Global Warming Question

[Oberon]

Yes because the UN is the friggin paragon of passing policies that work well.

So its better to have policies that aren't expected to work but are expected to cost a lot. Great plan.

I think I'll just spell it out for you.

Don't need that, but thanks anyway. Sure, the models vary. And no, it isn't any more certain what the exact cost will be than what the exact effects or warming will be as a result of human activity (or without, for that matter). The point is, I have yet to come across any convincing model that it won't be extremely expensive. And, importantly, there is no model of the effects which makes it anything other than worthless.

 

[ManTimeForgot]

Yossarian:

Better start spelling out for us how spending trillions world-wide based on propaganda and pseudo-science makes sense under any definition of the word "sense." Until you can actually show me a credible source for believing that global warming even exists (as in one that bases this on actual measures of the global temp and uses models which aren't altered to try and make the results as "scary as possible").


If you actually want rational individuals to consider cutting down on greenhouse emissions you should try being straight with us rather than using pseudo-scientific buzzword filled duplicitous politicized propaganda. Asking people to cut down on greenhouse emissions because it is good for our air (which we breathe), because it will lead to greater energy efficiency in the future (less wasteful engines, organic and semi-organic systems which require less energy to perform intended functions, and more purely electrical systems), and because it will promote scientific inquiry (which is generally useful) is a lot more palatable.

MTF

 

[themadhair]

Until you can actually show me a credible source for believing that global warming even exists (as in one that bases this on actual measures of the global temp and uses models which aren't altered to try and make the results as "scary as possible").

I can’t believe someone is even arguing this after some of the material that has been presented in this thread. Did you miss this graph for example?:

If you actually want rational individuals to consider cutting down on greenhouse emissions you should try being straight with us rather than using pseudo-scientific buzzword filled duplicitous politicized propaganda.

I reject your claim of being rational when it is clear from your comments that you haven’t researched the science of this issue, and are seemingly relying on rhetoric like the above to avoid having to deal with that science.

And, importantly, there is no model of the effects which makes it anything other than worthless.

A man was going to build a house. While digging the foundations for that house he met Oberon who managed to talk him out of building the house. Oberon convinced the man that the foundations will be ridiculously expensive without actually doing anything meaningful.

 

[Oberon]

A man was going to build a house. While digging the foundations for that house he met Oberon who managed to talk him out of building the house. Oberon convinced the man that the foundations will be ridiculously expensive without actually doing anything meaningful.

And thank goodness. Because the foundations were in the sand on a beach, and the tide was coming in.

 

[Zephyr]

We should start using asbestos again. Sure, it may be a carcinogen, but it can stop fires!

 

[yossarian22]

So its better to have policies that aren't expected to work but are expected to cost a lot. Great plan.

Again, the cost of this measure can only have a meaningful measurement in terms of % of GDP gain lost. You are stating the cost of Kyoto in the most misleading way possible. At worst, we lost a trillion in future growth of GDP. We are not cashing out a check now, we are sacrificing future growth.

Your figure is also wrong because the rate of economic growth has dropped anyways in this past year.This was not built into the economic model used to predict cost (which is a projected cost into 2012) so its essentially worthless now (for what should be obvious reasons)

Don't need that, but thanks anyway. Sure, the models vary. And no, it isn't any more certain what the exact cost will be than what the exact effects or warming will be as a result of human activity (or without, for that matter).
The point is, I have yet to come across any convincing model that it won't be extremely expensive. And, importantly, there is no model of the effects which makes it anything other than worthless.

"Vary" is putting it mildly. They vary much more than current models, because there is at least one discount rate that leads to Kyoto leading to a net gain in GDP. There are probably more but whatever.

outdated rightwing talking points
MTF

At least have the decency to keep your "skepticism" up to date.
e

And thank goodness. Because the foundations were in the sand on a beach, and the tide was coming in.

Help Help!
Money we could potentially have under certain models is being potentially wasted according to other models! Quick! Stop all attempts to solve the problem with a worthless position!

 

[Oberon]

Help Help!
Money we could potentially have under certain models is being potentially wasted according to other models! Quick! Stop all attempts to solve the problem with a worthless position!

Talk about misleading. The point remains that I have no objection to treaties being signed and countries coming together pledging money to R & D (which would be great). What I object to about Kyoto is spending money to do nothing (and yes, contra both you and themadhair it is entirely possible for countries to begin working on the problem of anthropogenic climate change without starting measures they don't expect to do anything). Even if the cost isn't "trillions" (as I believe it will be, and as I see some models predict) I don't see how this the process laid out in kyoto will not end up costing a great deal of money that could have been funnelled into something useful.

 

[ManTimeForgot]

I can’t believe someone is even arguing this after some of the material that has been presented in this thread. Did you miss this graph for example?:

I reject your claim of being rational when it is clear from your comments that you haven’t researched the science of this issue, and are seemingly relying on rhetoric like the above to avoid having to deal with that science.


A man was going to build a house. While digging the foundations for that house he met Oberon who managed to talk him out of building the house. Oberon convinced the man that the foundations will be ridiculously expensive without actually doing anything meaningful.

Perhaps you should bother to actually check the real data and the ones that look at the past 10 years not just "predictions" up to 2000.

Both the GISS and RSS show a DISTINCT drop in global mean temperature after the later 1990's/year 2000. Point being Hansen and his political allies have introduced cronyism into science and I refuse to buy into the BS.

Until you can actually show me real data, not predictions:

"Both methods have been tested and validated with long-term
forced coupled model simulations (20, 32). For both methods, we
perform reconstructions both with and without dendroclimatic
proxies to address any potential sensitivity of our conclusions to
issues that have been raised with regard to the reliability of tree-ring
data on multicentury time scales (4, 11, 16, 19, 33, 34). For the CPS
approach, we employ only those proxies estimated to reflect local
temperature variations"

Excerpt from: The actual document which your graph is sourced from.


Climate change is inevitable. Global warming is not. The ice caps aren't melting. The ocean levels are not rising to the extent predicted. Regional fluctuations in temperature mean are not increasing in direct accordance with Hansen's (or its derivatives) model. So where is the actual evidence?

MTF

 

[Devotee]

I just put an ice pack on my feet at night and dont worry about it.

It really works your whole body cools down...

Love

Dallas

And earth has two of those "ice bags" at each of its poles. they are melting too. But the earth cant just walk and go get two more, it will take millions of years. so i dont know which side to believe in, all i know is that the polar ice caps are melting. it could be humans, or natural, i dont know.

 

[Valjean]

It's not just the ice caps that are melting, Devotee. Ice capped mountains and glaciers all over the world are feeliung the heat. Consider the source of India's great rivers, for example -- the Himalayan snow pack and glaciers. These are currently melting/retreating rapidly.
How will India feed it's millions when the Indus, Ganges &al are dry gullys?

 

[yossarian22]

Talk about misleading. The point remains that I have no objection to treaties being signed and countries coming together pledging money to R & D (which would be great). What I object to about Kyoto is spending money to do nothing (and yes, contra both you and themadhair it is entirely possible for countries to begin working on the problem of anthropogenic climate change without starting measures they don't expect to do anything). Even if the cost isn't "trillions" (as I believe it will be, and as I see some models predict) I don't see how this the process laid out in kyoto will not end up costing a great deal of money that could have been funnelled into something useful.

Oh but something that will transition into something that has a meaningful effect on future warming is terrible if it does not provide value on whatever way you deign to measure it? Cost benefit analysis of Kyoto is useless because there is no real way to predict the cost of Kyoto and you can place whatever value you want on its effects.

And now we have useless handwaving over an entirely inane argument that detracts from the real one.

Climate change is inevitable. Global warming is not. The ice caps aren't melting. The ocean levels are not rising to the extent predicted. Regional fluctuations in temperature mean are not increasing in direct accordance with Hansen's (or its derivatives) model. So where is the actual evidence?

MTF

No guys, look at the REAL temperature record. The clearly labeled red and gray lines aren't actual data.

No really.

really.

like really really.

*cracks knuckles* well laid that theory to rest

 

[Oberon]

Oh but something that will transition into something that has a meaningful effect on future warming is terrible if it does not provide value on whatever way you deign to measure it? Cost benefit analysis of Kyoto is useless because there is no real way to predict the cost of Kyoto and you can place whatever value you want on its effects.

I already quoted the panel of scientist who came to the conclusion that current technology will not enable us to lower our carbon emissions adequately. A totally different approach than Kyoto is needed.

As kyoto stands, it is projected to be expensive, and not projected to do anything to lower the warming. Nor will it really build the "foundation" you continue to spout that it will.

No effect= no point. Not really all that complicated.

 

[themadhair]

Perhaps you should bother to actually check the real data and the ones that look at the past 10 years not just "predictions" up to 2000.

Both the GISS and RSS show a DISTINCT drop in global mean temperature after the later 1990's/year 2000. Point being Hansen and his political allies have introduced cronyism into science and I refuse to buy into the BS.

So let me get this straight. I link you to what is the best current reconstruction of temperature based on the available hard data going back 2,000 years, and in complete agreement with the NAS findings on the matter, that show the current temperature rise to be more than a simply anomaly.....and you link me to a rant about predictions???? How the hell does that work????

I already quoted the panel of scientist who came to the conclusion that current technology will not enable us to lower our carbon emissions adequately. A totally different approach than Kyoto is needed.

As kyoto stands, it is projected to be expensive, and not projected to do anything to lower the warming. Nor will it really build the "foundation" you continue to spout that it will.

No effect= no point. Not really all that complicated.

“There is high agreement and much evidence that notable achievements of the UNFCCC and its Kyoto Protocol are the establishment of a global response to the climate change problem, stimulation of an array of national policies, the creation of an international carbon market and the establishment of new institutional mechanisms that may provide the foundation for future mitigation efforts ”

 

[yossarian22]

I already quoted the panel of scientist who came to the conclusion that current technology will not enable us to lower our carbon emissions adequately. A totally different approach than Kyoto is needed.

lol

no really guys, ignore how cap and trade worked before. It will fail this time! really. I got this panel of scientists who say it wont be enough so we should flail wildly about.

 

[Oberon]

lol

no really guys, ignore how cap and trade worked before. It will fail this time! really. I got this panel of scientists who say it wont be enough so we should flail wildly about.

Hoffert et all (a total of 18 experts) "Advanced Technology Paths to Global Climate Stability: Energy for a Greenhouse Planet" Science 298 (2002):981-87

According to them we need new and better technology

What we don't need is wasting time with reductions that won't work and will be expensive. Instead of repeating your mindless mantra "it's a start! it's a start!" you may want to consider the possiblity that there may be treaties signed which might start stuff which works. I know, hard to grasp, but think about it: a plan that may be just as expensive, but that has results!!!!

GASP!!! NO!!! not that! First we all have to get together and sign a proposal no one expects will have an effect in order to throw money at it.

 

[Valjean]

Alas. People seem only motivated by crisis, but this time, when the cascade of disaster gains momentum enough to cause public alarm, it may be too late for any effective response.

Nature will step in where we have failed and correct the problem by killing most of us off and sending the few remaining back into the caves.

 

[Oberon]

Nature will step in where we have failed and correct the problem by killing most of us off and sending the few remaining back into the caves.

Yes, from Jesus onward, there have been plenty predicting this. Yet somehow all malthusian theories fail to account for human ability to creat techonological revolutions to adapt.

 

[Valjean]

How did we adapt, technologically, to the Black Death, Oberon? Not very well, I'd say. A third of the European population died off.

But, as would be expected from population reduction, the general standard of living skyrocketed, stifling, petrefied social institutions crumbled -- and we had a renaissance.

 

[Oberon]

How did we adapt, technologically, to the Black Death, Oberon? Not very well, I'd say. A third of the European population died off.

Yes. And then we cured it. And we have progressed by leaps and bounds since then.

 

[Valjean]

Yes --to the point of being on the verge of extincting (?) ourselves -- and taking much of Nature with us in a 6th mass extinction event.