• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Arctic Ice Melt = Accelerating GW

Tudor said:
Leaping to your next paragraph, if somebody ever tries to sell you an "economic model that can predict monetary costs of global warming", be advised: he may be dishonest. Even if you would have such a model (it does not exist; it would have to take into account too many things we know too little about, such as the monetary effect of specific phenomena on each kind of bussines) you'd still need the entry data (which is the phenomenon that will occur, its intensity, the place where it will occur, the classification and number of businesses at the time of every occurence, their location etc).

The point is this: it's easy to calculate how much money it will cost to buy certain things you know you need according to the Kyoto protocol (energy mainly) at known prices. It's impossible to calculate how much money will be spend to move unknown production facilities from certain areas you don't know to other areas you don't know, to move unknown transport facilities from unknown locations to unknown locations and what that will do to transportation costs and how all this will influence prices of unknown goods; it's equally impossible to calculate how much money will be SAVED as a result of lowering transportation costs due to the availability of new transport routes, lowering energy prices as a result of availability of new resources etc
Click to expand...
Abso- freaking-lutely. The loss of human capital is generally ignored when calculating the cost of warming. Loss of one crop is compensated by the gaining of another - as if cattle-ranchers can become strawberry-barons overnight if that's what the market suggests. It's not just the farmers; the knowledge tied up in local auctioneers, wholesalers, agricultural mechanics and such is (at the very least) devalued. It's just beef-product $X, projected strawberry product $Y, cost $X-Y.

The costs of countering greenhouse-warming are exaggerated by ignoring the fact that lots of plant is going to be replaced over the next couple of decades anyway. That cost should be a simple $X-Y, but it's generally presented as just $X.
 
a_unique_person said:
Every time I ask a friend of mine who works on GW as a research scientist, he is amazed that people can think they are so stupid.

Yes, research on climate is continuing. The fact is, it is a well understood system.

Yes, they understand all about initial conditions, chaotic systems, etc, etc, etc. They use all the checks that everyone here can think of, because, believe it or not, they are intelligent scientists who follow the standard scientific processes. They are constantly presented with all these objections, and have considered them and factored them in where they need to be considered. Eg, how do you demonstrate the models they use are valid. All done. I have asked him to answer some of the questions raised here, but as soon as I mention the internet and forums, he is not interested, because he has tried to talk to people such as you before and his experience is that they will not believe the evidence.

The recently departed environment minister, David Kemp, was a dry as dust economic rationalist. Not the kind of guy you would normally make a minister for the environment, but it was obviously felt by those on the conservative side of politics that he was the kind of guy needed to give those greenie scientists a bloody nose and bring them into line.

In the space of his tenure, he was convinced by them that they were right. When the government Greenhouse policy was announced and contained such absurdities as raising the subisidies for diesel fuel, he did not stand again at the next election, effectively resigning, the cabinet had rolled him.

http://www.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,4455333%5E1702,00.html

His academic qualifications

Academic Qualifications

Ph.D. (Yale) (distinction) 1975 (Political Science)

Fulbright Scholar (Australian American Education Foundation) 1968 - 1971

LL.B. (Melbourne) 1966

B.A. (Honours, First Class) Melbourne 1964 (Political Science/History)
Click to expand...


Let's get something straight.

I don't think climatologists are stupid. O have never said that nor do I think it. I believe there is the normal mix of pepole involved, ranging from some middling talent to some serious clever academics.

And your friend (I am sceptical about this too) is right to feel the way he does about interent forums. I feel the same way every time I read one of your posts about economics.

But he is not right to ignore the questions. Despite the tediousness of the process, I try to correct all the misleading claims made here within my own professional field.

So what really amazes me about this new post of yours is why, if you know this climate researcher, don't you have any stronger points to make? All you do is say "they're not stupid you know" and present misleading evidence, like your post at the top of this thread.

And now, we should be in awe because some politician with a host of law and politics degrees becamea strong proponent of AGW?
 
CapelDodger said:
Abso- freaking-lutely. The loss of human capital is generally ignored when calculating the cost of warming. Loss of one crop is compensated by the gaining of another - as if cattle-ranchers can become strawberry-barons overnight if that's what the market suggests. It's not just the farmers; the knowledge tied up in local auctioneers, wholesalers, agricultural mechanics and such is (at the very least) devalued. It's just beef-product $X, projected strawberry product $Y, cost $X-Y.

The costs of countering greenhouse-warming are exaggerated by ignoring the fact that lots of plant is going to be replaced over the next couple of decades anyway. That cost should be a simple $X-Y, but it's generally presented as just $X.
Click to expand...

This is just bollocks. And we don't even have to go to the economics.



You claim there is a loss of human capital because, for example, there is a rapid transition in agriculture and "graziers don't know how to be strawberry farmers". Then in the next para you claim that ther eis no loss of physical capital because it will be replaced within a couple of decades.


For me, people who try to maintain that we can cut emissions costlessly (or in the more absurd cases claim we can increase our income) completely undermine the whole AGW lobby.


You need to convince me that you are aware of the trade-offs involved and then convince me that the cost/benefit of taking some prescribed action adds up.


With you hand on your heart and your thinking cap on, do you really honestly believe that, say, the EU economy would not encounter a very substantial reduction in income/output if it were made to reduce CO2 emmissions by the type of magnitudes we are told would be required to halt AGW (which IIRC is anything up to 50%). So this would mean using very exepnsive non-emmitting technologies and/or reducing energy consumption by an amount sufficient to cut emissions by these types of amounts.

It astounds me that people think it wouldn't cost us a tremendous amount.
 
Drooper said:
Sufice to say that if producing income as envisaged under Kyoto (i.e. where there are prescribed levels of CO2 emmissions and hence levels and types of energy usage) would be more efficient (meaoning more income from the resources we use, including labour, raw materials, capital etc.) firms would be doing it already unless there were MASSIVE market failure across markets.
Click to expand...

The global insurance market accepted the reality of greenhouse warming at least 15 years ago. (It happens to be one of the few industries comparable to oil in size. I doubt if greenhouse warming would have as high a profile as it does if that weren't the case.) That's a very reality-based industry (as is the pension industry), but reserved.

BP and Shell have long accepted greenhouse-warming and have been investing in alternative technologies. They've changed from regarding themselves as oil industries to energy industries since the early 80's.

Exxon is a fine example of the inertial drag that distorts markets. They've prospered from the trends of the last century and they don't want change. They have political influence, and through that they think they can stop the world turning. And so they tie themselves to a declining market. Opportunity lies in the new world that is coming. After the retail billionaires and the IT billionaires will come the energy billionaires that get in on the ground floor.
 
Drooper said:
I'm not telling you what you think, just commenting on what you say.


No, you're re-arranging things to imply I said something I didn't.


And if you believe climate variablity is a problem per se, you state so again here, then I find that to be a fundamentalist position.


Duh, of course it's a problem, and one we better understand, no matter why it's happening. We have to adapt, after all, since so much of civilization is built on the current idea of climate.


And if I am so good at avoid the issues, why do you still not state what this inctrovertible trend is

What about the 50-year high arctic temperature trends? What about the ice passages that have never existed before in historical times?



and why it resolves the uncertainties surrounding AGW.
Click to expand...

Why do we care WHAT is doing the GW? You want to bring up the idea of AGW, and when you argue that saying that we must understand what is going on (regardless of what it is) is a fundementalist position, you ignore, entirely, the obvious, evident fact that our civlization depends on a certain climate, and that we can only do better by understanding what is happening, regardless of why.

We must cope, no matter what the cause. We must care, no matter what the cause.

That's not a fundamentalist position, it's a simple statement that when the climate changes, we must cope. We obviously do better if we have a clue what and/or why that is happening.

Retract your claim that I'm a fundamentalist. I don't forget such obscene insults.
 
Drooper said:
Let's get something straight.

I don't think climatologists are stupid. O have never said that nor do I think it. I believe there is the normal mix of pepole involved, ranging from some middling talent to some serious clever academics.

And your friend (I am sceptical about this too) is right to feel the way he does about interent forums. I feel the same way every time I read one of your posts about economics.

But he is not right to ignore the questions. Despite the tediousness of the process, I try to correct all the misleading claims made here within my own professional field.

So what really amazes me about this new post of yours is why, if you know this climate researcher, don't you have any stronger points to make? All you do is say "they're not stupid you know" and present misleading evidence, like your post at the top of this thread.

And now, we should be in awe because some politician with a host of law and politics degrees becamea strong proponent of AGW?
Click to expand...

You are the one who is misleading. Refer to post above. You are comparing regions that have completely different boundaries.
 
a_unique_person said:
You are the one who is misleading. Refer to post above. You are comparing regions that have completely different boundaries.
Click to expand...

I'm am now bored of this. You are bringing nothing to the discussion anymore, despite the fact that you claim to have a direct line to a climate researcher.

Everybody else can read English and knows that you link claimed to have successfully forecast over the last 20 years increased rainfall in northern regions of Australia and lower rainfall in Southern regions of Australia.

Everybody can see that I showed times series of rainfall in Northern Australia and Southern Asutralia and they clearly show that over the last 20 years this is not true.

Everybody can also see that you claim that a chart based on only two seperate years, showing that rainfall in 2002 was higher than in 1900] and that this is doesn't even address the claim, let alone have any value due the lack of any information on the tren in rainfall.
 
Drooper said:
I'm am now bored of this. You are bringing nothing to the discussion anymore, despite the fact that you claim to have a direct line to a climate researcher.

Everybody else can read English and knows that you link claimed to have successfully forecast over the last 20 years increased rainfall in northern regions of Australia and lower rainfall in Southern regions of Australia.

Everybody can see that I showed times series of rainfall in Northern Australia and Southern Asutralia and they clearly show that over the last 20 years this is not true.

Everybody can also see that you claim that a chart based on only two seperate years, showing that rainfall in 2002 was higher than in 1900] and that this is doesn't even address the claim, let alone have any value due the lack of any information on the tren in rainfall.
Click to expand...

The map, if you look at it, is referring to quite specific areas of these locations. Australia is a big place, Victoria by itself is about the size of England, and it is one of the smaller states. The drought areas are balanced by areas that are, on a large scale relatively nearby, but experiencing increased rainfall. By coincidence, the drought areas coincide with some major population centres, while the increased rainfall is in areas of sparse populations.
 
http://www.csiro.com.au/index.asp?type=mediaRelease&id=wetndry&style=mediaRelease

Rainfall, averaged over the entire Australian continent, has increased over the past 50 years, according to new research. While many areas over Australia recently have experienced drought, the trend in other areas has been towards wetter conditions.

"Unfortunately, the wetter conditions have occurred in the more sparsely populated regions," says Dr Ian Smith, a climate scientist at CSIRO Atmospheric Research.

Dr Smith's analysis of rainfall data compiled by the Bureau of Meteorology shows that rainfall has increased over the summer half of the year in large parts of western, northern and central Australia over the period 1952 to 2002. The subsequent two summers since the analysis was completed have also been relatively wet in those parts of the continent.

"The trends are sufficiently large and widespread to be classified as unusual in a historical context," says Dr Smith. "Furthermore, the wetter conditions may be signs of a changing climate, as foreshadowed by climate experts almost 20 years ago."
Click to expand...

That is the claim that he, as an expert is making. You are placing too much importance on too little data. He has made a study that is much more detailed, of course, and the one map that was published in the paper is not going to be debunked by you applying rainfall patterns over areas that do not correllate.
 
rikzilla said:
Thanks Wolverine,

That's a great thread! I'm gonna go back and finish reading it now. As a skeptic I'd certainly rather discuss the issue of global warming in a scientific forum rather than here.

You just can't politicize science...either the evidence is there, or it is not.

-z
Click to expand...

So did you read it? The claim is that recent warming is not due to solar activity.
 
Drooper said:
Evidence please.
Click to expand...

What’s happening to Antarctica?

Overall, Antarctica is not warming significantly. Only the Antarctic Peninsula is warming throughout the year at a rate that statisticians call ‘significant’.

Ice shelves, such as those in the Antarctic Peninsula, float and will not change sea level if they disintegrate or melt. (You can check this by adding an ice block to water in a glass. Mark the height of the water on the glass and then see what happens to the height after the ice melts.)

Global warming may even lead to increased precipitation over Antarctica, which would lock water away in the ice caps. This may offset some of the sea-level rise caused by thermal expansion of water.
Click to expand...

http://www.dar.csiro.au/publications/gh_faq.htm#gh26

The antarctic peninsula, (sorry), this is still a significant area. Much of the water rise will be from the land based ice that is melting.

Past climate and sea level
Has climate changed in the past 100 years?

The average surface temperature of the world is now 0.4 to 0.8°C higher than it was late in the 19th century. Most of the warming occurred over two periods in the 20th century: from 1910 to 1945 and from 1976 to 2002. Evidence for global warming is multi-faceted. In addition to the global average surface warming of about 0.6oC since 1900, there has been an increase in heatwaves, fewer frosts, warming of the lower atmosphere and deep oceans, retreat of glaciers and sea-ice, a rise in sea-level of 10-20 cm and increased heavy rainfall in many regions. Many species of plants and animals have changed their location or the timing of their seasonal responses in ways that provide indirect evidence of global warming. The latest research by Mann and Jones in 2003 confirms that the 20th century Northern Hemisphere warming is greater than any time in the past 1800 years.

Both air over land and over the oceans has warmed. The most recent period of warming has been almost global, although the largest temperature increases have occurred over northern hemisphere continents in the mid- to high- latitudes. Parts of the north-western North Atlantic and the central North Pacific Oceans have cooled in recent decades.

1998 was the warmest year and the 1990s the warmest decade globally since the record began in 1861. Nine out of the ten warmest years on record occurred in the 1990s and 2000s.

In 1998 Australia recorded its highest ever annual mean temperature since high-quality data records began in 1910. The Australian mean temperature for 1998 was 22.54°C, 0.73°C higher than the average for the Australian Bureau of Meteorology’s 1961 to 1990 reference period.
Click to expand...



http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/amtemp.shtml



20030106meant03.gif
 
CapelDodger said:
Abso- freaking-lutely. The loss of human capital is generally ignored when calculating the cost of warming. Loss of one crop is compensated by the gaining of another - as if cattle-ranchers can become strawberry-barons overnight if that's what the market suggests. It's not just the farmers; the knowledge tied up in local auctioneers, wholesalers, agricultural mechanics and such is (at the very least) devalued. It's just beef-product $X, projected strawberry product $Y, cost $X-Y.

The costs of countering greenhouse-warming are exaggerated by ignoring the fact that lots of plant is going to be replaced over the next couple of decades anyway. That cost should be a simple $X-Y, but it's generally presented as just $X.
Click to expand...

I fail to understand why you would quote my argument against the possibility of calculating the monetary costs of global warming (stating that it was solid), only to suggest that there is a way to calculate such costs (you say "knowledge [...] DEVALUED"; that presupposes a CORRECT VALUE, which can only be the market price of their knowledge - their salary, fee etc; but my argument mentioned that one can not know what market prices - whose salary, whose fee - to consider, because one can not know what locations will be affected and at what time, affected by what exactly, what production facilities will be on location then etc; you say "the LOSS of human capital"; now, whatever "human capital" means, it either has a market price, or it has not; if it has a market price, see above; if it doesn't, see below, the part about the measurement of non-monetary costs).

We can not calculate the monetary costs of global warming (see the argument from my first post). We can not calculate the monetary revenues that may result from global warming (see my first post, the part about money saved). Therefore, we can not calculate their sum. Therefore, we don't know if the result will be a monetary LOSS or a monetary GAIN.

On the other hand, we know the result of Kyoto will be a monetary LOSS for every consumer that buys the increasingly expensive goods produced by those producers that need to switch to more expensive (bigger market prices) energy or buy expensive technology to curb their emissions.

Now and again about the non-monetary costs; to calculate those, you have to measure them (or their components) first; in order to do so, you need two things: 1) a measurement unit; 2) a measurement procedure which assigns a number of units to each primary component for every non-monetary cost. Neither (1) or (2) are available. Therefore, one can not calculate non-monetary costs.

We know that we will lose money if we comply with Kyoto. We don't know whether will lose or gain money if we don't comply.
 
Originally posted by CapelDodger:
Abso- freaking-lutely. The loss of human capital is generally ignored when calculating the cost of warming. Loss of one crop is compensated by the gaining of another - as if cattle-ranchers can become strawberry-barons overnight if that's what the market suggests. It's not just the farmers; the knowledge tied up in local auctioneers, wholesalers, agricultural mechanics and such is (at the very least) devalued. It's just beef-product $X, projected strawberry product $Y, cost $X-Y.
Click to expand...

There's quite a bit wrong with this premise.

1. Throughout history farmers have been forced to change crops, livestock and agricultural methodology. Mixed farming in Ireland is a thing of the past, and with CAP reform tillage farming will probably go the same way. The percentage of the workforce and absolute numbers of workers involved in agriculture declines as a nation's economy develops. Unpredictability is part and parcel of agriculture, it always has been.

2. Auctioneers, wholesalers, mechanics etc. are not idiots. No auctioneer is going to ignore residential or commercial property (around here a semi-d fetches the same price and commission as 40 acres of agricultural land, your average pub much more), or development land (worth approx. ten times more per acre than agricultural land). Any wholesaler who hasn't diversified into construction supplies, plant hire, decorating etc. can't blame global warming when they go bust.

3. Less agriculture in the developed world would be beneficial. There would be definite environmental advantages to less livestock, pesticide and fertiliser usage. There would probably be less political pressure to maintain agricultural subsidies and protection, which would mean cheaper food for first world consumers and a fair deal for third world farmers.
 
Shane Costello said:
There's quite a bit wrong with this premise.

1. Throughout history farmers have been forced to change crops, livestock and agricultural methodology. Mixed farming in Ireland is a thing of the past, and with CAP reform tillage farming will probably go the same way. The percentage of the workforce and absolute numbers of workers involved in agriculture declines as a nation's economy develops. Unpredictability is part and parcel of agriculture, it always has been.
Click to expand...
The changes in agriculture haven't come without a cost.

2. Auctioneers, wholesalers, mechanics etc. are not idiots. No auctioneer is going to ignore residential or commercial property (around here a semi-d fetches the same price and commission as 40 acres of agricultural land, your average pub much more), or development land (worth approx. ten times more per acre than agricultural land). Any wholesaler who hasn't diversified into construction supplies, plant hire, decorating etc. can't blame global warming when they go bust.
Click to expand...
If they were making a living before global warming, I think they can and will blame it. And there's a great deal of difference between selling off land for development and a continuous production and trading economy.

3. Less agriculture in the developed world would be beneficial. There would be definite environmental advantages to less livestock, pesticide and fertiliser usage. There would probably be less political pressure to maintain agricultural subsidies and protection, which would mean cheaper food for first world consumers and a fair deal for third world farmers.
Click to expand...
I agree with you there; the European and US agricultural systems are artificial apart from a few specialist areas. All the same, lots of people have made their plans based on it continuing, so there's going to be disruption. As there has been before - the Dust-Bowl, for instance.
 
Originally posted by Capel Dodger:
The changes in agriculture haven't come without a cost.
Click to expand...

No change ever does. The ultimate benefits of a move away from an agricultural economy do a more developed one are obvious. As Ireland moved from a system of tenant farming to wider land proprietorship there was certainly a cost. The Anglo_Irish ascendancy lost their economic and social influence. To a certain extent their employees lost out. However the benefits to Irish society as a whole outweighed the costs.

If they were making a living before global warming, I think they can and will blame it.
Click to expand...

The implementation of the Kyoto protocol will undoubtedly increase business costs, the case that global warming will have a similar effect is unproven. You don't think that mechanics won't grumble about carbon taxes, and their effect on car sales, fuel costs etc? Have you ever considered the fact that wholesalers use vehicular transport to ferry goods to and from their place of business, and won't be too pleased when the price of diesel goes up again? It might even occur to them to pass the cost on to their customers.

And there's a great deal of difference between selling off land for development and a continuous production and trading economy.
Click to expand...

Did you actually mean to post such a silly statement?

When land is sold for development (lets say 3 acres), it is bought at a premium price by a developer, who strange as it may seem, develops it. The local auctioneer earns a bigger fee than he would if the land was sold as agricultural land (this doesn't happen very often around here. The turnover in farmland is low, and renting out of unwanted agricultural land, rather than sale of same, is more commonplace). He may build houses (sourcing the necessary materials from local wholesalers), not for kicks but in the expectation that people will rent or buy. Local businesses (the mechanic and wholesaler included) find that their customer base has increased. OTOH he may build an industrial unit, which will literally be in continuous production and will presumably trade whatever it produces. This will bring employment to a hitherto agricultural area. All those workers will also need houses, at which point Euro signs appear in the auctioneer's eyes.

And you think that 3 acres is better left in the hands of one man and five cattle?

I agree with you there; the European and US agricultural systems are artificial apart from a few specialist areas. All the same, lots of people have made their plans based on it continuing, so there's going to be disruption.
Click to expand...

If Ireland and the rest of the developed world is anything to go buy, your presumption is false. "Lots of people" will not be subject to disruption, for the simple fact that very few people make their living from agriculture.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom