Reply With Quote
Probably not, it's still winter.
It is nice to see you admit AGW is nothing more than an unproven theory though.
I don't see how a few days of temps between 86 - 102 can even be considered as "really hot". Summer here, that is below typical.
Probably not, it's still winter.
It is nice to see you admit AGW is nothing more than an unproven theory though.
Yes, CO2 and other gasses having a marked effect on overall climate is a guess.
That guess though represents an overall scientific consensus that something is happening and that our actions are most likely having an affect that will continue to accelerate. Which is enough to do some reasonable steps to mitigating the problem.
We have already determined that there is little support to the thesis that doing something to limit greenhouse gases will completely tank the economy, and will, arguably, actuallyl improve our economy over the long term.
If there is some reasonable basis for action, and that action is actually good for us in the long term, why not act?
There is one distinction ACC proponents are trying to ignore... the entire northern hemisphere has been on average much cooler this year than years prior.
That's more extensive than just an isolated event here or there.
Still... the link between CO2 concentrations as a cause for any of these changes will be highly disputed... particularly because the oceans store >98.0% of earth's CO2, and sea temperatures (not air temperatures) are the ones that determine how much of it can be released (desorbed) into the atmosphere (not the other way around) or absorbed into the sea.
IMO so long as anthropomorphic climate change proponents continue to belittle the sun's influence on these matters, as subservient to CO2 concentrations... they will continue to lose the battle.
This isn't like some theory about how stars form being unproven.
The problem is that, in the worst case scenario, if we wait until it is "proven" we will have global capital destruction on an unprecedented scale.
Actually a bigger global problem will be the availability of resources once our global population balloons past 20... 30... 40... and 50 billion people...
Some estimates have that occurring by the year 2050.
Then quit acting like them. Read the IPCC reports. If the only evidence you have is anecdotal, then move beyond it.
The problem with 9-11 nutters is that they almost never read or watch things that they might disagree with, and do nothing but watch things that give in to their confirmation bias.
I have, at some length, spent a lot of time reading through the "scientific" papers and material posted by Wild Cobra. I put that in quotes, because a lot of I saw was quite obviously not peer-reviewed science.
You have less proof of that than the IPCC does of its worst case scenarios.Perhaps, but [limiting CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions is]potentially disasterous in the short-term. By short, I mean 10-20 years, maybe longer.
Again, we have discussed this previously.
The ONLY support for that statement was a 15 year old economic paper using some rather tenuous assumptions that I was able to deconstruct pretty quickly.
On the contrary, limiting CO2 emissions decreases the amount of exposure our economy will have to the inevitable run-ups in the prices of oil and other hydrocarbon fuels in the coming 20 years. Such run-ups will cause us no end of trade deficits, something we can ill afford.
Limiting CO2 emissions will, arguably even in the 10-20 year time period benefit the economy.
Please show "some estimate" that puts the global population at 50Bn in 2050.
It seems to me that you need to establish the costs of inaction vs. action before you can quantify the action as "good" or "bad" or just "meh".
Where to start... climate change is climate change. The big problem is that we dont' know where the "tipping points" are, where you start getting self-sustaining, accelerating cycles.
We have no real solid grasp as to how much CO2 is sequestered by the oceans. We are just beginning to understand the overall CO2 cycle, it is a bit more complex than just calculating CO2 absorbtion of a glass of water and then extrapolating that for an entire ocean.
I would guess that you have no idea what effects of the sun the IPCC attributes to the changes taking place, because you have not read the IPCC reports, and have instead probably taken others' word as to the degree climate scientists attribute changes in solar output to the changes we see.
The reports I have seen have fully acknowledged that the sun has a great deal of influence on our climate.
We can do something based on probabilities and ambiguous information.
watch the video in the first post here:
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=79916
I can show how we will be faced with rather fast run-ups in oil and gas prices over the next 40 years. The mistaken assumption that people who say "we will destroy our economy if we act to limit CO2 emissions" make is to assume that CO2 producing fuels will continue to be cheap, as they have historically.
They won't.
That fact right there is something I am 99% certain of.
We can either act now to make adjustments while energy is cheaper than it will be in the future, or wait until things get REALLY expensive to get off our collective duffs.
I can't argue the logic of fossil fuel volatility and it's inevitable demise as a primary fuel source. But, I've always viewed it as an entirely different issue than AGW reduction actions.
It certainly benefits by lowering CO2 emissions...no doubt about it and it's an interesting synergy between AGW and Peak Oil proponents that I've not considered.
That being said, adjustments can be made. It's what adjustments that are the kicker and that's when the issues of cost become a bit more germane.
When things get really expensive we will move to the next cheaper thing. Like electricity from Nuclear sources. It will also make research on alternative energy sources viable.
See, that will happen naturally as a process of supply/demand. Much like it happened a couple of years ago. Trying to force that right now is a waste of money, period.
Ten years ago we didn't think we could extract petroleum from so deep in the earth as we do now. That opened up new reservoirs, like in Brazil, etc.
So right now we just keep on riding the fossil train until it's not economically viable anymore, or until there's a better and cheaper energy source available.
Are you talking about the same IPCC whose reputation and credibility have taken a serious beating the past few months? The same IPCC whose reports are riddled with student dissertations and non-peer reviewed articles from such politically neutral en ies as Greenpeace and World Wildlife Fund?
No thanks.
And yet we've overpowered the sun's influence? Not likely.
Climate change is climate change... agreed. But climate change isn't necessarily anthropomorphic climate change... which is exactly what the IPCC has been asserting for years.
LOL @ your acussation that somehow I'm condoning the use of 'glasses of [plain] water' for conducting CO2 studies instead of sea water. Especially because sea water is soooooo rare that scientists don't have any access to it.IF your beef was with extrapolation... maybe you should turn that microscope back at the IPCC.
Last edited by Phenomanul; 02-17-2010 at 01:57 PM.
you assumed it was in reference to the last figure. I didn't state it that way.
Over 20 billion... by 2050. That's double our current population. So the question remains... where are we going to find twice the quan y of resources to satisfy the demands of that population? The poverty faction will grow... and stir up global politics past a tipping point... That tipping point worries me more than the alleged one for ACC.
Last edited by Phenomanul; 02-17-2010 at 03:06 PM.
Nuclear energy is not the next cheapest form of energy, actually. It is extremely expensive, and requires vast amounts of subisdies. No nuclear reactor has ever been built without government subsidies, and no nuclear reactor in the US has ever come in under 200% of it's original estimated cost, with 400%+ cost overruns having been common.
This may not hold in the future, but NIMBY and other factors do not favor nukes as a cost effective form of energy.
Yes, it will. And countries that get a step or two ahead on that regard will have some solid compe ive advantages.It will also make research on alternative energy sources viable. See, that will happen naturally as a process of supply/demand. Much like it happened a couple of years ago. Trying to force that right now is a waste of money, period.
The thing is that energy and the costs of energy are wrapped up in everything we do, make, sell, buy, etc.Ten years ago we didn't think we could extract petroleum from so deep in the earth as we do now. That opened up new reservoirs, like in Brazil, etc.
So right now we just keep on riding the fossil train until it's not economically viable anymore, or until there's a better and cheaper energy source available.
If we wait until energy gets hideously expensive, the overall costs of development get that much higher. It is like getting a balloon payment option written into your mortgage.
Sure, you get to ride the cheap low interest train for a while, but the inevitable expenses in the future will make life much less pleasant.
The thing is that we know how fossil fuels will play out. they will continue to get harder to extract and less energetically efficient over time, all while demand for them grows.
Getting ready for that switch and inevitability is like planning for retirement. A bit saved now makes a big difference down the road.
Our current population is 6.7bn. Double that is only 13bn.
Current projections have the most likely stabilization of earths population at approximately 9bn around 2080.
The current negative trend of population growth in Europe, with flattening patterns in China, India, and the US account for more than half of the worlds population. Further industrialization will only hasten that trend.
Malthusian death-spirals over resources... won't happen.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population
or pick a source:
google search link
Absolutely true.
I find any of these people who will not debate the sun's effect unworthy of debating with.
The book I was reading was written in 1999 before the 2000 census... One factor I did remember was that the ever increasing life expectancy (from advancements in medicine) would keep that curve from flattening out. That is why the Wiki graph (from UN projections) seems strange. The 9 billion number by 2080 seems rather low by that account. I guess that's the legalized abortion factor kicking in.
Edit: (just arrived home) 2150 population of 25 billion (From DK Smithsonian's "Earth").
Ah Dorling Kindersley Publishing. One of my favorite publishers from when I used to work in book stores. I love them and they do some wonderful kids books on a variety of subjects, rich with pictures and details.
The particular book you quoted was published in 2003, presumedly using data from a bit before that.
Since that time the UN has used a lot of new data to produce this graph (Sep 2008)
25bn by 2050 is more than 200% of the high-end projection.
One can play around with the data here:
http://esa.un.org/unpp/
Increased life expectency past the age of about 45 doesn't really add much, as people that age or older don't tend to reproduce much or successfully.
Stronger economic development and industrialization matter much more in bringing down the growth rate.
Legalized abortion matters less than access to regular birth control and simple economic development according to all the data I am familiar with.
But thanks for playing the "I let my ideological biases and emotional hot buttons drive my interpretation of all data" game.
Please provide proof of the assertion that "legalized abortion" is either a main cause, or the main cause of reduced birth rates in any country.
Your assertion, your burden of proof.
-------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------
Dr. Philip Plait holds a doctorate in Astronomy from UVA.
He created the Bad Astronomy website to dispute public misconceptions about space science and astronomy [especially regarding the assetions made by people like Cosmored that the moon landings were faked]
http://www.badastronomy.com/pr/bio.html
I could do a bit more digging and show other places where conspiracy theorists concerning 9-11 won't read the NIST report regarding the collapse of the towers and so forth.
If it is insulting to be equated to the 9-11 nutters, man up and quit acting like them.
Read an IPCC report.
Recent IPCC reports used the infamous "hockey stick" graph, which has been thoroughly debunked, as well as a numerous numerical errors (e.g. melting ice affect on sea level rise was off by a factor of 10!).
Given their lack of credibility, should I keep reading them?
EDIT> The better question would be, why do YOU have so much faith in the InterGOVERNMENTAL Panel on Climate Change?
If you compare it to fossil fuels, sure it's not cost-effective. But if fossil fuels supply drastically gets reduced (big IF at this point), then the cost becomes bearable. In that scenario, there's going to be a cost increase no matter what you do anyways.
Having the R&D done doesn't necessarily mean it's cost-effective to implement it now. We have the R&D done. The energy market conditions will be one to determine when it's cost-effective to go that route, if ever.
I disagree that we know how it will play out. We don't even know if fossil fuels are a limited supply. Fact is, we keep on finding brand new huge deposits all the time. Plus it's hilarious that you think that there's going to be a cutoff point. Like, "Next Tuesday we're running out of oil".... We're going to see what the reserves are, what the consumption is, what new fields are found or exploited, and prices will vary accordingly. And as prices fluctuate, the viability of alternative energy will increase or decrease.
A bunch of people jumped into the alternative energy bandwagon a couple of years ago when the gas was at $4/gallon. Guys like the Tesla motors (which I loved what they did, BTW). But right now they're struggling because their product is simply not cost-efective, period.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
