• 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.

Moderated Global Warming Discussion

Status
Not open for further replies.
Or we could invade the Hollow Earth and freeze Hell over, which would also do the trick. It's a toss-up.

It'll take a lot of money in either case, which means the Persian Gulf and East Asia. Forget East Asian investment in anything nuclear in the medium-term (at least), and nuclear programs around the Persian Gulf are often regarded as problematic. See Iran, for instance.

So moving on ... there is some momentum building up in renewables. Not fast enough to make any significant difference in the medium-term, of course, but a harbinger I think.

Doubtful, IMO. Infrastructural and societal impacts are most likely to initiate collapse before such elements can be fully integrated or make significant mitigatory impacts. Tipping points have already been exceeded and overshoot and pullback were fevered fantasies to begin with. There may be enclaves, but at the most optimistic we've spawned several centuries of planetary "dark ages," and only more time and wisdom than I possess can reveal the particulars of how that will unfold.
 
Just a rough guesstimate, but many of the economic models seem to indicate that if these issues had been taken seriously and acted upon with dedication in the sixties or even up to the late seventies, we might have transitioned into an economy that smoothly integrated alternative technologies without more than a slight speed-bump, the last ~50 years, however, seems to have taken us beyond the point where any easy and relatively pain-free options of mitigation are available, and quite possibly completely beyond any reasonable considerations of mitigation at all.

Can't argue with any of that :).

We weren't and aren't prepared for anything like AGW. Ozone depletion by CFC's was just about manageable because it was relatively low-scale (but I'm sure many of us remember the shrieks of outrage action provoked, from many of the same actors in the denial industry). Our system of sovereign nation-states simply cannot deal with something on this scale, and AGW may well see the end of it. Which is ironic given the UN-phobia so manifest in the denial cult.

Not very soon, though, and not without massive disruption.

Once you step off the ledge, flailing about for options other than the accelerating approach of the sidewalk are largely without merit.

Better to keep your place on the ledge, by whatever means necessary.
 
Doubtful, IMO. Infrastructural and societal impacts are most likely to initiate collapse before such elements can be fully integrated or make significant mitigatory impacts. Tipping points have already been exceeded and overshoot and pullback were fevered fantasies to begin with. There may be enclaves, but at the most optimistic we've spawned several centuries of planetary "dark ages," and only more time and wisdom than I possess can reveal the particulars of how that will unfold.

I'm rather more sanguine than that. I don't think we'll see a complete breakdown in global trade and civilisation, although I agree it will be among enclaves of our current society. I think there'll be a change in attitude to timescales, away from the current "Me, Now" mania to a sense of deeper, multi-generational time. A more conservative society, and less tolerant. More Eastern than Western, more Japan than Silicon Valley.

Reasoned speculation is my favourite brain-exercise :).
 
At this point it's all about mitigation and slowing the AGW freight train of changing conditions....the far north is FUBAR.
The tropics won't change much cept get wetter...

Us'n in the middle gonna be in interesting times.

••••

Meanwhile interesting finding

Sugarcane Cools Climate, Study Finds

ScienceDaily (Apr. 17, 2011) — Brazilians are world leaders in using biofuels for gasoline. About a quarter of their automobile fuel consumption comes from sugarcane, which significantly reduces carbon dioxide emissions that otherwise would be emitted from using gasoline. Now scientists from the Carnegie Institution's Department of Global Ecology have found that sugarcane has a double benefit. Expansion of the crop in areas previously occupied by other Brazilian crops cools the local climate. It does so by reflecting sunlight back into space and by lowering the temperature of the surrounding air as the plants "exhale" cooler water.
The study is published in the 2nd issue of Nature Climate Change, posted on-line April 17.
more
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/04/110417185345.htm
 
I'm rather more sanguine than that. I don't think we'll see a complete breakdown in global trade and civilisation, although I agree it will be among enclaves of our current society. I think there'll be a change in attitude to timescales, away from the current "Me, Now" mania to a sense of deeper, multi-generational time. A more conservative society, and less tolerant. More Eastern than Western, more Japan than Silicon Valley.

Reasoned speculation is my favourite brain-exercise :).

Sounds more pipe-dream than evidence based to me, but I hope you are right.
 
Can't argue with any of that :).

We weren't and aren't prepared for anything like AGW. Ozone depletion by CFC's was just about manageable because it was relatively low-scale (but I'm sure many of us remember the shrieks of outrage action provoked, from many of the same actors in the denial industry). Our system of sovereign nation-states simply cannot deal with something on this scale, and AGW may well see the end of it. Which is ironic given the UN-phobia so manifest in the denial cult.

Not very soon, though, and not without massive disruption.



Better to keep your place on the ledge, by whatever means necessary.

From my perspective that ledge crumbled away a while back, like a cartoon, however, many have not yet noticed they are falling.
 
National Coal Expert: “Mining is a Loser” in Practically Every Way







Originally posted at The Great Energy Challenge blog
Anytime coal’s cost to America is discussed, the coal industry reflexively talks about what an economic lifeline it is for the states in which it operates. Headwaters Economics, a Bozeman-based think tank focusing on natural resource issues, has a solid new study that’s getting national attention for undercutting those claims. For instance, the Headwaters study finds that “[f]ossil fuel production has not insulated energy-producing states from fiscal crisis,” that “[f]ossil fuel extraction has a limited influence at the state level on economic indicators such as GDP by state, personal income, and employment,” and that “[t]he volatility of fossil fuel markets poses obstacles to the stability and long-term security of economic growth in energy-producing regions.”
This is a problem for the coal industry, which spends heavily to construct a fantasy world in which it’s a “clean” industry to which we should feel grateful, a vital supplier of our power, and an economic lifeline to host communities.
But in the real world, coal’s case is even weaker than the Headwaters study shows. The work of Professor Michael Hendryx of West Virginia University goes even further. His work has looked at the costs of coal mining to the Appalachian communities that host it.

more
http://www.desmogblog.com/national-coal-expert-mining-loser-practically-every-way
 
Is global warming bull-plop?

This is actually old news, but since I just discovered the video, I wanted to create a thread about it...My apologies if this has already been covered and for bringing up old material.

I watch a YouTube video featuring Penn and Teller from the TAM in 2008 where Penn says he has a strong feeling that all of the global warming stuff is "BS".

I was curious whether Penn still holds this position.

My (very limited) knowledge of this subject is that that the scientific consensus was strongly leaning toward the reality of the global warming, and that is by no means a minority position. Is this an accurate assessment?

It is also my understanding that skeptic-brethren (like Dr. Shermer) have argued that the jury is no longer out on this subject...

Whattaya think JREFers?

Sorry...not enough posts to put up the link...You can search "Penn Jillette's reponse" for the relevant Youtube video.
 
No, it's not BS. Penn's opinion on this has no weight, any more than you'd take his opinion on just about anything other than performance and stage magic in general. No reason to take my opinion either, as I've no particular expertise on the matter. You can, however, take the opinion of the vast majority of scientists who are educated on the matter and who have spent their lives learning more about it.
 
No, it's not BS. Penn's opinion on this has no weight, any more than you'd take his opinion on just about anything other than performance and stage magic in general. No reason to take my opinion either, as I've no particular expertise on the matter. You can, however, take the opinion of the vast majority of scientists who are educated on the matter and who have spent their lives learning more about it.


Seconded.

Despite all his commendable skeptical beliefs, Penn has promoted some viewpoints which aren't in agreement with the majority of the scientific establishment, perhaps motivated by his libertarian viewpoints.

Just goes to show you that you need to be skeptical of everyone. :)
 
Randi is among those who are skeptical of AGW, although he is modest/realistic enough to say that he isn't an expert.

People saying it is 'BS' are not following the evidence.
 
Randi is among those who are skeptical of AGW, although he is modest/realistic enough to say that he isn't an expert.


That's true.

Randi is another one whose opinions I'd take with a grain of salt on this topic (despite my great admiration of him and his opinion in other areas).

At least he admits he is not an expert.
 
No, it's not BS. Penn's opinion on this has no weight, any more than you'd take his opinion on just about anything other than performance and stage magic in general. No reason to take my opinion either, as I've no particular expertise on the matter. You can, however, take the opinion of the vast majority of scientists who are educated on the matter and who have spent their lives learning more about it.

Let me just add to this that Penn (and Shermer) are Libertarians and pretty doctrinaire ones at that. Penn's opinions on anything related to personal or economic freedom should be viewed with at least a little skepticism.
 
Take anything a libertarian says about AGW with a grain of salt. They want their free-market religion to take care of it. It's not that implausible, but they will argue against it simply because the towering threat of massive regulation. Case in point, Michael Shermer was about 5 years late to declaring AGW was real in Skeptic Magazine and thinks that the market can take care of it still. Ahhhhh yeah, no. Well, maybe :p
 
I would like to add that global warming and anthropogenic global warming (AGW) are not the same subject.
The OP was asking about global warming in general which I think has more concensus amongst scientists than AGW.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom