[dwar0123]

Daniel1960, on 2012-September-21, 09:24, said:

dwar0123,
You are being illogical, and confusing a known event with a postulated one. Based on the fire alarm occurring, the fire has a high probability of reaching your apartment (unless you have a history of false alarms, leading you to believe otherwise). Also, the fire would likely reach your apartment in a relatively short period of time. Since the probability of global warming occurring is much lower and the time frame much longer, a different course of action can be undertaken. Since any course of action will require significant investment, we must be sure that the investment is worthwhile and does not cause undo hardship. Any course that results in decreased future revenue will result in less funds being available for further action. Some people are advocating shutting down coal plants (and natural gas), and demanding a huge reduction in gasoline-powered vehicles. The costs associated with these proposal are staggering, and would likely decrease the available funds significantly. The costs of wind, solar, and other renewables would drive up the price of most consumer products, and electric vehicles are much more costly. Who is the one sticking their head in the sand here?

A fire alarm is a known event, a fire existing is a postulated one. How is this any different then tens of thousands of temperatures readings and other measurements being a known event and climate change being a postulated event?

[billw55]

Of course warming is happening. This is a trivial measured fact.

However, that does not automatically mean that massive and economically damaging investment in prevention is the only correct response. This is a fallacy spread by those who believe in such responses, and by those who want to use the responses as a ruse to gather revenue for government. They have been quite successful in doing so, to the point that many of those opposed to such responses have adopted the absurd position of denying that anything is even happening. They have been fooled into thinking this is the only possible way to oppose the responses.

I for one, do believe that warming is happening, and do not believe that such responses are necessary or appropriate. There are far too many unknowns to invest so much. We don't know how much warming there will be, or what the consequences will be, or what the magnitude of those consequences will be. Furthermore, we don't know if the measures proposed will work, or how much effect they will have if any, particularly while major CO2 emitting nations (China, India) do not participate, which they have shown no sign of doing.

No business would invest so much to attack a problem of unknown size and consequence, with solutions that may not work anyway, even if our guesses about the problems are correct. Those that do go out of business. True, governments are not businesses but the principle is the same: resources wasted on responses of dubious need and effect are not available for responses of genuine need and effect. We should not be guessing with billions (trillions?) of dollars. We should conserve those resources to respond to real problems that really happen, meaning adaptation. Human beings and civilizations have shown tremendous ability to adapt, particularly with modern technology. I am sure we can continue to do so.

I am reminded of the year 2000 computer bug panic. In western nations, hundreds of millions of dollars were spent on "fixes" by crafty consultants, to "prevent" major problems. The panic culture would have us think that power grids would fail, banking networks would collapse, perhaps the sky would fall too. A friend of mine who studied computer science at Cal Tech told me, they are wasting their money on snake oil. They should wait to see what actually happens, then spend a fraction of that fixing it. He went on to say that there were some entities taking exactly this approach. 2000 came and went, and practically nothing happened anywhere. Of course, the "consultants" praised themselves and said they prevented disaster. But those that hired no consultants also did just fine, at pennies on the dollar.

The disaster warmists are selling us snake oil. I'm not buying.

[PassedOut]

Antarctic Sea Ice And The Art Of Climate Distraction

Quote

In order to distract from the announcement this week that Arctic sea ice is at a record low, right-wing media are pointing to Antarctic sea ice as proof that climate change isn't occurring. But Antarctic sea ice gains have been slight, whereas Arctic ice decline -- a key indicator of climate change -- has been extreme. Furthermore, scientists have long expected the Arctic to experience the first impacts of climate change, and still project that in the long run, sea ice in both regions will decline as greenhouse gas concentrations increase.

And (I suppose most posters here know this, but anyway) the tiny Antarctic ice increases are of sea ice, while the Antarctic land ice is shrinking.

This post has been edited by PassedOut: 2012-September-21, 17:52

[dwar0123]

PassedOut, on 2012-September-21, 14:29, said:

And (I suppose most posters here know this, but anyway) the tiny Antarctic ice increases are of land ice, while the Antarctic sea ice is shrinking.

You sure you don't have that backwards? I read something a few days ago that stated Antarctic sea ice was increasing due to changing ocean salinity(due to the more rapid melting of the land ice) and increased precipitation. And that the land ice was decreasing. Also, as the sea ice always melts in the Antarctic during their summer, its impact on global warming due to albedo was non existent. The ice melts when the sun shines and thus doesn't reflect energy.

[PassedOut]

dwar0123, on 2012-September-21, 14:52, said:

You sure you don't have that backwards? I read something a few days ago that stated Antarctic sea ice was increasing due to changing ocean salinity(due to the more rapid melting of the land ice) and increased precipitation. And that the land ice was decreasing. Also, as the sea ice always melts in the Antarctic during their summer, its impact on global warming due to albedo was non existent. The ice melts when the sun shines and thus doesn't reflect energy.

Yes, I wrote that backwards. Thanks!

[Al_U_Card]

1950s less, 1980s more, 2010s less .... I doubt that I will still be around in the 2040s to see the Arctic sea-ice back to the amounts that it had in the 1980s but I will look down and smile...

Meanwhile, this sea-ice reference is still the best compendium for perusal.

http://wp.me/P7y4l-5Kc

[mike777]

So at this point we dont have the science to say it is very urgent...yet....
we agree that more measurement is warranted.

[dwar0123]

mike777, on 2012-September-21, 22:42, said:

So at this point we dont have the science to say it is very urgent...yet....
we agree that more measurement is warranted.

The urgency is indifferent to our knowledge of it.

[mike777]

dwar0123, on 2012-September-21, 23:38, said:

The urgency is indifferent to our knowledge of it.

Could not disagree more strongly.

With that said I want to measure it.


Urgency does indeed affect the pace of knowledge/innovation.etc in this case and in the vast majority of cases...see Aids...see a zillion other examples.


The pace of science is not indifferent to our knowledge/politics/urgency and many other factors.

The choice is never never between zero and one billion.

---



Given very urgent then you make a decision do 200 million die if choice one or one billion die if choice two...that is urgent.

[dwar0123]

mike777, on 2012-September-22, 00:03, said:

Could not disagree more strongly.

The timing of the changes that would be neccesary to prevent the worst of the consequences of global warming is indifferent to our understanding of their neccesity.

If we have to reduce carbon emissions to a certain level by a certain date, that level and date don't change by us learning what it is. That level could be half the current rate within two years making the urgency hopelessly acute. Our ignorance and uncertainty doesn't change that.

Of course if al_u_card is right, there is no urgency. The point I am trying to make is that the urgency either exists or doesn't. The consequences are not going to be delayed by our ignorance.

Of course my example over looks the reality that the level and timing would in reality by a large range of different options with varing consequences. But by the time we learn the levels and ranges, all the reasonably good consequences could have requred action twenty years in the past. That is the insidious nature of this problem that humans are not naturally equipped to deal with.

[mike777]

with that said I want to measure it.

1) I want to agree on a standard of measurement(not me but you smart guys/gals)
2) I want to measure.
3) I understand this all might take time and debate....so be it.

I hope...me...I hope we have alot of time.....for innovation....

--


I dont know the answer
--



I strongly disagree....that urgency cant spur innovation yet you keep saying no it does not.

I quoted aids as just one example ..if you look there are many more.

You keep quoting only a tiny part of my posts.

[Al_U_Card]

There is certainly an urgent need to beware of people telling us to do something urgently without having provided the explanation or factual information concerning why we must act so urgently.

The science journal Nature warns against using weather extremes to connect to GW in their editorial. NOAA et al continue to deny any link between rising temperatures globally (the extent of which is well within human-historical variation)and those "extreme" meteorological events that occur on a seasonal basis. Atmospheric scientist John Christy's latest testimony before Congress goes so far as to caution against using weather events and records as a guide to climate change.Under oath.


Well-reasoned analysis of data, as always, saves the day. So, unlike Canute, we will watch the seas advance at 3 mm (or less) a year and confidently act accordingly regarding sea-side construction and infrastructure protection. What else are we saving ourselves from? Whither the bogey-man?

[blackshoe]

Two kinds of urgency. One, the rational, reasoned, we have to do X, which will take Y amount of time, and we only have Z amount of time left in which to do X. If Z is significantly greater than Y, then there is none of this kind of urgency. If Z is only a little greater (and maybe if it's a little less), this urgency exists. If Y is significantly greater than Z, then it's too late to do X, and we either give up, or find some other solution. Finding that may or may not be urgent in this sense, depending on the same kind of time constraint comparison. The other kind of urgency is the emotional 'OMG, we have to DO something, and we have to do it NOW!' This is independent of, and often occurs without, the first kind of urgency. It is the kind of urgency favored by demagogues, politicians, and people with personal agendas.

What we're seeing is the second kind of urgency. We don't have enough knowledge currently for the first.

[luke warm]

it's kinda like (to me) knowing that one day there will be an ELE, probably an asteroid... how urgent is it that we find a defense against it? nobody knows, though by some estimates we're long overdue... i personally think mankind is far more likely to go because of that event, or nuclear holocaust, then AGW

[Al_U_Card]

The comet/asteroid impact scenario is daunting and definitely catastrophic as well as hard to get the info in time to do anything about it.

The most recent list of PHAs

a close encounter of the worst kind

Near Earth Asteroids

Potentially Hazardous Asteroids (PHAs) are space rocks larger than approximately 100m that can come closer to Earth than 0.05 AU. None of the known PHAs is on a collision course with our planet, although astronomers are finding new ones all the time.


At the same site, you also get current solar weather and those CMEs could also be a catastrophic issue. (Carrington event, anyone?)

As far as the global effect of a few degrees C, plus or minus, and the glacial versus interglacial periods of our recent geological past, I know which one has been shown to be the most beneficial for humankind.

[Daniel1960]

Reading the previous posts, it is clear that the nature of the urgency is the biggest question. Therefore, I second Mike's statements that we need to continue to measure the effects of increasing CO2, in order to ascertain a climatic change, and an appropriate response. To spend large sums of money to do something that may reduce potential changes seems foolhardy, especially if we so not know whether the changes will be beneficial or harmful. The refernce to the Y2K bug is an excellent example of spending large sums on a perceived problem. We are still early in the game, with conflicting projections, and need to gather more information to determine out current path and the appropriate course of action. I am also leary of those who prject effects which are a factor of ten greater than what we have witnessed to date.

[PassedOut]

Instead of reacting with mindless fears about the effects of a carbon tax, let's look at how it works in actual practice: BRITISH COLUMBIA’S CARBON TAX SHIFT: THE FIRST FOUR YEARS

Quote

The carbon tax has contributed substantial environmental benefits to British Columbia (BC). Since the tax took effect in 2008, British Columbians’ use of petroleum fuels (subject to the tax) has dropped by 15.1% -- and by 16.4% compared to the rest of Canada. BC’s greenhouse gas emissions have shown a similarly substantial decline (although that analysis is based on one year’s less data).

BC’s GDP growth has outpaced the rest of Canada’s (by a small amount) since the carbon tax came into effect – suggesting that it has not adversely affected the province’s economy, as some had predicted. This finding fits with evidence from seven other countries that have had similar carbon tax shifts in place for over a decade, resulting in neutral or lightly positive effects on GDP.

By including some of the costs of the consequences of carbon fuels into the purchase price of the product, you allow market forces to work effectively. That is, of course, why responsible conservatives proposed the carbon tax in the first place.

[billw55]

That's good news. I am generally in favor of response actions that do not have significant economic disadvantages.

We need to think of an overall energy policy that will guide how we target resources and build new production capacity over the next several decades. I think all personal use vehicles can and should (eventually) be electric. We will still need some petroleum fuels for things like emergency vehicles, boats, and planes, at least until much further in the future. But ordinary cars ought to have been all electric long before now; I do believe that development of this technology has been suppressed. Electric motors were driving submarines weighing hundreds of tons, underwater, as far back as world war 1. By now we ought to be able to efficiently push a car down the road. Let's get with the program.

Of course, this will increase the demand for electric generation, for which I support nuclear plants. No they are not perfect, and yes there are risks. But I believe we can design and operate them more safely. They don't make much CO2, and the fuel sources are less politically volatile.

[PassedOut]

billw55, on 2012-September-24, 12:51, said:

Of course, this will increase the demand for electric generation, for which I support nuclear plants. No they are not perfect, and yes there are risks. But I believe we can design and operate them more safely. They don't make much CO2, and the fuel sources are less politically volatile.

Yes, I agree that nuclear power generation should increase, and that the immediate focus should be on solving the associated technical issues.

[mike777]

There is no resource-management strategy that can prevent disasters just as there is no scientific method that provides only true theories.

But there are ideas that reliably cause disasters and one of them is, notoriously, the idea that the future can be scientifically planned.

Trying to predict what our net effect on the environment will be for the next century and then subordinating all policy decisions to optimizing that prediction cannot work.