PDA

View Full Version : Climate change and debt as dangerous as nukes



DarrinS
10-07-2009, 11:59 AM
Well, according to Thomas Friedman.

By the way, if you're going to be some climate change catastrophist, it helps if you don't have a ginormous carbon footprint.

Thomas Friedman's house
http://papundits.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/1044fd39d6904b807190305cac30b608_thumb.jpg


Our Three Bombs (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/07/opinion/07friedman.html?_r=1&hp)





I am a 56-year-old baby boomer, and looking around today it’s very clear that my generation had it easy: We grew up in the shadow of just one bomb — the nuclear bomb. That is, in our day, it seemed as if there was just one big threat that could trigger a nonlinear, 180-degree change in the trajectory of our lives: the Soviets hitting us with a nuke. My girls are not so lucky.

Today’s youth are growing up in the shadow of three bombs — any one of which could go off at any time and set in motion a truly nonlinear, radical change in the trajectory of their lives.

The first, of course, is still the nuclear threat, which, for my generation, basically came from just one seemingly rational enemy, the Soviet Union, with which we shared a doctrine of mutual assured destruction. Today, the nuclear threat can be delivered by all kinds of states or terrorists, including suicidal jihadists for whom mutual assured destruction is a delight, not a deterrent.

But there are now two other bombs our children have hanging over them: the debt bomb and the climate bomb.

As we continue to build up carbon in the atmosphere to unprecedented levels, we never know when the next emitted carbon molecule will tip over some ecosystem and trigger a nonlinear climate event — like melting the Siberian tundra and releasing all of its methane, or drying up the Amazon or melting all the sea ice in the North Pole in summer. :lmao
And when one ecosystem collapses, it can trigger unpredictable changes in others that could alter our whole world.

The same is true with America’s debt bomb. To recover from the Great Recession, we’ve had to go even deeper into debt. One need only look at today’s record-setting price of gold, in a period of deflation, to know that a lot of people are worried that our next dollar of debt — unbalanced by spending cuts or new tax revenues — will trigger a nonlinear move out of the dollar and torpedo the U.S. currency.

If people lose confidence in the dollar, we could enter a feedback loop, as with the climate, whereby the sinking dollar forces up interest rates, which raises the long-term cost of servicing our already massive debt, which adds to the deficit projections, which further undermines the dollar. If the world is unwilling to finance our deficits, except at much higher rates of interest, it would surely diminish our government’s ability to make public investments and just as surely diminish our children’s standard of living.

Unfortunately, too many conservatives, who would never risk emitting so much debt that it would tank the dollar, will blithely tell you on carbon: “Emit all you want. Don’t worry. It’s all a hoax.” And too many liberals, who would never risk emitting too much carbon, will tell you on emitting more debt: “Spend away. We’ve got plenty of room to stimulate without risking the dollar.”

Because of this divide, our government has not been able to put in place the long-term policies needed to guard against detonating our mounting debt bomb and climate bomb. As such, we’re in effect putting our kids’ future in the hands of the two most merciless forces on the planet: the Market and Mother Nature.

As the environmentalist Rob Watson likes to say, “Mother Nature is just chemistry, biology and physics.” That’s all she is. You can’t spin her; you can’t sweet-talk her. You can’t say, “Hey, Mother Nature, we’re having a bad recession, could you take a year off?” No, she’s going to do whatever chemistry, biology and physics dictate, based on the amount of carbon we put in the atmosphere, and as Watson likes to add: “Mother Nature always bats last, and she always bats a thousand.”

Ditto the market. The market is just a second-by-second snapshot of the balance between greed and fear. You can’t spin it or sweet-talk it. And you never know when that balance between greed and fear on the dollar is going to tip over into fear in a nonlinear way.

That is why I was heartened to see the liberal Center for American Progress stating last week that, while the stimulus is vital to rescuing our economy, the size of projected budget deficits demand that we also start thinking about broad-based tax increases and reductions in some spending and entitlement programs supported by liberals. I am equally heartened when I see Republicans like Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger urging his party to start taking climate change seriously.

But we also need to act. If we don’t, we will be leaving our children to the tender mercies of the Market and Mother Nature alone to shape their futures.

This moment reminds me of an image John Holdren, the president’s science adviser, uses when discussing the threat of climate change, but it also applies to the dollar: “We’re driving in a car with bad brakes in a fog and heading for a cliff. We know for sure that cliff is out there. We just don’t know exactly where it is. Prudence would suggest that we should start putting on the brakes.”

nuclearfm
10-07-2009, 12:10 PM
His house is huge and it's quite hypocritical for him to own something like that and publish that. However, I agree with the premise that Climate change "can" be as dangerous as nukes.

There are many reasons people say things like "we never know when the next emitted carbon molecule will tip over some ecosystem and trigger a nonlinear climate event — like melting the Siberian tundra and releasing all of its methane, or drying up the Amazon or melting all the sea ice in the North Pole in summer." It's not just some made up bullshit. Carbon in the atmosphere has been correlated to surface temperature on this planet pretty well (even when the sun was not as hot). Whether or not other factors play a part is to be debated.

angrydude
10-07-2009, 12:18 PM
His house is huge and it's quite hypocritical for him to own something like that and publish that. However, I agree with the premise that Climate change "can" be as dangerous as nukes.

There are many reasons people say things like "we never know when the next emitted carbon molecule will tip over some ecosystem and trigger a nonlinear climate event — like melting the Siberian tundra and releasing all of its methane, or drying up the Amazon or melting all the sea ice in the North Pole in summer." It's not just some made up bullshit. Carbon in the atmosphere has been correlated to surface temperature on this planet pretty well (even when the sun was not as hot). Whether or not other factors play a part is to be debated.

correlated is shown pretty well, not causation.

LnGrrrR
10-07-2009, 12:23 PM
Why do you even bother with this guy's articles? He's wrong on nearly everything, it seems.

I would argue that nuclear warfare is much more dangerous than changing climatology, as nuclear warfare not only would affect a geographic area but could also lead to lots of other messy, violent outcomes.

DarrinS
10-07-2009, 12:33 PM
There are many reasons people say things like "we never know when the next emitted carbon molecule will tip over some ecosystem and trigger a nonlinear climate event — like melting the Siberian tundra and releasing all of its methane, or drying up the Amazon or melting all the sea ice in the North Pole in summer." It's not just some made up bullshit. Carbon in the atmosphere has been correlated to surface temperature on this planet pretty well (even when the sun was not as hot). Whether or not other factors play a part is to be debated.


I'm not a climate change denier. I think that climate change is the norm, as opposed to something exceptional that's only occured since the invention of the SUV.

So, carbon is well correlated to surface temperature? Can you point me to the paper that shows the sensitivity of surface temperature to the 3% of CO2 that humans contribute to a gas that is only constitutes 3% of the atmosphere?

doobs
10-07-2009, 12:41 PM
Why do you even bother with this guy's articles? He's wrong on nearly everything, it seems.

I would argue that nuclear warfare is much more dangerous than changing climatology, as nuclear warfare not only would affect a geographic area but could also lead to lots of other messy, violent outcomes.

Friedman is worth reading because he's considered a major shaper of left-of-center attitudes about globalization, free trade, and environmentalism. I must admit that The Lexus and the Olive Tree is an excellent book.

And, yeah, everyone knows what happens when nuclear weapons are used. Millions of people die. The effects of climate change---didn't it used to be called global warming?---are far from conclusively established. And debt is something that might cause political upheaval, and perhaps a less prosperous American future . . . but debt can be managed and trimmed and generally dealt with gradually.

You can't easily unfuck the damage done by nuclear warfare, because the promise of total annihilation is part of the bargain.

LnGrrrR
10-07-2009, 01:19 PM
Eh, he's left-of-center on SOME issues, obviously. But he's pro-war in most cases as well. Neoliberal would be a good term for him, I assume.

doobs
10-07-2009, 01:31 PM
Eh, he's left-of-center on SOME issues, obviously. But he's pro-war in most cases as well. Neoliberal would be a good term for him, I assume.

Actually, I think he's overdoing the environmentalism crap as overcompensation for his past support for the Iraq War. Or maybe it's a mea culpa to the NYT and his readers.

He's definitely left-of-center, though. There is such a thing as the pro-war left.

LnGrrrR
10-07-2009, 01:55 PM
Actually, I think he's overdoing the environmentalism crap as overcompensation for his past support for the Iraq War. Or maybe it's a mea culpa to the NYT and his readers.

He's definitely left-of-center, though. There is such a thing as the pro-war left.

Noted, and agreed. The old left/right divides aren't as strong as they used to be.

Wild Cobra
10-07-2009, 02:39 PM
His house is huge and it's quite hypocritical for him to own something like that and publish that. However, I agree with the premise that Climate change "can" be as dangerous as nukes.

There are many reasons people say things like "we never know when the next emitted carbon molecule will tip over some ecosystem and trigger a nonlinear climate event — like melting the Siberian tundra and releasing all of its methane, or drying up the Amazon or melting all the sea ice in the North Pole in summer." It's not just some made up bullshit. Carbon in the atmosphere has been correlated to surface temperature on this planet pretty well (even when the sun was not as hot). Whether or not other factors play a part is to be debated.
You are operating under the premise that CO2 is a greater greenhouse gas than it is. If mankind didn't produce any CO2 at all since the 1700's, then we would still have over 350 ppm in the atmoshere, starting with about 280 ppm in the 1700's.

Know anything about Henry's Law and The Carbon Cycle? The ocean contains more than 50 times the carbon as the atmosphere does. Like your carbonated drink, the ocean hold more Carbon when it's cold. The warmer the ocean gets, the more CO2 it releases to the atmosphere.

I'm sure nuclear testing underwater helped release CO2 also!

Now, that said, if everything else were equal, except mankind's release of CO2, we would have no more than 310 ppm in the atmosphere. In equilibrium, the ocean absorbs more than 50 giga-tons of CO2 for every giga-ton added to the atmosphere.

Do yourself a favor. Look at the numbers in the Carbon Balance, understand Henry's Law, and Solubility of gasses in fluids, and how temperature has an effect on that solubility.

baseline bum
10-07-2009, 02:41 PM
You are operating under the premise that CO2 is a greater greenhouse gas than it is. If mankind didn't produce any CO2 at all since the 1700's, then we would still have over 350 ppm in the atmoshere, starting with about 280 ppm in the 1700's.

Know anything about Henry's Law and The Carbon Cycle? The ocean contains more than 50 times the carbon as the atmosphere does. Like your carbonated drink, the ocean hold more Carbon when it's cold. The warmer the ocean gets, the more CO2 it releases to the atmosphere.

I'm sure nuclear testing underwater helped release CO2 also!

Now, that said, if everything else were equal, except mankind's release of CO2, we would have no more than 310 ppm in the atmosphere. In equilibrium, the ocean absorbs more than 50 giga-tons of CO2 for every giga-ton added to the atmosphere.

Do yourself a favor. Look at the numbers in the Carbon Balance, understand Henry's Law, and Solubility of gasses in fluids.

Why don't you publish?

Wild Cobra
10-07-2009, 02:42 PM
I'm not a climate change denier. I think that climate change is the norm, as opposed to something exceptional that's only occured since the invention of the SUV.

So, carbon is well correlated to surface temperature? Can you point me to the paper that shows the sensitivity of surface temperature to the 3% of CO2 that humans contribute to a gas that is only constitutes 3% of the atmosphere?

It's at 0.38%, not 3.0%

It's about 3% of CO2 in the gasses we exhale.

P.S.

In reality, I'm not a Climate Change Denier either, but I will wear that badge to piss of the sheeple.

Wild Cobra
10-07-2009, 02:52 PM
Why don't you publish?

Publish commonly known scientific facts?

Point is, scientists know the facts. Who in the public would listen? They are already so beholden to lies that I probably cannot get an audience to change minds.

Solubility of gasses in liquids (liquids absorb gasses in a ratio equal to their partial pressure at a given temperature)

Equilibrium vs. temperature ( crisp soda cold, flat soda warm)

Henry's law ( a formulation that describes solubility of gasses in liquids0

Carbon cycle (an equilibrium, works both ways. Explains why the ocean is both a carbon source and a carbon sink)

These are all well established in science. Anyone who advocates that mankind is the cause of 380+ ppm CO2 and Global Warming either willingly ignores established science, or isn't qualified on the subject.

Look at how long I have brought forth this information. Only a few people see it as credible. What good does it do to the layman who doesn't understand the related sciences. I'm just another pundit to them who could be lying.

DarrinS
10-07-2009, 02:55 PM
It's at 0.38%, not 3.0%

It's about 3% of CO2 in the gasses we exhale.

P.S.

In reality, I'm not a Climate Change Denier either, but I will wear that badge to piss of the sheeple.


Oops. My bad.

According to this site, CO2 makes up only 0.038% of the atmosphere.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_atmosphere#Composition


So, I EXAGGERATED the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere by a factor of almost 80! And you did so by a factor of 10!

hope4dopes
10-07-2009, 03:16 PM
If I was a cynic I'd think that this elitist scumbag was sitting in his 30 room mansion sipping dom perione giggeling to himself as he created fear mongering, in order to get the proloteriat used to the idea of five year programs and bread lines......for the glorious tommorow.
But I,m not a cynic so I"m sure Obama will create universal disarmament once he was tea with Iran and then will get rid of all the nasty gasses and what nots.

Wild Cobra
10-07-2009, 03:26 PM
Oops. My bad.

According to this site, CO2 makes up only 0.038% of the atmosphere.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_atmosphere#Composition


So, I EXAGGERATED the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere by a factor of almost 80! And you did so by a factor of 10!
LOL...

I was wrong too...

Ooooops...

Wild Cobra
10-07-2009, 03:29 PM
If I was a cynic I'd think that this elitist scumbag was sitting in his 30 room mansion sipping dom perione giggeling to himself as he created fear mongering, in order to get the proloteriat used to the idea of five year programs and bread lines......for the glorious tommorow.
But I,m not a cynic so I"m sure Obama will create universal disarmament once he was tea with Iran and then will get rid of all the nasty gasses and what nots.
Hey, i would love the fact he did well with achievements in life. However if he's going to be a green advocate, he should at least have solar cells on the roof or something...

Am I wrong?

After all, he can afford to practice as he preaches, can't he?

baseline bum
10-07-2009, 03:29 PM
LOL...

I was wrong too...

Ooooops...

That's not going to look good in your paper.

Wild Cobra
10-07-2009, 03:41 PM
That's not going to look good in your paper.
A misplaced decimal is actually very common as mistakes go in science. What the alarmists do is intentional fraud.