Global warming

[BeAChooser]

There will have been a CO2-influence back in those halcyon days between the Wars (they were years of glorious summers and fruitful bountiness, outside the Dust Bowl) but insignificant. It's much more significant these days.

Yet the curve shows an almost the linear rise in sea level from 1920 to 2000? How can that be if the effect is much more significant now than in 1930 or 1940?

I'm ignorant of the local New York geology : how's the land-level behaving there? That's not something that can be taken for granted.

I think we can discount that as the reason for the increase in the level at the location I cited. Here's data from 23 gauges.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/0/0f/Recent_Sea_Level_Rise.png

Notice the linear increase from 1920 to 2000?

Here's the rise in sea level over the last 20,000 years or so:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/1d/Post-Glacial_Sea_Level.png

As you can see, sea levels rose a 100 meters in a relatively linear fashion over a 10,000 year period (that's 10 mm per year) without any input from man. Yet all of a sudden, we are DEFINITELY the culprit for a rise of 0.4mm per year the last 5 years? (sarcasm)

If the 0.5mm figure is typical, sea-levels were half a metre lower a thousand years ago, a metre 2000kya, two metres 4000kya. During all this time people have been digging harbours and generally living along coastlines. They would have noticed the difference. Inexorable sea-level rise would be ingrained in human culture, but it's not.

Here is the sea level rise over the last 8000 years:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/1e/Holocene_Sea_Level.png

Notice that between 7,000 and 4,000 years ago, when man wasn't producing much CO2, sea levels rose about 2.5 meters in a linear fashion ... that's an average of about 0.8mm per year. Notice that from 3,000 years ago to 2,000 years ago, sea level rose a meter ... 1.0mm per year. Yet Henry Ford wasn't to be born for another 2000 years. So why are you sure we are the culprit for a 0.4mm rise per year over a time span of only the last 5 years?

Try some common sense.

When your models don't take the sun into account and you are ready to jump off an economic cliff based on 5 years of data suggesting a 0.4mm per year rise in sea level when for the last 20,000 years, most of the time the sea levels were rising much faster than that, I wonder about your common sense.

You've taken twenty thousand years where seventeen thousand saw little or no sea-level rise

Was that your credibility I just saw flying out the window?

 

[mhaze]

I didn't realise the money was specifically for climate research. But it's a very hands-off approach.



I appreciate that Kyoto looms large in your world-view, but this is the Science Forum.



They subsidise (for a few million a year) people to undermine and decry the results of any climate research, be it by Stanford or anybody else. They will continue to promote uncertainty. That has no impact in the scientific world, but it works wonders amongst the proles.

An assertion that the "Science Forum" is not the right place to discuss the application of science and engineering engineer the climate of the planet could be appropriate only if we all agreed that the intent and method of Kyoto was not science and engineering, but something else, say just theft, corruption and poltical scheming, in the name of planetary engineering.

Ain't going down that road.

Discussion about cost benefit of schemes is economics, which is a science. As is statistics.

It's okay with me if you want to hate Big Oil or believe there is a Exxon anti Climate conspiracy. I've looked into it and reported what I found, which is contrary to that any bit of the Exxon anti climate conspiracy. There isn't even a thin reed to stand on there.

CP, what exactly is a prole? Is that short for proletariat?

 

[CapelDodger]

So your solution is to stop all car and plane transport right NOW?

That's your train of logic - that this is the only way to mitigate the effects of climate change. Alarmism, if I may make so bold. It's a pretty common theme amongst AGW contrarians that the only options available if it's true are so horrible that it can't be true.

AGW is happening and isn't going to stop. Where it levels out is another matter. The sooner the better seems, at first sight, to limit the extent and associated damage. Reducing - not banishing - driving and flying, which few of us find enjoyable for it's own sake, is not that alarming. The Commuting Culture is in its death-throes anyway, leaving aside Peak Oil, AGW, and the resurgence of the gated community.

 

[CapelDodger]

An assertion that the "Science Forum" is not the right place to discuss the application of science and engineering engineer the climate of the planet could be appropriate only if we all agreed that the intent and method of Kyoto was not science and engineering, but something else, say just theft, corruption and poltical scheming ...

The shorthand for that is "diplomacy". The Politics Forum is the appropriate arena. Kyoto was a diplomatic response to the science, and crassly inadequate hardly needs saying, but it says nothing about the science. Kyoto is as irrelevant as Al Gore.

... in the name of planetary engineering.

Isn't that a step up from mindless planetary vandalism? We're already affecting the climate, is it "planatery engineering" to get some kind of handle on that effect?

Ain't going down that road.

Don't bring up Kyoto then.

Discussion about cost benefit of schemes is economics, which is a science.

Bollocks. Have you checked out how dependent on models and historical reconstructions "scientific economics" is? Economics is not a science by the wildest stretch of the imagination.

As is statistics.

Statistics is a branch of mathematics. It's scientific, but not a science.

It's okay with me if you want to hate Big Oil or believe there is a Exxon anti Climate conspiracy. I've looked into it and reported what I found, which is contrary to that any bit of the Exxon anti climate conspiracy. There isn't even a thin reed to stand on there.

I don't want to hate Big Oil. I did well out of them from back before all this AGW sprange up. Slow payers, which can be annoying, but when you factor in the Treasury operations you get a sense of persepctive.

There's no Exxon conspiracy, it's far too open for that. And of course it's not just Exxon, there's the coal interest to take into account. Exxon's just the poster-boy.

Was that $100m to Stanford specifically for climate research?

CP, what exactly is a prole? Is that short for proletariat?

It's the Roman term for "masses" or "mob". I suffer from a classical education.

 

[a_unique_person]

You really do risk management? ROTFLOL!

When 9/11 happened, you had all the accountants asking for desks at the emergency data centres. Risk management is about the possibility of the disastrous actually happening. We have been warned there is probably one on the way, and, yes, unfortunately it will cost money to deal with it. What is the worst that will happen? We will have a reduction in reliance on fossil fuels. Given the Western worlds history of disasters because of it's reliance on these, it won't be at all a bad thing.

 

[a_unique_person]

So your solution is to stop all car and plane transport right NOW?

Where did I ever say that?

 

[David Rodale]

Bollocks. Have you checked out how dependent on models and historical reconstructions "scientific economics" is? Economics is not a science by the wildest stretch of the imagination.

Statistics is a branch of mathematics. It's scientific, but not a science.

.

Really?

any system of knowledge that is concerned with the physical world and its phenomena and that entails unbiased observations and systematic experimentation. In general, a science involves a pursuit of knowledge covering general truths or the operations of fundamental laws.

Not to turn this into argument of semantics, but it was you that asked me if English was my second language.

First you said evidence can't explain things, I said it can explain many things; you'd better inform the other idiots out there who think it can too:
http://www.google.com/search?as_q=&...as_dt=i&as_sitesearch=&as_rights=&safe=images

Now you're saying Economics and Statistics are not science? Again, you need to straighten out Encyclopedia Britannica and edit Wikipedia to fit your definition:

Statistics is a mathematical science pertaining to the collection, analysis, interpretation or explanation, and presentation of data. It is applicable to a wide variety of academic disciplines, from the physical and social sciences to the humanities. Statistics are also used for making informed decisions.

Statistical methods can be used to summarize or describe a collection of data; this is called descriptive statistics. In addition, patterns in the data may be modeled in a way that accounts for randomness and uncertainty in the observations, and then used to draw inferences about the process or population being studied; this is called inferential statistics. Both descriptive and inferential statistics comprise applied statistics. There is also a discipline called mathematical statistics, which is concerned with the theoretical basis of the subject.

The word statistics is also the plural of statistic (singular), which refers to the result of applying a statistical algorithm to a set of data, as in economic statistics, crime statistics, etc.

Economics:

Economics is the social science that studies the production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services. The term economics comes from the Greek for oikos (house) and nomos (custom or law), hence "rules of the house(hold)."

A definition that captures much of modern economics is that of Lionel Robbins in a 1932 essay: "the science which studies human behaviour as a relationship between ends and scarce means which have alternative uses." Scarcity means that available resources are insufficient to satisfy all wants and needs. Absent scarcity and alternative uses of available resources, there is no economic problem. The subject thus defined involves the study of choices as they are affected by incentives and resources.

Considering AGW hypotheses is almost exclusively based on climate models and proxies, how does that square with being a "science"? And since climate science relies heavily on statistics, is it really a science either?

Maybe the King's English just ain't what it used to be.

 

[BeAChooser]

That's your train of logic

No, that appears to be a_unique_person's train of logic. That became clear when he responded to a post deriding a web site that claims "the world needs to stop all car and plane transport right NOW" by posting "You want to take the risks? Do you feel lucky, punk?"

By the way, I can't help but notice you just ignored my proving you know next to nothing about the rise in sea level over the last 20,000 years.

 

[David Rodale]

When 9/11 happened, you had all the accountants asking for desks at the emergency data centres. Risk management is about the possibility of the disastrous actually happening. We have been warned there is probably one on the way, and, yes, unfortunately it will cost money to deal with it. What is the worst that will happen? We will have a reduction in reliance on fossil fuels. Given the Western worlds history of disasters because of it's reliance on these, it won't be at all a bad thing.

By dealing with it, do you mean creating an artificial value (carbon credits) for carbon emissions, which in reality has a value of zero?

It seems like more of a phantom; an impossible goal to stop something that cannot be stopped with the only result being more government control of individuals, less economic growth, lower standards of living, higher prices for everything etc., in short less energy, fewer choices, less freedom.

What magical technology exists to eliminate our reliance on oil and coal, other than nuclear of course? Oil is not used only for transportation, but virtually every aspect of modern day society. Is there a segment of society that doesn't rely on oil in one form or another?

We are seeing the results of artificially created markets right now with the ethanol debacle, or as others refer to it as a scam.

 

[a_unique_person]

By dealing with it, do you mean creating an artificial value (carbon credits) for carbon emissions, which in reality has a value of zero?

All cash has an artificial value, it's essentially just variations in a magnetic field on a round, shiny spinning metal platter in large, dark, air conditioned room, with a very small amount of it represented by tokens.

It seems like more of a phantom; an impossible goal to stop something that cannot be stopped with the only result being more government control of individuals, less economic growth, lower standards of living, higher prices for everything etc., in short less energy, fewer choices, less freedom.

Current economic theory seems to be going through a similar patch of hubris to the one that sparked the idea of invading Iraq. Externalities and the limits of markets. Create enough chaos through rising water levels, changing climate, etc, and market choice is the last thing that will be on many people's minds. Insurance companies are way ahead of you. They are just removing choice, and withdrawing products. Florida has already had to come to grips with market failure in the insurance industry.

What magical technology exists to eliminate our reliance on oil and coal, other than nuclear of course? Oil is not used only for transportation, but virtually every aspect of modern day society. Is there a segment of society that doesn't rely on oil in one form or another?

No magic, we already have many options for reducing reliance on oil and coal. Oil that is not transformed to CO2 is not really a problem.

We are seeing the results of artificially created markets right now with the ethanol debacle, or as others refer to it as a scam.

Ethanol is not an answer, just one more cave in to the farm lobby.

 

[JoeEllison]

By dealing with it, do you mean creating an artificial value (carbon credits) for carbon emissions, which in reality has a value of zero?

It seems like more of a phantom; an impossible goal to stop something that cannot be stopped with the only result being more government control of individuals, less economic growth, lower standards of living, higher prices for everything etc., in short less energy, fewer choices, less freedom.

What magical technology exists to eliminate our reliance on oil and coal, other than nuclear of course? Oil is not used only for transportation, but virtually every aspect of modern day society. Is there a segment of society that doesn't rely on oil in one form or another?

We are seeing the results of artificially created markets right now with the ethanol debacle, or as others refer to it as a scam.

So, global warming is real, caused by human activity... except it can't be, because it would slow down the transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich. Thanks for clarifying.

 

[David Rodale]

All cash has an artificial value, it's essentially just variations in a magnetic field on a round, shiny spinning metal platter in large, dark, air conditioned room, with a very small amount of it represented by tokens.



Current economic theory seems to be going through a similar patch of hubris to the one that sparked the idea of invading Iraq. Externalities and the limits of markets. Create enough chaos through rising water levels, changing climate, etc, and market choice is the last thing that will be on many people's minds. Insurance companies are way ahead of you. They are just removing choice, and withdrawing products. Florida has already had to come to grips with market failure in the insurance industry.


No magic, we already have many options for reducing reliance on oil and coal. Oil that is not transformed to CO2 is not really a problem.


Ethanol is not an answer, just one more cave in to the farm lobby.

Artificial markets always fail under their own weight, but I don't care to turn this into a monetary discussion or about Iraq.

What are the options, detailed, and energy output of each?

What you are saying then is only centralized government planning can overt catastrophe?

 

[David Rodale]

So, global warming is real, caused by human activity... except it can't be, because it would slow down the transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich. Thanks for clarifying.

Joe, it's not clear what point you're trying to make, but then it rarely is.

 

[JoeEllison]

Joe, it's not clear what point you're trying to make, but then it rarely is.

Awww... too used to accepting lies, that you can't handle the truth? Poor you.

Whining about the economic effects of the global warming issue doesn't make global warming go away, not worth working against, or not attributable to man-made causes. And, frankly, the solutions to global warming would stimulate the economy, and could and should improve life for everyone... but it might mean that predatory capitalist parasites would get a smaller piece of the pie, which is why the fund the sort of lies you embrace so strongly.

Consider yourself dismissed, BTW... life is too short.

 

[a_unique_person]

Artificial markets always fail under their own weight, but I don't care to turn this into a monetary discussion or about Iraq.

What are the options, detailed, and energy output of each?

What you are saying then is only centralized government planning can overt catastrophe?

All markets are artificial.

There are some things only a centralized government can manage. Eg, War.

 

[mhaze]

All markets are artificial.

There are some things only a centralized government can manage. Eg, War.

All markets are artificial, yes, in that they are created by man not nature. We didn't discover markets out on a glacier. That doesn't mean without intrinsic value. Markets preceded money.

There are many things only a centralized government can really screw up big time. Climate control is one such issue.

 

[a_unique_person]

All markets are artificial, yes, in that they are created by man not nature. We didn't discover markets out on a glacier. That doesn't mean without intrinsic value. Markets preceded money.

There are many things only a centralized government can really screw up big time. Climate control is one such issue.

What is private enterprise going to do about it? So far, Insurance has decided the best option is to just clear out of sensitive areas. That doesn't seem like any sort of an attempt to solve anything.

"climate control" is also a misnomer. We don't "control" climate. What we have happened upon is the law of unintended consequences.

 

[mhaze]

What is private enterprise going to do about it? So far, Insurance has decided the best option is to just clear out of sensitive areas. That doesn't seem like any sort of an attempt to solve anything.

"climate control" is also a misnomer. We don't "control" climate. What we have happened upon is the law of unintended consequences.

If an effort to create world wide tax, penalty and control system to limit CO2, plus possibly build CO2 sequestration plants, with the expressed goal of lowering the planet's temperature does not define climate control, then what is it, just solely an effort to create world wide tax, penalty and control system?

 

[HghrSymmetry]

That's a substantial amount of Co2.

Coal-mine fires in China and India could be huge culprits in global warming. In China alone, up to 200 million tons of coal go up in flames each year—which may be equivalent to America’s total carbon-dioxide emissions from gasoline. India’s mine fires waste up to 10 million tons of coal annually. The pollution has made land in both countries uninhabitable. And the problem is expected to worsen.

http://www.parade.com/articles/editions/2007/edition_08-26-2007/Intelligence_Report

 

[mhaze]

That's a substantial amount of Co2.

http://www.parade.com/articles/editions/2007/edition_08-26-2007/Intelligence_Report

It would certainly be nice to attack that problem and solve it instead of listening to carbon neutral babble from AGW Truthers.

But they ignore issues of this sort.

400 Million Tons plus regular old pollution.