you as unconvinced about the causal connection between atmospheric CO₂ and ocean acidification as you are of the connection between the CO₂ and global mean temperature?

At what point might you consider the deleterious effects of ocean acidification to be sufficient reason for taking action to curb anthropogenic CO₂ emissions?

Not sure ... let me check my schedule ... how does Tuesday next week sound?

Seriously, you once again completely misunderstand/misrepresent my position on the issue ... as I've said on numerous occasions in this thread, I believe there are plenty of reasons for humankind to drastically its pollution of *all* kinds, and more specifically to curb its CO2 emissions even in the absence of a proven-beyond-all-reasonable-doubt link between industrial-era CO2 levels and global warming. But it seems such a nuanced stance does not fit into your dualist worldview, where "if you're not on the side of good, you're on the side of evil".

I also find it interesting that you appear to have no problems with the above-discussed Gerta Keller "doing good science investigating a possible alternative to or modification of the Alvarez hypothesis" of the cause of the K-T mass extinction (for which the evidence is IMO much-more clear-cut than for human-caused global warming), but appear to apply a rather different standard to the numerous scientists "doing good science investigating possible alternatives to the anthropogenic global warning hypothesis". Or are you claiming that the the state of the AGW field is now so absolutely clear that no one investigating alternatives (or merely more-nuanced takes than the kindergartner-ish" mankind-burns-stuff/more-CO2/global-warming/case-closed" could possibly be doing good science?

[nucleon]

I think it's now a waste of time convincing deniers, that global warming is real. The fact we now have a negative word in the media for them - 'denier', they aren't getting any fans. With the weight of evidence against them, how many more mountains of evidence would you need to convince them? There's not enough carbon in the ecosystem needed for the paper required.

What concerns me if the hard core greenies stalling project to fix the problem. Time would be better spent convincing them to get out of the way.

In my head I'm thinking, FFS greenie, we know you've told us for so long that mankind is causing havok with the ecosystem, and we're trying to fix the problem, and you're stopping us? What the hell? I don't understand.

Projects being blocked that I've heard about - tidal power projects in UK, desert solar power plants. Saving a desert? Tidal power - ticks all the boxes for green power; dependable base load power without producing carbon. (The one problem with tidal is there isn't enough of it)

These people aren't greenies, they are just anti-development.

-- Craig

[cheesehead]

Originally Posted by ewmayer

Seriously, you once again completely misunderstand/misrepresent my position on the issue ... as I've said on numerous occasions in this thread, I believe there are plenty of reasons for humankind to drastically its pollution of *all* kinds, and more specifically to curb its CO2 emissions

Gee, did you happen to notice that I didn't question or doubt your previously-stated opinions regarding curbing pollution of all kinds and curbing CO₂?

All I mentioned was, "unconvinced about ... the connection between the CO2 and global mean temperature".

Once again, I recommend that you enter a "rhetorical-distortion-addiction-recovery program (RDARP)."

even in the absence of a proven-beyond-all-reasonable-doubt link between industrial-era CO2 levels and global warming. But it seems such a nuanced stance does not fit into your dualist worldview, where "if you're not on the side of good, you're on the side of evil".

... and you're sooooo convinced of that that you don't even bother to check the wording of what I actually write, but instead project this dualist worldview you're so convinced of upon my words, obscuring what I actually write.

Please, Ernst, I beg of you:

Have some people you trust read what I actually post here, then compare their interpretation of what I wrote to your interpretation after you read the same post.

I also find it interesting that you appear to have no problems with the above-discussed Gerta Keller "doing good science investigating a possible alternative to or modification of the Alvarez hypothesis" of the cause of the K-T mass extinction (for which the evidence is IMO much-more clear-cut than for human-caused global warming), but appear to apply a rather different standard to the numerous scientists "doing good science investigating possible alternatives to the anthropogenic global warning hypothesis".

Yeah, I was waiting for you to post that.

No, I don't apply a different standard.

The problem is not that real scientists investigating alternatives to the anthropogenic global warning hypothesis aren't doing good science.

The problem is that so many AGW-deniers are claiming a good-scientific basis that they just don't have.

Show me a real scientist doing good science investigating alternatives to the anthropogenic global warning hypothesis, and I'll readily acknowledge that particular instance. I have seen a few reports of such, but they don't add up to a refutation yet. Furthermore, the trend is going against them. I've seen multiple cases of a good-science investigation of an apparent discrepancy in AGW-supporting data almost always concluding that after corrections are made, the data becomes even more strongly supportive of the AGW hypothesis. I posted at least one example earlier in this thread.

But there are many AGW deniers illustrating "a little scientific knowledge is a dangerous thing" who are inappropriately swaying public opinion. That's what I'm criticizing, not the (sparse, and diminishing) good science on that side.

Example:

I just finished posting in another forum about a web page (http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html) that seems at first glance to be a good anti-AGW argument. (Indeed, an AGW denier linked to it in response to my question about whether he would acknowledge CO₂'s IR absorption effect.)

But that page's argument (that AGW greenhouse-effect science ignores an important factor: water vapor) turns out only to be an illustration of its own scientific ignorance. See http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...ck-or-forcing/

[cheesehead]

Originally Posted by nucleon

I think it's now a waste of time convincing deniers, that global warming is real.

But they vote.

So ignoring them is the biggest danger in responding to AGW.

With the weight of evidence against them, how many more mountains of evidence would you need to convince them?

One could ask the same about creationists.

The answer (well, one answer) is to try a different avenue of approach, such as learning about the psychological factors involved and then proceeding to work on those.

What concerns me if the hard core greenies stalling project to fix the problem. Time would be better spent convincing them to get out of the way.

A bulldozing approach, though simplest, is not always best or most effective.

[nucleon]

Originally Posted by cheesehead

But they vote.

Do they? Voting isn't compulsory in all electrotes. I know here is Oz it's compulsory, but my understanding in the US it's not compulsory.

I'm more inclined to believe that someone who doesn't give a hoot about sustainable civilisation is more than likely to not give a hoot who runs their country.

Originally Posted by cheesehead

So ignoring them is the biggest danger in responding to AGW.

Have you hugged your cilimate denier today?

Cap'n'trade/carbon taxes are coming. A price is being put onto carbon. And the smart money stands to make buckets of it. Go vested interests!

If you still drive a hummer, have incandescent light bulbs, have the air con on so high that inside the fridge is warmer than the rest of the house; sorry but you're going to be paying more taxes than me.

Originally Posted by cheesehead

One could ask the same about creationists.

I love you man. :) Strictly plutonic of course.

Originally Posted by cheesehead

The answer (well, one answer) is to try a different avenue of approach, such as learning about the psychological factors involved and then proceeding to work on those.

Taxing the heck on the undesirables. Go for the pocket. It worked for cigerettes. Not quite so much on alcohol though...

Dear Mr Joe Citizen - time to get smarter. It's going to cost you, if you don't.

Originally Posted by cheesehead

A bulldozing approach, though simplest, is not always best or most effective.

Not sure what you mean here...

-- Craig

[cheesehead]

Originally Posted by nucleon

I'm more inclined to believe that someone who doesn't give a hoot about sustainable civilisation is more than likely to not give a hoot who runs their country.

Historically, higher percentages of US Republicans than of US Democrats vote.

Characterizing either side as "not giving a hoot" about something-or-other will only lead you astray. Both sides give plenty of hoots about certain hot-button issues -- just not the same buttons on both sides.

One side's "sustainable civilization" is the other's "socialistic nightmare".

I recommend George Lakoff's description of the differences between conservatives and liberals and why they have so much trouble understanding each other (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_...nd_involvement).

[ewmayer]

Deal-Breaker for Climate-Change Treaty May Be U.S.

Oct. 27 (Bloomberg) -- When Barack Obama was elected president, he was heralded as a possible savior for climate- treaty talks that had dragged on for years while George W. Bush rejected limits on U.S. greenhouse-gas emissions.

“America is back” at the United Nations negotiating table, Democratic Senator John Kerry declared after the November election. Danish climate minister Connie Hedegaard said U.S. emissions policy moved forward 35 years overnight.

Instead, Obama may send empty-handed envoys in December to the table in Copenhagen where 192 countries will try to assign emissions reductions because Congress has given him no mandate. With the 27-nation European Union, Japan and Australia ready to pledge cuts of more than 20 percent only if other nations follow suit, the stage is set for promises to collapse.

“How can we expect other major players to move their position until they know that in the end the U.S. is also going to deliver?” Hedegaard, chairwoman of the UN talks running from Dec. 7-18, said in an interview.

The possible domino effect, along with a continuing split between the U.S. and China, erode chances for a strong treaty, negotiators and political scientists say.

“It is unlikely that an agreement which would be meaningful is going to be finalized” in the Danish capital, Robert Stavins, director of the Harvard Environmental Economics Program in Cambridge, Massachusetts, said in an interview.

When Obama picks up his Nobel Peace Prize in Oslo in December, he’ll be an hour’s flight from where more than 10,000 envoys, UN officials and lobbyists will be meeting to conclude an agreement on slowing climate change, a challenge the president has said the U.S. will “lead the world” in tackling.

Obama hasn’t decided whether to make an appearance, administration officials said.

He had plenty of time to jet around the world to lobby for Chicago's olympic bid ... maybe he needs a second pre-emptive peace prize as an inducement to back up his words on climate change with actions?

[__HRB__]

Originally Posted by ewmayer

Deal-Breaker for Climate-Change Treaty May Be U.S.

He had plenty of time to jet around the world to lobby for Chicago's olympic bid ... maybe he needs a second pre-emptive peace prize as an inducement to back up his words on climate change with actions?

The least our president could do, is promise to not smoke or exercise for roughly the next 50.000 years, to make up for the carbon footprint of his jetting around in Air Force One.

I'm shocked to have realized that there is no precedence for a Phalanx of Air Force One, Air Force Two (Biden), Air Force Three (Pelosi), Air Force Four (for Byrd), etc. all the way up to Air Force Four-Thousand-One-Hundred-Ninety-Three-and-Twenty-Five-Cents (Roslin), (consult United_States_presidential_line_of_succession, for missing details) to fly to the Bahamas for some serious negotiation about the minimum curvature and yellowness a fruit must have to qualify as an organic banana, so that the consumer can finally tell them apart from the industrially manufactured inorganic bananas made of silicone with cores of depleted uranium (if sold by weight) or hydrogen sulfide (if sold by volume).

[ewmayer]

WSJ | Sins of Emission: The ethanol boondoggle is also an environmental catastrophe.

Donning FDR's cape, Eisenhower`s stripes and JFK`s boat shoes, President Obama observed in Florida on Tuesday that his "clean energy economy" will require "mobilization" on the order of fighting World War II, building the interstate highway system and going to the moon. Of course, the only "mobilization" going on at the moment is on behalf of ethanol, whose many political dispensations the biofuels lobby is finding new ways to preserve even as the evidence of its destructiveness piles up. Bernie Madoff had a few critical accounting errors too.

Though you won't hear it from the biofuels lobby, ethanol actually generates the same amount of greenhouse gas as fossil fuels, or more, per unit of energy. But this was still supposed to be better than coal or oil because ethanol's CO2 is "recycled." Since plants absorb and store carbon that is already in the atmosphere, burning them as fuel would create no new emissions, whereas fossil fuels release CO2 that has been buried for millions of years.

With everything supposedly balancing out, the cap-and-trade programs run by the United Nations and European Union—and maybe soon the U.S.—treat biofuels as carbon-neutral. The Science study argues that this is a false economy, because it doesn't consider changes in land use. If mature forests are cleared to make room for biofuel-growing farms, then the carbon that would otherwise accumulate in those forests ought to be counted on ethanol's balance sheet as well.

Cap-and-trade programs exacerbate the problem because developed countries (where emissions are putatively capped) get credit for reductions from ethanol—despite the fact that their biofuels are generally grown in developing countries (where emissions aren't capped). So if Malaysians burn down a rain forest to grow palm oil that ends up in German biodiesel, Malaysia doesn't count the land-use emissions and Germany doesn't count the tail-pipe emissions.

Given these incentives, the authors cite a study showing that by 2050, "based solely on economic considerations, bioenergy could displace 59% of the world's natural forest cover. . . . The reason: When bioenergy from any biomass is counted as carbon neutral, economics favor large-scale land conversion for bioenergy regardless of the actual net emissions." In other words, not only is cap and trade self-defeating on its own terms but it also risks creating a genuine ecological disaster.

My Comment: One more reason why the first and foremost goal should always be to reduce consumption. I suggest that as the second and third options, as well: First one should strive to reduce per-capita consumption; second one should strive to limit population increases worldwide, third, one should strive to make each unit of consumption serve more people (e.g. an apartment block is cheaper to heat than separate houses).

[__HRB__]

Originally Posted by ewmayer

WSJ | Sins of Emission: The ethanol boondoggle is also an environmental catastrophe.

My Comment: One more reason why the first and foremost goal should always be to reduce consumption. I suggest that as the second and third options, as well: First one should strive to reduce per-capita consumption; second one should strive to limit population increases worldwide, third, one should strive to make each unit of consumption serve more people (e.g. an apartment block is cheaper to heat than separate houses).

The road to hell is paved with good intentions. One lesson that has not been learned from the failure of the ethanol plan is that regulations do not work according to the wishes of the designer.

Specifically, all your proposed 'goals' have conflicting consequences. It follows from basic population ecology that resources will not wasted in the long term, therefore reduced per-capita consumption will be compensated with higher population growth, and limiting population growth leads to more consumption per capita. Apart from lowering the cost of human shelter, which will also result in population increase, the third goal makes implicit assumptions about the magnitudes of partial derivatives in the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slutsky_equation, i.e. that a price decline in heating/volume will not be overcompensated by people living in larger spaces.

Last but not least, any regulation to achieve the 'goals' would require totalitarian control which is not only unsustainable in the long term, but also sets artificial limits on human ingenuity, which will find solutions vastly superior to anything that can be even imagined today.