Moderated Global Warming Discussion

[Hallo Alfie]

China gets it even if you don't

more

http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-03-china-green-growth-years.html

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/usa/2010-10/20/content_11435443.htm

In the meantime, reality looks just a little different with China planning

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/usa/2010-10/20/content_11435443.htm

Wow, that's a lot isn't it.
24 large-scale coal mines AND eight clusters (how many in a cluster one wonders) of coal fired power plants.

 

[Trakar]

What makes you think growth is any indicator of prosperity. It's not.
How 18th century of you.

True, if you are a stable, well-off population to begin with, and possess a sustainable, productive economy that maintains that state, even minimal growth provides surplus on top of abundance.

 

[Trakar]

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/usa/2010-10/20/content_11435443.htm

And what do you find inconsistent or out of line between this and MacDoc's offered post?

 

[Furcifer]

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=329&pictureid=1976[/qimg]

Including the word "green" in empty rhetoric makes it believable.

Countries that don't manufacture anything should be going green. When your major industry is site seeing it should be relatively easy.

 

[PogoPedant]

(...) Norway (...) a fairly centralized population density

Just picking a nit here; Norway has never had a centralized population and we have strong political will across many parties to heavily subsidize anyone living anywhere that's not a city so that we won't get a centralized population any time soon.

 

[CapelDodger]

And they have stagnant economies. Norway 157th in GDP growth, Sweden 77th (a noticeable recovery from 2009 when it was 161st)

Already very prosperous, with a low wealth-disparity and a stable population, why would they need growth? "Stagnant" is such an ugly word, don't you think? "Mature" is at least neutral.

The fastest growing (by GDP) economies are not prosperous, with large wealth-disparity and growing populations, what's so great about that situation?

 

[CapelDodger]

Clearly it is. Climategate demonstrated that. That's a broad brush to paint a group with, but it's prevalent.

The stolen emails revealed nothing. If there was anything bad in there it would have been found by now, and it hasn't been.

Concern about AGW spread into the general scientific community before emails existed. It was not group-think, because the very idea that humans can significantly alter global climate is counter-cultural in the scientific world. It met with significant scientific resistance, but the facts are the facts and the numbers don't lie. Or slander.

Science can do that. It's one of the few things I have respect for.

The tiny band of deniers are the ones who stick to their formed beliefs whatever happens, reinforcing each other even though their beliefs of ten conflict, all because of group-think. You can fit them all in one Heatland Conference, slapping each others backs.

What does the group think? That whatever happens, AGW should not influence policy.

I've tried to, but alarmists won't address the science with any integrity or honesty. They make it political or personal.

That's utterly ridiculous. You keep introducing policies and gate-words and anything else you get from the fair-and-balanced WattsUpMyButt while avoiding the actual science.

You also avoid all the events which demonstrate AGW in action - rather sooner than was expected in those pre-email days.

Slope.

The slope of global population is clear enough, and can be expressed as a percentage (which most people can grasp). What's the slope of the climate?

Maybe so, but if I worry about people starving today,not a harmless gas and what it might do in the future. AGW is a distraction from reality.

AGW is a reality, and people will starve because of it. It is caused by CO₂ so it is not a harmless gas, even by what you yourself worry about day-in and day-out.

AGW is not distracting anyone from doing anything they weren't not doing decades ago. Development charities are still helping development, disaster charities are still turning-up at disasters, government aid still goes its own path, none of this is affected by efforts to reduce carbon emissions.

Development and disaster charities are very worried about AGW, which is likely to swamp any good work they can do.

To each his own. (^that's alarmist)

It doesn't alarm me. Will it still be alarmist if warming does continue? Or are you alarmed by the prospect of me cheating entropy for another few years?

Whether AGW is the Greatest Show On Earth is, of course, a matter of opinion, I guess. (It's certainly the Show That Never Ends, from my perspective. And from yours, did you but realise it.) Not just the thing itself but the overall human response to it.

I'm not planning on it cooling.

So, given whatever you are planning for, what climate event would you find alarming were it to come to pass?

 

[CapelDodger]

The ecological movement is diverse ...

I am a mix on whatever scales you want to use.

As is any sensible person, IMO. I don't take anything in packages myself.

I hate the idea of tigers dying out in the wild, but it's just as sad that Smilodon is extinct.

I think that the lack of spraying on roadsides is great for diversity ...

The UK's motorway-verges have become its greatest biodiversity asset. Natural corridors with no human intrusion, covering quite a significant area. Funny old world, ain't it?

 

[CapelDodger]

Just picking a nit here; Norway has never had a centralized population and we have strong political will across many parties to heavily subsidize anyone living anywhere that's not a city so that we won't get a centralized population any time soon.

That's a mature attitude .

This whole "Progress for its own sake" is sooooo New World (and Very Old World Temporarily Left Behind But Catching-Up Now). There's a lot to be said for a mature society with nothing left to prove.

 

[CapelDodger]

True, if you are a stable, well-off population to begin with, and possess a sustainable, productive economy that maintains that state, even minimal growth provides surplus on top of abundance.

There's also the hedonistic effect. I buy a new computer every few years and they're always about the same price, but much improved. No GDP growth there, but an ever-greater wealth of features I don't need ...

 

[Furcifer]

Just picking a nit here; Norway has never had a centralized population and we have strong political will across many parties to heavily subsidize anyone living anywhere that's not a city so that we won't get a centralized population any time soon.

Yes,that's why I said "fairly", just to qualify it a bit. The geography being what it is the population is somewhat spread out. Oslo represents a sizable portion of the total population at about 30%. Speaking as a Canadian however, even Norway is fairly centralized.

There's a good part of the Canadian population that lives along the 401 corridor, from Windsor to Montreal. We'd be a ways away from going green even if we built an extensive rail system totally powered by hydroelectric and nuclear extending from the mouth of the St. Lawrence to the Great Lakes and over to Thunder Bay. That's just a small part of Canada and it's probably the same size as Norway and Sweden combined (I'm guessing the same rail system would join about 90% of those two countries populations)

For countries that mine, log, manufacture, drill etc. there's no physical way to go carbon neutral in the near future. Not unless we go old school and replace all our cars with horses, scrap the freighters for schooners and make beaver pelts fashionable again

 

[macdoc]

True, if you are a stable, well-off population to begin with, and possess a sustainable, productive economy that maintains that state, even minimal growth provides surplus on top of abundance.

Not even that is required - a negative population growth and a steady state gdp ( tho the gdp measurements suck anyway ) = more real wealth per capita.

Edited for civility

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: arthwollipot

 

[Trakar]

Not even that is required - a negative population growth and a steady state gdp ( tho the gdp measurements suck anyway ) = more real wealth per capita.

Edited for civility

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: arthwollipot

I don't consider negative population growth to be wise, necessary or sustainable, but that is a simple difference of opinion and consideration.

 

[Furcifer]

Not even that is required - a negative population growth and a steady state gdp ( tho the gdp measurements suck anyway ) = more real wealth per capita.

Edited for civility

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: arthwollipot

Which is pointless in Oslo, the most expensive city in the world. It looks good on paper until you realize a litre of milk is $5.99 and a loaf of bread $6.50

 

[BenBurch]

New ice volume anomaly chart posted.

Anomaly again two standard deviations below the linear trend.

If the Arctic Dipole re-asserts itself we may see record low ice this summer.

 

[Furcifer]

I don't consider negative population growth to be wise, necessary or sustainable, but that is a simple difference of opinion and consideration.

I'm not sure that's opinion. It's pretty well established that population growth is good for economies. Is Canada the only place that pays citizens to have children when the economy slows?

In any event Norway and Sweden aren't applicable role models when it comes to "going green". They just don't have energy intensive economies like the US, China or even Canada. They're more akin to Provinces or States than countries in this regard. How big is Quebec in comparison? I bet they could go carbon neutral in no time. Probably take Maine along for the ride.

 

[CapelDodger]

Which is pointless in Oslo, the most expensive city in the world. It looks good on paper until you realize a litre of milk is $5.99 and a loaf of bread $6.50

Good milk, good bread, and they can afford it. That's how prosperous they are. Makes you wish, doesn't it?

 

[Thunder]

AGW Predictions fair or unfair?

This is not about whether the Earth's average temps. are increasing or if humans are responsible for it. I assume both are facts.

My question is regarding predictions of how this will effect the planet.

There are lots of distinct climates around the world, along with a lot more sub-climates within each climatic zone.

Let alone the planet-wide warm water currents, the jet stream, El Ninos and La Ninas, Sahara events, Arctic events, etc etc.

Given ALL of the climate zones and ALL of these other variables, is it scientific and indeed legitimate for climate scientists to even attempt to predict how Global Warming will effect individual nations and cities...let alone the entire planet?

I know we are smart..but I don't think we iz that smart.

 

[Pixel42]

What's the alternative? Not even try to estimate the likeliest results of our actions? Just wait and see what happens?

 

[MG1962]

This is not about whether the Earth's average temps. are increasing or if humans are responsible for it. I assume both are facts.

My question is regarding predictions of how this will effect the planet.

There are lots of distinct climates around the world, along with a lot more sub-climates within each climatic zone.

Let alone the planet-wide warm water currents, the jet stream, El Ninos and La Ninas, Sahara events, Arctic events, etc etc.

Given ALL of the climate zones and ALL of these other variables, is it scientific and indeed legitimate for climate scientists to even attempt to predict how Global Warming will effect individual nations and cities...let alone the entire planet?

I know we are smart..but I don't think we iz that smart.

I dont know where you would dig it up, but the CIA did a pretty detailed report on current expectations, and how these changes could affect the US as a political entity