Moderated Global Warming Discussion

[Furcifer]

Nope. As I said clouds are caused by cooling air you even admit this further down in your post, where previously you claimed they were responsible for that cooling.

This is incorrect. You can cool air till the cows come home and if it doesn't condense clouds won't form. Clouds are caused by condensation. Condensation is caused by a change in pressure or temperature. You're ignoring a step, you're ignoring the dew point and you're ignoring the change in pressure.

 

[BenBurch]

This is incorrect. You can cool air till the cows come home and if it doesn't condense clouds won't form. Clouds are caused by condensation. Condensation is caused by a change in pressure or temperature. You're ignoring a step, you're ignoring the dew point and you're ignoring the change in pressure.

Please go read some meteorology books.

 

[CapelDodger]

Tropical ice clouds?

Clouds again. I know something about this, since they feature in Lindzen's no-show Iris theory, and current thinking is that they are a small positive feedback, too small to be identified by observation yet.

Humidity fluctuation in large scale cirrculation?

Water vapour feedback is positive, and absolute humidity has increased just as calculated from theory. Not much mystery there.

Which vegetative studies are you familiar with?

One or two concerning the Amazon's likely demise due to drought (a positive feedback). Are there any others you think particularly relevant?

Longwave radiation in the sub tropics?

The greenhouse effect is well-understood.

Midlatitude cyclones?

Clouds again? Or what?

Atmospheric moisture over North America in the Winter, Summer?

There'll be more of it (see above).

Large and small droplet size effects on long and shortwave radiation?

Not something that's going to change.

Here's a recent one in the Journal of Physical Research: "Atmospheric chemistry-climate feedbacks"
Which climate chemistry feedbacks are you familiar with, all of them?

Tshaitanaku's fielded that one already. I'm sure he's familiar with many more than you or I.

I'm not about to catalogue the thousands of feedback mechanisms discovered and studied over the last 30 years. You're going to have to read some of them and see for yourself if they're positive or negative.

It's rather sweet, the way you imply that you have read some of them. It's not at all convincing, though.

The upshot of all feedbacks is that warming is proceeding pretty much as expected, the only surprise being that the positive permafrost feedback has emerged more quickly than expected.

 

[CapelDodger]

Correct, although it seems you've made a similar mistake (small oversight). Cooling it lowers the pressure, but lowering the pressure cools it as well!

What do you imagine is cooling the air except the decrease in pressure?

Pressure doesn't fall with altitude because it's, like, colder up there.

We usually talk about the dew point as well because it's critical to condensation and cloud formation.

The dew point is the point when condensation occurs due to cooling at a fixed pressure. It is usually referred to when discussing fog and (unsurprisingly) dew, not clouds.

 

[CapelDodger]

Incorrect. A reduction in emissions will be indicated be less positive growth.

That's just weird.

I'll try again : a reduction is not growth of any positive variety.

Indeed, the above is a prime example of why.

You do indeed march alone in your belief that positive growth is a reduction, and I wouldn't expect to pick up any company if I were you. Not company you'd want to make eye-contact with, anyway.

That's probably because you were using words. A good teacher would simply throw a ball in the air.

We tried that, and still no go.

*sigh

That has nothing to do with emissions. That's in response to cloud feedback being positive or negative. It's completely and utterly unrelated. Please try reading the quote again.

"Irresponsible" is meaningless if there's nothing to be responsible for, which can only be some action or inaction. Had you stuck only to "foolish" then there wouldn't be any argument, but that "irresponsible" slipped out. One has to take into account that you were talking to a fellow-thinker, with certain shared assumptions.

Indeed, it would be foolish and irresponsible to say clouds are a positive or negative feedback right now.

It was foolish and irresponsible of Linzen to invent and brazenly promote his Iris Theory with the intention of presenting a low climate sensitivity, and so helping to justify a policy of doing nothing now or soon, if ever. Nobody is justifying taking action by reference to a positive cloud feedback, so there's nothing irresponsible about taking a position on it.

Nope. Cheap energy means growth. It's a scientific fact.

What I said was that relatively expensive energy does not mean stagnation nor the absence of industry.

*sigh

It wasn't squandered. It was used to make electricity. Producing electricity isn't squandering. Especially with natural gas.

It was squandered because the full value was nowhere near obtained from the resource, purely in pursuit of the short-term price.

Incorrect. Questions end with a (?). It's a fact!

Begging the question is a logical fallacy which applies to an argument . It is not a question in itself. The question in this case is : Is it a fact that emissions are the measure of an economy's strength? Your answer is "yes", and your argument for that answer begins with "its a fact".

Incorrect. I said quite clearly it would be "delayed".

You said :

"If the automobile wasn't invented we'd also be in a better place in terms of CO2 emissions. Of course the world would be in a completely different place in history."

My response (post 3227 http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=7422990#post7422990)

"Not necessarily very different. Ways of living, working and fighting wars have been shaped by the internal combustion engine, but much else would have remained the same. And Peak Oil wouldn't be such a problem. Economies might well have been stronger, in fact."

You responded with (post #3239 http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=7424194#post7424194)

"Incorrect. There's considerable economic growth as a result of he internal combustion engine. It made things more accessible, easier to transport and easier to process. There are no "economies" without the internal combustion engine."

I draw your attention to the last sentence. It's this kind of absolutism that you so often find yourself rowing back from.

Had you clearly said "it would be delayed" then this sub-thread would have followed a different path, but you went the "no economies without" way. I just follow along.

Quite the contrary, the opposite is in fact true. Being submersed or focused makes you an expert.

"Knowing more and more about less and less", and generally losing perspective. I'm sure "History from the perspective of the automobile" is quite satisfying for people who'd visit the Henry Ford Museum as a day-out, but it wouldn't work quite the same way for me. I'm interested in the big picture of history.

No, it came about as a result of the second industrial revolution.

It didn't. Exponential growth is evident from the 14thCE. Not in North America until somewhat later, of course, but generally.

The greatest period of economic growth coincides with the ICE, 1870-1900.

Your reasoning?

The steam engine probably set it in motion and the automobile finished it off.

Probably? I'm prepared to say absolutely that without the Coal Age we'd still be waiting for the Oil Age, and the Coal Age isn't nearly over (unless something substantial is done about climate change). As to "finished it off", I rather doubt that. History is not culminating at this point in time; in the big picture it just happens to be when we're living.

Incorrect. Most notably the proposal to build a nuclear plant can run tens of millions of dollars.

Damn' cheap compared to the cost of building one. These proposals aren't getting any buyers, they're just transferring a few millions from mug punters and taxpayers to lawyers and other shysters. Mostly in North America.

In China they just build them. The government both proposes and disposes, and the proposal costs nothing.

Perhaps in your day talk was cheap, these days talk is very expensive. Emails are cheap

Proposals are just talk, and talk is cheap. Unless it comes from lawyers, of course.

 

[Furcifer]

It's rather sweet, the way you imply that you have read some of them. It's not at all convincing, though.

The upshot of all feedbacks is that warming is proceeding pretty much as expected, the only surprise being that the positive permafrost feedback has emerged more quickly than expected.

I don't need to read any of them , just count them, in order to show how erroneous your claim is.

As clouds represent the greatest uncertainty in climate models it logically follows that many of the new mechanisms discovered will be on clouds. If you don't know clouds that's what you study.

 

[a_unique_person]

I don't need to read any of them , just count them, in order to show how erroneous your claim is.

As clouds represent the greatest uncertainty in climate models it logically follows that many of the new mechanisms discovered will be on clouds. If you don't know clouds that's what you study.

Uncertainty doesn't mean clouds will make the climate cooler, otherwise we would have been in an ice age long ago. It's just uncertain exactly how much warming we will get. That doesn't really comfort me, since the error goes both ways, it could get much warmer than we expect.

 

[a_unique_person]

Entire Apartment communities in northern coastal Australia are becoming unviable, since insurance premiums are soaring.

Unfortunately, a paid link.

http://www.afr.com/p/business/property/ill_wind_blows_insurance_premiums_UBd4HrdSR1pEJyMLbIKZxO

Insurance companies are simply quitting the market, leaving the few remaining to name whatever price they want. This means premiums going up from $800 per apartment to $4000.

Not an 'incremental' problem at all, to be dealt with over a long period of time, and this will have big knock on effects.

The solution? Get the government to underwrite the insurance. People won't pay the price increases, so buildings don't get maintained. It's market failure.

Which of course raises the question, if the free markets can't prevent global warming, can they cope with it. The answer appears to be in already, in this case, and it is "No".

 

[Trakar]

And this isn't the case with orographic lifting. The converse is true. You're continuing to make a very basic mistake and overlook the direct correlation between pressure and temperature.

"Condensation occurs when dense, warm, moist, air expands,..."
So if expansion due to being lifted into lower pressure regimes (through either convection or orographic lift) is not the initial step, exactly what apparently novel mechanism are you proposing that I am "mistaking?"

 

[Trakar]

...It didn't. Exponential growth is evident from the 14thCE. Not in North America until somewhat later, of course, but generally...

Just an aside but may have tie-ins to a discussion of the transition to a post carbon economy, because much like tobacco smokers, one way or another, all fossil fuel users will quit, sooner or later.

"Long-Term Growth As A Sequence of Exponential Modes" - http://hanson.gmu.edu/longgrow.pdf (full paper)

abstact-
A world product time series covering two million years is well fit by either a sum of four exponentials, or a constant elasticity of substitution (CES) combination of three exponential growth modes: “hunting,” “farming,” and “industry.” The CES parameters suggest that farming substituted for hunting, while industry complemented farming, making the industrial revolution a smoother transition. Each mode grew world product by a factor of a few hundred, and grew a hundred times faster than its predecessor. This weakly suggests that within the next century a new mode might appear with a doubling time measured in days, not years.

 

[Trakar]

Uncertainty doesn't mean clouds will make the climate cooler, otherwise we would have been in an ice age long ago. It's just uncertain exactly how much warming we will get...

Actually, the geologic record tells us pretty precisely what the long-term fully equilibrated climate sensitivity is, the problem is that our current rates of increase are magnitudes larger than anything in the geologic record, and determining how fast and in what manner these completely unprecedented rates will equilibrate throughout the modern environment involves dealing with a very complex and dynamic system. The task is difficult, and there is still much to learn, but we have progressed quite far in the last century or so.

 

[Trakar]

Entire Apartment communities in northern coastal Australia are becoming unviable, since insurance premiums are soaring.

Unfortunately, a paid link.

http://www.afr.com/p/business/property/ill_wind_blows_insurance_premiums_UBd4HrdSR1pEJyMLbIKZxO

Insurance companies are simply quitting the market, leaving the few remaining to name whatever price they want. This means premiums going up from $800 per apartment to $4000.

Not an 'incremental' problem at all, to be dealt with over a long period of time, and this will have big knock on effects.

The solution? Get the government to underwrite the insurance. People won't pay the price increases, so buildings don't get maintained. It's market failure.

Which of course raises the question, if the free markets can't prevent global warming, can they cope with it. The answer appears to be in already, in this case, and it is "No".

Unfortunately, these are just the first minor incidents forewarning of the types of issues that will stress and break many economies, making the issues of ACC that much more difficult to deal with over the coming centuries.

 

[Mikemcc]

Uncertainty doesn't mean clouds will make the climate cooler, otherwise we would have been in an ice age long ago. It's just uncertain exactly how much warming we will get. That doesn't really comfort me, since the error goes both ways, it could get much warmer than we expect.

You are confusing uncertainty with magnitude.

 

[BenBurch]

Entire Apartment communities in northern coastal Australia are becoming unviable, since insurance premiums are soaring.

Unfortunately, a paid link.

http://www.afr.com/p/business/property/ill_wind_blows_insurance_premiums_UBd4HrdSR1pEJyMLbIKZxO

Insurance companies are simply quitting the market, leaving the few remaining to name whatever price they want. This means premiums going up from $800 per apartment to $4000.

Not an 'incremental' problem at all, to be dealt with over a long period of time, and this will have big knock on effects.

The solution? Get the government to underwrite the insurance. People won't pay the price increases, so buildings don't get maintained. It's market failure.

Which of course raises the question, if the free markets can't prevent global warming, can they cope with it. The answer appears to be in already, in this case, and it is "No".

Of course the free markets always copes with everything. Nowhere to live? No job? No food? You are free to die. Problem solved.

If that's not the sort of solution you want, then you don't really want a free market system.

 

[Furcifer]

You do indeed march alone in your belief that positive growth is a reduction, and I wouldn't expect to pick up any company if I were you. Not company you'd want to make eye-contact with, anyway.

This is basic calculus 101. If the rate of growth is a constant 1%, and it changes to 0.9% it's indicative of a reduction in emissions. Both 1% and 0.9% are positive growth.

"Irresponsible" is meaningless if there's nothing to be responsible for, which can only be some action or inaction. Had you stuck only to "foolish" then there wouldn't be any argument, but that "irresponsible" slipped out. One has to take into account that you were talking to a fellow-thinker, with certain shared assumptions.

Dodge noted.

Nobody is justifying taking action by reference to a positive cloud feedback, so there's nothing irresponsible about taking a position on it.

Strawman. It has nothing to do with action, it was about foolishly making any determination on the validity of clouds as a positive or negative feedback at this time.

It was squandered because the full value was nowhere near obtained from the resource, purely in pursuit of the short-term price.

Faulty logic leading to an erroneous conclusion.

Begging the question is a logical fallacy which applies to an argument . It is not a question in itself. The question in this case is : Is it a fact that emissions are the measure of an economy's strength? Your answer is "yes", and your argument for that answer begins with "its a fact".

Incorrect.
A statement of fact is not a question.

Had you clearly said "it would be delayed" then this sub-thread would have followed a different path, but you went the "no economies without" way. I just follow along.

It's obvious the current economies wouldn't exist without the second industrial revolution. At least to everyone who understands modern economics.

"Knowing more and more about less and less", and generally losing perspective.

Without which there is no such thing as "expertise".

It didn't. Exponential growth is evident from the 14thCE. Not in North America until somewhat later, of course, but generally.

This is a basic mistake people unfamiliar with economic and population growth make. That's why "per capita" growth is more indicative of the tending. I believe this should clear up the error you're making.

In China they just build them. The government both proposes and disposes, and the proposal costs nothing.

Hurray for communism.

Proposals are just talk, and talk is cheap. Unless it comes from lawyers, of course.

No. Proposals are proposals and talk is talk. There's a difference.

A simple way to differentiate the two and understand the real difference might be to consider "talking about getting married" and "proposing to get married".

A proposal is a formal submission and talk is just that, talk. You're obviously confusing the two.

 

[Furcifer]

Entire Apartment communities in northern coastal Australia are becoming unviable, since insurance premiums are soaring.

Unfortunately, a paid link.

http://www.afr.com/p/business/property/ill_wind_blows_insurance_premiums_UBd4HrdSR1pEJyMLbIKZxO

Insurance companies are simply quitting the market, leaving the few remaining to name whatever price they want. This means premiums going up from $800 per apartment to $4000.

Not an 'incremental' problem at all, to be dealt with over a long period of time, and this will have big knock on effects.

The solution? Get the government to underwrite the insurance. People won't pay the price increases, so buildings don't get maintained. It's market failure.

Which of course raises the question, if the free markets can't prevent global warming, can they cope with it. The answer appears to be in already, in this case, and it is "No".

Hardly.

This is something I've been advocating for for quite some time. If people want' to build their homes in a tornado prone region then they either pay for the premium based on how likely it is to be destroyed or they build tornado proof homes. The technology exists, it just isn't implemented because people say "Why would I take on the added cost, I've got insurance"

The fact that insurance industry is finally in a position to rectify this problem is a good thing. Especially if you're trying to centralize the population, which I think I've heard somewhere

 

[a_unique_person]

Hardly.

This is something I've been advocating for for quite some time. If people want' to build their homes in a tornado prone region then they either pay for the premium based on how likely it is to be destroyed or they build tornado proof homes. The technology exists, it just isn't implemented because people say "Why would I take on the added cost, I've got insurance"

The fact that insurance industry is finally in a position to rectify this problem is a good thing. Especially if you're trying to centralize the population, which I think I've heard somewhere

It's not a tornado area, it's a cyclone area. And the cyclones are getting worse.

 

[Trakar]

It's not a tornado area, it's a cyclone area. And the cyclones are getting worse.

If I'm not mistaken, we are getting some range extension for cyclones (or hurricanes as we N. American residents tend to label them) as well, meaning that boundary areas which typically do not see cyclones may begin seeing them on a much more regular basis. Right now, the only good news seems to be that in a warming climate the conditions which give rise to hurricanes may become a bit more rare, meaning fewer hurricanes over all, but with warmer waters, the ones that do form will trend toward being larger and stronger.

 

[Trakar]

Of course the free markets always copes with everything. Nowhere to live? No job? No food? You are free to die. Problem solved.

If that's not the sort of solution you want, then you don't really want a free market system.

Well, if you are going to go the route of government insurance, go all out government insurance, don't get into this corporate subsidy/welfare BS of government underwriting of private insurance profits. Sounds like one potential good revenue-neutralization of carbon tax money. But the tax neutralization aspect of carbon taxes is something that will have to be dealt with by each individual population and their governments, and IMO, are a (if not "the") key issue in whether carbon tax systems are deemed "successful" or "failures." This popular deeming is largely irregardless of such a tax's ability to discourage the use of fossil fuels,...but we can get into that discussion in more detail later if there is any interest in pursuing such.

 

[BenBurch]

It's not a tornado area, it's a cyclone area. And the cyclones are getting worse.

I should translate that a Pacific cyclone is the same sort of storm as what we call a hurricane if it were in the Atlantic.

Insurers do not want to insure that threat because the destruction could be so widespread that they could not cover the damage.