Moderated Global Warming Discussion

[Furcifer]

But AGW doubters have shown near zero interest in submitting their hypotheses and beliefs to serious scientific scrutiny, much less in applying any fraction of the same standards of evidence they demand of the the other side, to their own assertions.

What do you mean by "doubters"? The George Mason poll cited earlier had 2 or 3% that doubted it's warmed in the last 150 years due to human causes.

That 2 or 3% are cranks, just like you find in any poll. Nobody seriously doubts that, that's why there are no published theories.

If you mean "doubters" as in doubts the extent and effects of CO2 in the future, they all do. That's why they do studies, because they don't know.

 

[Trakar]

...Look at it this way - suppose a large asteroid were to be discovered to be on a collision course with the Earth, and 90%+ of astronomers agreed with that conclusion. Would the asteroid's chance of hitting or not hitting the earth depend on whether "massive governmental intervention" was implied in forming a response? Would people whose primary deciding factor regarding actions or inactions was based on their political ideology be the best architects of a rational response to the asteroid, or would evidence based scientists be a better choice?

Needs some polish and tightening,...but I like it!

 

[lomiller]

If AGW was just about it warming a degree and a half over the last 150 years that would be fine. Obviously it isn't, it's much much more than that.

The current rate of warming, as I said is considerably higher than the rate over the time period he cited, but he used the longer period deliberately so he could leave the impression the current rate of warming is much lower than the scientific consensus.

 

[Furcifer]

The consensus is that business as usual will result in 2-4 deg C warming over the next 100 years. Added to the warming we have already experienced the upper end of this range places us near the 6 deg C warming seen at the end of a glaciation.

And "business as usual" is a fantasy, a simplified set of parameters used in climate change models.

“bleak” doesn’t even begin to describe a world where the US losses 40% of it’s farmland to drought and desertification, China even more, India looses it’s rivers due to changing monsoon patters and fishing becomes a thing of the past due to ocean acidification and hypoxia.

No the correct word as noted above is "fantasy". You do realize these predictions are based on zero mitigation strategy and zero technological advancement?
I'll put this in simple terms, it's just as foolish as predicting 100 years ago humans will never travel around the world in a day because there isn't a horse fast enough.

So despite all the civilizations that have been killed off by climate change, you doubt it will happen this time? Is there any particular reason you think our civilization can dodge this bullet?

Just one? Bioengineering. There's possibly thousands but the smart money is on something that hasn't even been thought of yet.

 

[lomiller]

And "business as usual" is a fantasy, a simplified set of parameters used in climate change models..

It’s a CO2 emissions scenario. Specifically it refers to the case where we take no action to curb CO2 emissions. What in particular about this do you consider “a fantasy”?

No the correct word as noted above is "fantasy". You do realize these predictions are based on zero mitigation strategy and zero technological advancement?

Yes it specifically refers to the case of no mitigation. In the absence of regulation expecting any mitigation is clearly the fantasy.

and zero technological advancement?

100 years of rapid technological change have yet to reduce the amount of CO2 humans, why are you suggesting that would change?

Just one? Bioengineering.

What do you expect Bioengineering to do? Please be specific.

There's possibly thousands but the smart money is on something that hasn't even been thought of yet.

So what you are saying is you have no idea why our civilization will survive climate change when so many others have not, but you just really believe it will despite a complete absence of evidence to support your beliefs.

 

[Mikemcc]

And "business as usual" is a fantasy, a simplified set of parameters used in climate change models.



No the correct word as noted above is "fantasy". You do realize these predictions are based on zero mitigation strategy and zero technological advancement?
I'll put this in simple terms, it's just as foolish as predicting 100 years ago humans will never travel around the world in a day because there isn't a horse fast enough.



Just one? Bioengineering. There's possibly thousands but the smart money is on something that hasn't even been thought of yet.

BAU, means just that, it isn't fantasy, it's normal, everyday progress in life. Which means, globally that we track the worst case IPCC emissions scenario. Even worse it looks like we may even ditch (in part) unrestricted growth in nuclear generation. Your second statement is just wrong (simple as), your third is just a strawman.

I take it you know absolutely nothing about bio-engineering. We are onlyu just starting to develop methods of maintaining cell-lines in an enviroment where the waste is so toxic. I have experience in cell-line maintenace ranging from long-term stem-cell growth and differentiation through to cancer cell lines for drug-discovery. This field is immensely complictaed and diversifying on a daily basis. It is proving difficult to keep up with the diverse customer demands. That's just for the drug discovery industry. For gross-product delivery the problems are even worse because of the capital cost of the equipment. That's the reason so many companies promising these sorts of breakthoughs have gone to the wall.

 

[macdoc]

Is there a rose coloured glasses emoticon.?

You are going to bio-engineer fish?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7860350.stm

The leading edge consequences of AGW are already drowning a couple of nuclear plants and altering hydrology world wide and we are 3-4 decades off a new thermal equilibrium even if we stopped cold now with CO2 and we won't.

Comprehensive future scenarios such as MIT and others are based on a range of mitigation strategies and offer a range of outcomes.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/05/090519134843.htm

You are effectively betting on a miracle. Not a very rational approach.

Coping is indeed the order of the day as the climate is already altered out to at least circa 3000

http://news.discovery.com/earth/climate-change-thousand-years-110110.html

Sounds a long ways away.....?? well consider some of the houses in Venice were built more than a thousand years ago....

and and enormous percentage of urban centres are near sea level world wide.

Few have the long term view and the resources the Dutch have and are committing to

Rising waters

Sea level rise isn't just affecting small islands. It is also altering lives in rich countries like the Netherlands. The Dutch decided in 2006 to come up with a long-term plan for coping with climate change. How long? Two hundred years long. The plan is set to cope with sea level rises of as much as 4 meters by the end of that span.

The Netherlands’ strategy covers everything from strengthening massive sea defenses, like the Delta Works series of dams and barriers, to planting trees to soak up CO2 while cooling Amsterdam and other cities. Massive dunes that protect the coast will be reinforced with dredged sand. Some land will be abandoned to rising sea levels – a managed retreat.

http://environment.umn.edu/momentum/issue/3.2s11/coverstory_copingwithchange_page2.html

Bio-engineering is NOT going to reverse the climate change underway - we can only slow the onset by moving to carbon neutral civilization.
Nations like Sweden are committed to that by mid-century......

ALL the problem arises from nations that are nuclear already and nuclear has a large role to play.

What would be the miracle is for humans to use common sense and recognize the risk as they did with the Montreal Accord.

I have little confidence in that and far less confidence in geo-engineering of any signficance.

Downplaying the consequences of our uncontrolled experiment with the atmosphere is letting kids play in traffic......
and the kids WILL be the losers in either case.

 

[BenBurch]

Mitigation is very likely to be a joke until the consequences are being so painfully felt that they become the only priority. By then, it will be way, way too late. So, a zero mitigation strategy is correct for a model.

But business as usual is also a joke; Oil is running out, and in its wake we have centuries of coal left in the ground. And we will use it. We will make coal oil and coal gas and build more coal-electric plants and the CO2 per unit of work will increase markedly.

 

[steenkh]

No the correct word as noted above is "fantasy". You do realize these predictions are based on zero mitigation strategy and zero technological advancement?
I'll put this in simple terms, it's just as foolish as predicting 100 years ago humans will never travel around the world in a day because there isn't a horse fast enough.

Is your argument that we should do nothing because some new unknown technology will save us? Do you have a good reason not to call the belief in the emergence of such technology a "fantasy"?

50 years ago, there was wide-spread belief that by now, interplanetary travel would be common, all the planets would be colonised by humans, and interstellar travel would be well on its way. Why did that not happen, despite the tremendous advance in technology?

 

[Furcifer]

It’s a CO2 emissions scenario. Specifically it refers to the case where we take no action to curb CO2 emissions. What in particular about this do you consider “a fantasy”?

That anyone thinks there is "no action" being taken to curb emissions.

Yes it specifically refers to the case of no mitigation. In the absence of regulation expecting any mitigation is clearly the fantasy.

Nonsense, mitigation comes by way of necessity not regulation.

100 years of rapid technological change have yet to reduce the amount of CO2 humans, why are you suggesting that would change?

Nuclear. You can't expect developing countries to go from burning cow dung to nuclear overnight. Emerging economies will have to go through the same evolution from coal to nuclear and alternatives. The advantage being the transition will take less time because of technology.

What do you expect Bioengineering to do? Please be specific.

Increased yields and more resistant crops. It's not "do" but "done" and "continue to do so".

So what you are saying is you have no idea why our civilization will survive climate change when so many others have not, but you just really believe it will despite a complete absence of evidence to support your beliefs.

"So many others have not"? Maybe you need to be more specific. Which ones and why? How do you think it applies to global warming?
I'm not sure where you're going with this red herring but I'm sure it will be entertaining.

 

[Furcifer]

BAU, means just that, it isn't fantasy, it's normal, everyday progress in life. Which means, globally that we track the worst case IPCC emissions scenario. Even worse it looks like we may even ditch (in part) unrestricted growth in nuclear generation. Your second statement is just wrong (simple as), your third is just a strawman.

I don't think you know what a strawman is. Bioengineering isn't a strawman. In fact your comment doesn't make any sense.

I take it you know absolutely nothing about bio-engineering. We are onlyu just starting to develop methods of maintaining cell-lines in an enviroment where the waste is so toxic.

Except a 900 ppm CO2 world isn't anywhere near "toxic". You obviously don't know much about growing and greenhouse (in some places called hothouses). A couple extra degrees and a little more CO2 is just going to help.

 

[Furcifer]

Is there a rose coloured glasses emoticon.?

You are going to bio-engineer fish?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7860350.stm

Is there a stawman emoticon? Nobody suggested bioengineering fish. Especially when farms do so well.

The leading edge consequences of AGW are already drowning a couple of nuclear plants and altering hydrology world wide and we are 3-4 decades off a new thermal equilibrium even if we stopped cold now with CO2 and we won't.

There's no need to stop, the "leading edge consequences of AGW" are a rapidly improving quality of life and a life expectancy almost triple of what it was before we began burning fossil fuels.

You are effectively betting on a miracle. Not a very rational approach.

You're effectively betting on an Apocalypse. That's how they sold all those fallout shelters in the 50's

Coping is indeed the order of the day as the climate is already altered out to at least circa 3000

You make your bed you have to lie in it.

If not you're free to live in the woods until you're 30, you know, do your part to prevent global warming.

Few have the long term view and the resources the Dutch have and are committing to

You mean the country that's built below sea level? They're preparing for the sea to rise instead of fighting the whole world to stop living the way it is in order for them to continue to live below sea level? Go figure

Of course they are, it would be hypocritical to expect everyone to stop what they're doing because they made the choices they did.

Bio-engineering is NOT going to reverse the climate change underway - we can only slow the onset by moving to carbon neutral civilization.
Nations like Sweden are committed to that by mid-century......

That's a strawman, nobody said bioengineering would reverse climate change.

ALL the problem arises from nations that are nuclear already and nuclear has a large role to play.

No the problem arises from the ones that aren't and need to be. The ones that are are making considerable headway in reducing emissions.

What would be the miracle is for humans to use common sense and recognize the risk as they did with the Montreal Accord.

Agreed.

I have little confidence in that and far less confidence in geo-engineering of any signficance.

This sounds a lot like preaching abstinence.

Downplaying the consequences of our uncontrolled experiment with the atmosphere is letting kids play in traffic......
and the kids WILL be the losers in either case.

What are the consequences? You mean living longer more fullfilled lives? Yah, living with a roof over my head and a full belly until I'm 80, oh the humanity!

You're ignoring the consequences of Global Warming and instead trying to focus on some Apocalyptic future you think might happen.

 

[Furcifer]

Is your argument that we should do nothing because some new unknown technology will save us? Do you have a good reason not to call the belief in the emergence of such technology a "fantasy"?

No not at all. I said the safe money is on technology that hasn't been thought of yet. If it had and it was feasible it would most likely have been implemented already.
If "doing something" means carbon credits and selling "offsets" then by all means, do nothing.

50 years ago, there was wide-spread belief that by now, interplanetary travel would be common, all the planets would be colonised by humans, and interstellar travel would be well on its way. Why did that not happen, despite the tremendous advance in technology?

You made this up of course. 50 years ago astronomers knew Saturn wasn't any place for a colony, nor any others really except Mars. Worst Strawman Ever.
Ignoring that, yes, technology is a wily beast and predicting where it will go in 50 or 100 years is hard to do. What you're forgetting however is that many technologies exist, they just aren't financially practical. We can sequester the carbon from coal plants, we just can't afford to do so right now.
There's simply no reason to begin manipulating the economy right now. Certainly not because you can't tell the difference between science fiction and fact

 

[lomiller]

That anyone thinks there is "no action" being taken to curb emissions.

Are emissions dropping?

Nonsense, mitigation comes by way of necessity not regulation.

Now that is fantasy

No matter how necessary something is, unless there is a financial incentive it won't happen. Since the cost of CO2 emissions is external to the business transactions that cause them this means there is no financial incentive without regulation.

Increased yields and more resistant crops. It's not "do" but "done" and "continue to do so".

So you plan to bio-engineer wheat to grow in deserts or on bare shield rock? that should be interesting...

"So many others have not"? Maybe you need to be more specific. Which ones and why? How do you think it applies to global warming?

Dodge noted. And a nice red herring to boot. Of course climate change need not be global to bring down a civilization. As for some specific examples Egypt collapsed into anarchy at least once from climate change, climate change was a major factor in the fall of the Mayan empire, there is of course the classic example of the Easter islanders destroying their own ecology with deforestation. Could name more but I suspect no matter how many I named you would not answer the question and explain why you think it will turn out differently this time.

 

[steenkh]

No not at all. I said the safe money is on technology that hasn't been thought of yet.

You have a strange concept of the term "safe".

If "doing something" means carbon credits and selling "offsets" then by all means, do nothing.

Carbon credits is doing nothing, so it must be right up your alley.

You made this up of course. 50 years ago astronomers knew Saturn wasn't any place for a colony, nor any others really except Mars. Worst Strawman Ever.

You should read up on the differences between a strawman and an analogy.

Ignoring that, yes, technology is a wily beast and predicting where it will go in 50 or 100 years is hard to do. What you're forgetting however is that many technologies exist, they just aren't financially practical. We can sequester the carbon from coal plants, we just can't afford to do so right now.

So the "safe" money is on a wily beast that is hard to predict where it will go? And is it not a strawman to attack me for having forgotten existing technology when in fact I have only asked about why you think technology is such a safe bet?

There's simply no reason to begin manipulating the economy right now.

I have not said anything about manipulating economy.

Would it be manipulating economy to stimulate research into the dream technology that you are so sure will save us? Or would that be like admitting that we have a problem that needs solving?

 

[Travis]

How selfish it is to condemn the future to a miserable existence for short term present convenience. And then justify it by saying we shouldn't "manipulate the economy" even though there is no reason to think those economic manipulations have to be detrimental.

 

[Furcifer]

Are emissions dropping?

Of course they are, I have a few CFL's and last time I fly Toronto to Vancouver I bought $30 in carbon offsets. Aren't they?

So you plan to bio-engineer wheat to grow in deserts or on bare shield rock? that should be interesting...

Right, because before there was Global Warming that's where we grew everything.

There's no need to build greenhouses on shield rock at the moment because there's more than enough fertile land. When and if it becomes cost effective to do so it it's just as easy to glass shield rock as it is the farm land we currently cover over.

 

[Furcifer]

How selfish it is to condemn the future to a miserable existence for short term present convenience.

That's your vision of the future. You realize other people have different visions of the future?

And then justify it by saying we shouldn't "manipulate the economy" even though there is no reason to think those economic manipulations have to be detrimental.

No, it doesn't have to be detrimental. There are some basic requirements in order for it not to be, top on that list is accountability. Right now there is none. There's no way of measuring the effectiveness of every dollar spent reducing emissions. There's no way of knowing if in this Global economy if money saved in the US won't be spent in Asia.

 

[Furcifer]

Dodge noted. And a nice red herring to boot.

What? Where's the red herring: Maybe you need to be more specific. Which ones and why? How do you think it applies to global warming?

Me thinking you'll be specific? Probably. You describing which ones and why? Yah I imagine you'll avoid that as well but it's not a red herring. Perhaps you mean explaining how past climate change has anything to do with today's global warming?
There's no red herring there, you're just dropping terms you don't really understand. Posed as a question they're not "red herrings". Of course that you've brought this up is probably a non sequitor, but whatever.

Oh yah, Dodge Challenger

Of course climate change need not be global to bring down a civilization.

No it just makes it ridiculously easy to mitigate.

As for some specific examples Egypt collapsed into anarchy at least once from climate change,

Mark Anthony and the Roman would beg to differ.
(an interesting side note, climate change is supposedly having a positive effect on the Nile basin, returning it to the fertile place from biblical times. Or so I heard)

climate change was a major factor in the fall of the Mayan empire,

Disease not climate change.

there is of course the classic example of the Easter islanders destroying their own ecology with deforestation.

Not climate change.

Could name more but I suspect no matter how many I named you would not answer the question and explain why you think it will turn out differently this time.

How about instead I point out recent theories that cite climate change as the biggest factor in the evolution of man from ape? There was a great special on NOVA recently and I'd be happy to discuss it.

The fact is climate change is what we make of it. Historically it would seem those that sat on their butts and complained about it perished and those that embraced it grew stronger.

 

[Trakar]

The current rate of warming, as I said is considerably higher than the rate over the time period he cited, but he used the longer period deliberately so he could leave the impression the current rate of warming is much lower than the scientific consensus.

http://www2.ucar.edu/climate/faq#faq-expand-all-link

...Averaged over all land and ocean surfaces, temperatures have warmed roughly 1.33°F (0.74ºC) over the last century, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (see page 2 of the IPCC's Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report Summary for Policymakers (PDF)). More than half of this warming—about 0.72°F (0.4°C)—has occurred since 1979. Because oceans tend to warm and cool more slowly than land areas, continents have warmed the most (about 1.26°F or 0.7ºC since 1979), especially over the Northern Hemisphere...