1. IrvingSnodgrass - Nov. 30, 1998 - 6:41 AM PT
There are usually two sides to every issue, and Global Warming is no different. Here are some collections of links on both sides of the issue:
Global Warming is a Reality
Global Warming is Overstated
With all these experts very sure of themselves, but coming to very different conclusions, I anticipate an interesting dialogue here in the Fray.
2. NickVanston - Nov. 30, 1998 - 8:31 AM PT
I am not an expert in this field (but that has never prevented Fraysters from sounding off on any subject), but it seems to me that the following questions and answers sum up a lot of the debate:
- is the world warming up? -- Almost certainly yes
- is this because of rising CO2 levels? -- Very probably, and other gases are also playing a role
- are man-made CO2 emissions responsible for the rising CO2 levels? -- It is hard to be sure because the CO2/oxygen cycle is not fully understood or quantified, man-made emissions are a small portion of the total, but they are an addition to that total.
- will the world continue to warm up? -- Maybe. The expert consensus is yes, but mathematical models have limitations, and for all we know, climatic behaviour is chaotic on the time-scales of interest.
- will global warming be halted if emissions are cut along the lines some governments are pushing for? -- Probably not. The models say that warming will slow down but not stop.
So what should we do? -- Prepare for a warmer world anyway and seek ways of reducing emissions in the long term, if only as an insurance policy.
What is the best way of cutting emissions? -- Give economic incentives ( a dollar per gallon tax on gasoline for starters), substitute nuclear for natural gas, natural gas for oil, and oil for coal.
If it is mainly our children and grandchildren who will be affected, what should we do? -- Buy Siberian real estate.
3. DocBrown - Nov. 30, 1998 - 9:08 AM PT
I'd rather have global warming than global cooling. Raise the temperatures just a tad and my home here in Cleveland could become much more desirable. Pardon me while I go fire up my smogmobile.
Seriously, I think higher taxes on gasoline and hamburger would be a good idea. We need to reduce automobile emissions and cow farts before Kevin Costner sprouts gills.
4. Ronski - Nov. 30, 1998 - 9:24 AM PT
There is no consensus that the rise in temperatures of the past 150 years is caused by an increase in man-made gases. It may well be the result of sunspot activity. Moreover, the earth's temperature history (as researched from core samples and the like) shows that the warming of the past century and a half is quite moderate even as a natural (not man-made) occurrence.
While, as a skier, I hate the ridiculously warm weather the Northeast is undergoing this week (an average of high temperatures as much as 15 to 20 degrees above normal), human activity is probably not reponsible for it. There have been much greater swings of temperature in the past 2000 years when human-produced gases could not possibly have played even a minor role.
5. marshame - Nov. 30, 1998 - 11:27 AM PT
Global Warming's name this year is "La niña". Last year it was "El niño." I wonder what it will be in the year 2000: "El nieto?" or "El problema mileniano"?
We could name Global Warming each year, like they do hurricanes, tropical storms, etc.
6. marshame - Nov. 30, 1998 - 11:27 AM PT
Of course, I just figured it out! Global Warming IS the Y2K problem!
7. ScotusAntonovich - Nov. 30, 1998 - 2:02 PM PT
Yee-haw!
This thread is a real success!
Where is everyone who posted in "Suggestions" about how "important" this thread is?
Do they have nothing to contribute?
8. Raskolnikov - Nov. 30, 1998 - 2:08 PM PT
well, this is one of my favorite topics, but I talked it to death a couple of months ago in one of the politics threads. Also, my home PC is broke, and home is where my environmental reference books are. :(
9. elliot803 - Nov. 30, 1998 - 2:10 PM PT
The prevailing opinion in the scientific community is that human activity is responsible for at least part of the global temperature increase that has been observed in the last 100 years or so.
All of the most reputable climate change studies predict that in the absence of measures to reduce rates of greenhouse gas emission, average global temperatures will increase by 1 to 4 degrees celsius by the year 2100. At the high end of this projection, the impact will likely be catastophic, particularly for developing nations.
The fact that greater natural temperature variations have occurred in the past is largely irrelevant.
10. AzureNW - Nov. 30, 1998 - 2:24 PM PT
Raskolnikov -
I'm glad to hear you are interested in this subject.
A few days ago, I watched on television a UN emergency services official claim emphatically that hurricane Mitch and the flooding that followed were directly caused by the effects of global warming, as were the fires in Indonesia. Do you think that is an accurate assessment?
Another interesting note I read in a newspaper recently argued that Northern Europe would become increasingly cold due to global warming. Have you seen any corroborative reports about this?
11. ChristiPeters - Nov. 30, 1998 - 2:27 PM PT
given#1: Global Warming is bad
proposed#1: Global Warming is caused by people and can be changed if people change some of their habits.
possiblity#1: Proposed#1 is wrong
Action#1: We do nothing
result = Global Warming is not affected and our air stays dirty
Actoin#2: We clean up the air
result = Global Warming is not affected, but we have cleaner air
possibility#2: Proposed#1 is correct
Action#1: We do nothing
result = Global Warming gets worse and everybody drowns? cooks? drowns, cooks, and starves?
Action#2: We clean up the air
result = Global Warming doesn't get any worse and we have cleaner air
Hmmmmm... In all of the above, I favor Action#2
However, what if given#1 is wrong?
Hmmmmmm...
Sorry, insufficient data to make a decision.
12. AzureNW - Nov. 30, 1998 - 2:27 PM PT
Raskolnikov -
I'm sorry that I missed what you posted about global warming earlier. I avoid the political threads. I don't think it's just mud they are slinging in there most of the time.
13. AzureNW - Nov. 30, 1998 - 2:29 PM PT
DocBrown -
Cleveland may turn into a kind of desert, hot in the summer and cold in the winter, dry all the time.
14. AzureNW - Nov. 30, 1998 - 2:32 PM PT
California will be something like the Sonora desert or Baja. Washington and Oregon will be something like California, excellent wine country. That's what I've heard, anyway.
15. elliot803 - Nov. 30, 1998 - 2:33 PM PT
Christi:
"Sorry, insufficient data to make a decision."
Insufficient data to make what decision? Whether "global warming is bad?" There is little doubt that the effects of the kind of temperature increase scientists are predicting will be unpleasant and expensive.
16. AzureNW - Nov. 30, 1998 - 2:38 PM PT
Water shortages resulting from global warming and other human factors are going to be a huge problem, I've heard. On Sunday, I caught a glimpse of a news story of a study funded mainly by the Japanese finding that water shortages in the next 20 years are going to cause increasingly severe food shortages worldwide.
17. Raskolnikov - Nov. 30, 1998 - 2:45 PM PT
Azure: It is very difficult to attribute cause and effect to the weather. Blaming Mitch on Global Warming is the type of statement which makes me flinch. We have hurricanes every year, and while Global Warming may cause an increase in the overall number of hurricanes, you can't point to a given hurricane and blame it on CO2 production.
I have heard that some global warming models predict cooling in Europe (I think it is because the Gulf Stream is predicted to shift).
18. Raskolnikov - Nov. 30, 1998 - 2:48 PM PT
water shortages would be exacerbated by global warming, but access to clean water in developing countries is a huge problem in its own right, and will worsen as population and industrialization grow, and existing water tables get depleted.
19. ChristiPeters - Nov. 30, 1998 - 2:57 PM PT
elliot -
The decision is whether Global Warming is caused by people and can be "cured" (halted? reversed?) by human action - say cleaning up the air. I keep reading info from scientists for several sides - yes, it is caused by people, but we can't clean it up because (a)it's too late or (b)we can't get enough of the world to cooperate; yes, it is caused by people and human action can have a significant impact; no, it is not caused by people and no, we can have no impact; no, it is not caused by people and we can have a significant impact anyway.
(Christi's head spins)
However, I, simplistically, think that whatever is the final 'true' answer, cleaning up the air is a durn good idea whether it helps stop (reverse?) Global Warming or not.
When I am in doubt of the right course of action, I always look at what the consequences are if my supposition is wrong.
OK, so what are the consequences if we clean up the air thinking it will slow down or halt Global Warming and we are wrong? Well, we'll still have cleaner air.
What are the consequences if we don't clean up the air thinking it has no affect on Global Warming and we are wrong? Oops, now we still have Global Warming and dirty air.
So, since I don't have the time or resources to examine and test all the data on both sides of the argument, I'd prefer to err on the side of caution and support cleaning up the air.
Clear as mud?
I thought so.
20. ChristiPeters - Nov. 30, 1998 - 3:00 PM PT
"Water shortages resulting from global warming and other human factors are going to be a huge problem, I've heard."
Geez, Azure, I guess I'm way, way out of touch with this issue. The last time I checked, I thought that Global Warming was supposed to melt the ice caps and flood all the continents, greatly reducing available land mass.
Oh well, wrong again, I suppose.
21. AzureNW - Nov. 30, 1998 - 3:01 PM PT
Raskolnikov -
CNN reports this has been the worst hurricane season in 200 years, pretty much as long as records have been kept, and predicts that next year will be worse, since hurricanes are less severe in El Niño years
22. AzureNW - Nov. 30, 1998 - 3:03 PM PT
ChristiPeters -
It surprised me that Europe was heading into near Ice Age conditions due to global warming. I hear they are freezing their butts off in Paris already.
23. AzureNW - Nov. 30, 1998 - 3:06 PM PT
Another problem I heard blamed on global warming is a lots and lots of icebergs in the Atlantic shipping channels.
24. Raskolnikov - Nov. 30, 1998 - 3:07 PM PT
Christi: Although I agree that action to prevent global warming is warranted, keep in mind that the central culprits to global warming are Carbon Dioxide and methane, which aren't considered health risks in themselves in the increased quantities we experience. However, most global warming solutions involve tackling the burning of fossil fuels, particularly coal burning power plants and gas or diesel powered engines. Getting rid of fossil fuels will also reduce pollutants such as sulfur dioxide, Nitrous Oxide (or is it nitric? or both? I forget), Ozone (causer of smog at low altitudes), and particulates, all of which have some nasty health effects and are regulated by the EPA.
25. ChristiPeters - Nov. 30, 1998 - 3:13 PM PT
"...However, most global warming solutions involve tackling the burning of fossil fuels, particularly coal burning power plants and gas or diesel powered engines. Getting rid of fossil fuels will also reduce pollutants such as sulfur dioxide, Nitrous Oxide (or is it nitric? or both? I forget), Ozone (causer of smog at low altitudes), and particulates, all of which have some nasty health effects and are regulated by the EPA."
Yes, Rask, I actually knew that. This is why I am all for saying global Warming is a big, bad, serious problem whether it really is, in fact, a problem or not. I want the air cleaned up and I will support anything that helps toward that goal.
If you could convince a majority of the world that we need to clean up the air to get rid of invisible, evil aliens, I'd support that, too.
I'm a practical sort.
26. Raskolnikov - Nov. 30, 1998 - 3:15 PM PT
El Nino died off last spring, I believe, so it can't be blamed for recent weather.
I get really uncomfortable when people blame an unusually hot year on global warming. (The same thing happened in 1988). Everyone goes nuts about global warming, and then when the next year is cooler, reactionaries say "see, you are all 'chicken littles!'"
The key is long term temperature trends, with high variability (the models I have read about predict higher temperature variability under global warming. So we get warmer AND cooler years than normal, with the average being somewhat warmer than present).
Ice cap melting is a very long term, and gradual prospect. I wish I had my reference books, but I recall that sea level rising isn't predicted to be a serious problem by even the most pessimistic models for quite some time, assuming no abatement takes place.
27. JadeGold - Nov. 30, 1998 - 4:17 PM PT
Rask is correct. We are not likely to witness an overnight shift in weather patterns in various geographic locations. And that is more alarming.
What we will see is a much more gradual shift in temperature and weather patterns. So we may see more rainfall and cooler temperatures in more arid regions, while experiencing less rainfall and warmer temperatures in more agrarian areas.
28. RyckNelson - Nov. 30, 1998 - 5:59 PM PT
This is one of the best environmental sites I've found in my two+ years of searching for them. Please check it out. The site is soliciting at present so don't enter your email address unless you really want to participate.
This other one is link heavan. I have appreciated its resources for as long as the other.
Happy browsing.
Peace.
29. MyCampbellSoup - Nov. 30, 1998 - 7:46 PM PT
Have you all heard about the temperatures being on average in the United States way above the usual? They are now soaring into the high 50's-Such as 57.4 degrees, only one day from December 1st!
No, that's not from cutting down any trees in the Rain Forest.
30. AuNaturel - Nov. 30, 1998 - 10:33 PM PT
"since hurricanes are less severe in El Niño years"
Fine, ecept this is a La Nina year. El Nino died quite a while ago.
31. AuNaturel - Nov. 30, 1998 - 10:37 PM PT
"This is why I am all for saying global Warming is a big, bad, serious problem whether it really is, in fact, a problem or not."
You go beyond practical. A lovely little statement like this instantly and permanently discredits you in the eyes of anybody watching. Way to go.
32. AuNaturel - Nov. 30, 1998 - 10:49 PM PT
BTW, if global warming is due to the greenhouse effect, why is most of the recorded temperature increase before 1950 when most of the CO2 emmisions are after 1950?
It is chicken-little time around here. Global warming is 100% hypothetical. Since nobody knows what the natural temperature would have been in the absence of human CO2 emmisions, it follows that there is no empirical evidence that we have materially affected anything. If we are doing anything at all, it is as likely we are heading off the next ice age as not.
Message #27
If the change is gradual enough, we simply adapt. Growing cabbage in the Mojave becomes more profitable and growing it elswhere becomes less.
33. jonesatlaw - Nov. 30, 1998 - 11:19 PM PT
Last I heard, physical geographers, meteorologists etc couldn't explain past ice ages, and warmings. There have been theories involving sunspot activity, shifts in the earths pole of rotation, oceanic-atmospheric gas exchange etc. So far none has fully explained past events. Given this, how certain can we be of models projecting the future? I think that some caution may be in order, because of the potential for harm without action. My information has become rather dated. (Its been longer than I want to admit since I had physical geography and meteorology) Can someone bring me up to speed? It would be a wonderful irony to discover that human activity reversed the "little ice age" of the last century before it could gather momentum, but last I heard it's a possibility.
34. Slackjaw - Dec. 1, 1998 - 3:24 AM PT
Any honest person has to acknowledge that the IPCC could be wrong, that it's a complicated issue, that even if GW occurs or is occurring we might be ineffectual in trying to ameliorate or adapt to it, or that it won't be all that devastating in climatic changes stay within certain predicted bands. At the same time one must acknowledge the other possibilities--that catastrophe will ensue, etc.
The policy solution inevitably comes down to how we collectively assess and decide to deal with the risk. Is somebody wrong because they are more willing to chance it? No more than they are for not wanting fire insurance while others do. All the scientific consensus in the world will not remove this aspect. Even if the probabilities and costs of various events can be unanimously agreed upon, there will still be different opinions about policy. People have different preferences over risks just as they do over seafood. How can you say somebody is wrong for not liking shrimp or something? And how can you say they are wrong for preferring gamble X to gamble Y?
(Personally, I prefer to overshoot mitigation rather than undershoot, because of the possibility, however remote, of real catastrophe. Certainly we must realize that this stance involves a real cost. And then get down to business. I also hate shrimp.)
35. jkuzmak - Dec. 1, 1998 - 3:40 AM PT
If the earth is warming, and if those destructive ice storms that we have had recently in the States and Canada become commonplace, there will be hell to pay. I am no alarmist; this is just a point to consider.
36. RyckNelson - Dec. 1, 1998 - 4:53 AM PT
Cornucopian, doomsayer or fence rider we all seem to need more information. Slate or the Fray research people could give an article with dates and CO2 emission records. It could also provide links to sites which give other timeline evidence to expose us to industrial events and natural reactions to those events. Also natural event time lines could be helpful, such as volcanic activity with the atmospheric reactions to the ash plums and the jet stream. So many connections and all of them need a time line study.
So is anyone going to take the time to find links to educate ourselves?
hmmm... maybe we could agree to search for one each, maybe if someone were to suggest what link they will look for and then others wont waste time looking for it but will commit to finding another one.
I'll look for a timeline of volcanic activity. I'll save my link to my
browser's favorites and post it as needed.
Can someone else search CO2, industry timelines, and then rainforest depletion and so on. Graphs and charts would be best for quick analysis.
This
and this will allow you to search the entire web.
37. RyckNelson - Dec. 1, 1998 - 5:04 AM PT
Here is an article of global warming I found.
here is an atmospheric link I found.
38. thoughtful - Dec. 1, 1998 - 6:04 AM PT
As much as people think warm New England weather is evidence of global warming, even 150 years worth of data is simply too short a time horizon to determine if significant changes are taking place in the world environment. Geological time happens in thousand millennia, not centuries. That is why the most telling evidence of global warming comes from ice core samples that allow scientists to observe the evidence going much further back in time. The earth has gone through many substantial climatic changes in its 4 billion year life, most predating man and the industrial revolution. The scary part though is the evidence suggests that these significant climactic changes can occur in as little as 10 years. Yikes!
I agree that there is very little known about what causes these weather shifts, but that these changes can be very dramatic. For example, studies have shown that for no known reason, the earth's magnetic poles have reversed multiple times over the life of the planet.
39. ChristiPeters - Dec. 1, 1998 - 6:34 AM PT
""This is why I am all for saying global Warming is a big, bad, serious problem whether it really is, in fact, a problem or not."
You go beyond practical. A lovely little statement like this instantly and permanently discredits you in the eyes of anybody watching. Way to go."
Au -
Well, if that's how you feel about it, ok. However, if you read the whole post you would have realized that what I was saying is that I'm NOT sure Global Warming is a problem, but I AM sure air polution is a problem. My goal is to clean up the air. Since the "cure" for Global Warming is to clean up the air, supporting the theory that Global Warming is a problem serves my true goal - cleaning up the air.
By practical I meant that I will support anything that serves my goal of getting the air cleaned up. If that doesn't make sense to you, oh well.
40. ChristiPeters - Dec. 1, 1998 - 10:42 AM PT
Well. Looks like this thread died an early death.
OH! I know! Everyone's out Christmas shopping. Good Luck y'all!
41. Raskolnikov - Dec. 1, 1998 - 12:42 PM PT
Scientific American published a trade paperback on environmental issues a few years ago. In it, there is a presentation of lots of data on CO2 emissions and temperature fluctuations over time. Ice core samples from Anarctica over the past 170,000 years show an almost lock-step correlation between temperature and CO2 levels. While this does not make it a given that raising CO2 levels will raise temperature (both could be effected by a third variable, for instance), it certainly gives one pause.
We know CO2 traps heat. Carl Sagan made a name for himself by showing how a runaway greenhouse effect, caused by high CO2 levels, explains the hellish temperatures on the planet Venus. The only question is "how much of an increase in CO2 causes how much of an increase in temperature". Human activity has already doubled the amount of CO2 in the air, and the amount increases every year, so I guess we will find out soon.
42. AzureNW - Dec. 1, 1998 - 12:55 PM PT
CNN online science section currently has a detailed report on the destruction of coral reefs blamed on global warming:
/*
...Dr. Thomas Goreau, a scientist working with the International Union for the Conservation of Nature, said a significant proportion of the world's coral has died this year as a result of the highest sea temperatures on record....
*/
43. ChristiPeters - Dec. 1, 1998 - 12:56 PM PT
In 1970, (yes, I'm THAT old) there was plenty of evidence that we have already irrevocably altered the environment of the planet so as to gravely threaten continued existence of the Human Species. (No, I do NOT have the articles here with me in my office in 1998!)
One problem is that to an ecologist, "iminent" can mean in the next 200 - 300 years. The average layperson thinks iminent is right now, or at the latest next year. So ecologists look like the boy who cried wolf, and aren't listened to.
That used to really bother me. Then I got tired of banging my head against that particular brick wall and gave up. I do the small ecologically sensible things I can do in my daily life and just maintain an overall pessimistic view of the future.
A Minister in an independent church I was attended in 1980 - 1986, interpreted Revelations as saying Man will destroy himself with his own poisens. Maybe he was right. OTOH, Revelations seems to be open to an endless variety of interpretation.
44. AzureNW - Dec. 1, 1998 - 1:02 PM PT
Reports of drastic environmental impacts of record breaking temperatures, such as the CNN report mentioned above, indicate that climatic change may be relatively rapid.
45. ChristiPeters - Dec. 1, 1998 - 1:20 PM PT
I think I'll just go back to lurking for awhile.
y'all continue.
46. AuNaturel - Dec. 1, 1998 - 2:03 PM PT
Has anyone ever considered estimating the amount of CO2 we add to the atmosphere just from human breathing? Should be a very simple thing to calculate.
47. AuNaturel - Dec. 1, 1998 - 2:10 PM PT
"Ice core samples from Anarctica over the past 170,000 years show an almost lock-step correlation between temperature and CO2 levels"
Indicating perhaps that low temperatures cause low CO2 concentrations and high teperatures cause high CO2 levels? Entirely possible. Even, if you control all other variables, inevitable.
48. Raskolnikov - Dec. 1, 1998 - 2:19 PM PT
Au nat: that is a possible relationship as well. There is even a mechanism for it in plant life. However, this makes things even more scary. Since we know CO2 traps heat, higher temperatures caused by more CO2 may cause the release of more CO2, causing higher temperatures, etc. So all you are doing here is demonstrating the possible presence of a positive feedback mechanism on global warming.
49. Raskolnikov - Dec. 1, 1998 - 2:20 PM PT
I'm not quite sure what you mean by " Even, if you control all other variables, inevitable."
50. AuNaturel - Dec. 1, 1998 - 4:42 PM PT
Most of the world's CO2 is dissolved in the ocean. The cooler it is, the more dissolved gas water will contain. Hold everything constant and if you lower the temperature you will have more dissolved CO2 in the water. More dissolved CO2 means more plant life. Plant life will selectively tie up the carbon and eventually settle to the bottom. The animal life that eats the plant life will also tie up carbon and settle to the bottom.
Most of the oxygen is not in the ocean. O2 is a nonpolar molecule and dissolves very poorly compared to CO2, plus it is not as effectively removed as carbon is by settling out. So the ratio of O2 vrs. CO2 is enhanced as well as actual levels of atmospheric CO2 dropping.
51. AuNaturel - Dec. 1, 1998 - 5:10 PM PT
Message #48
Never said that global warming is impossible. Just that anyone who claims to know for sure what will happen is lying.
52. thomasd - Dec. 1, 1998 - 6:05 PM PT
Re. 16 -
I think AzureNW misses the mark, to a large extent, in not mentioning the contribution to depletion of water resources that will result in the world population increasing to at least 10 billion before leveling off.
Global warming, inasmuch as it exists, will increase overall evaporation *and* precipitation in most parts of the world.
53. AzureNW - Dec. 1, 1998 - 6:17 PM PT
It probably because I am insane.
54. thomasd - Dec. 1, 1998 - 6:32 PM PT
I don't see that the earth was necessarily worse off weather-wise at the peak of the last inter-glacial warming cycle, approximately 8,000 years ago, when the Sahara Desert became the Sahara Savanna, or between 700-1000 years ago during the Medieval Warm Period, when the global average was about a degree C higher than now, and wine grapes were raised in Britain, and grain in Greenland.
55. thomasd - Dec. 1, 1998 - 6:50 PM PT
FWIW, I have read speculation that the North American counterpart to the Little Ice Age contributed to the widespread decline of Native American Civilization, including actual depopulation, and paving the way for the incursions of 'White men'.
56. ptboya - Dec. 1, 1998 - 7:08 PM PT
>Indicating perhaps that low temperatures cause low CO2 concentrations and high teperatures cause high CO2 levels? Entirely
>possible.
I read you to be saying that the direction of causation is from higher temperatures to higher atmospheric readings of CO2 rather than the reverse.
If that thesis is correct, it's proportional effect could easily be measured by monitoring both atmospheric and oceanic trend levels of CO2.
I must say I doubt you'd get confirmation.
But, most importantly, it would be folly to dismiss the possibility of a runaway feedback loop developing. That is why I favor erring on the side of action rather than observation. It seems to me this is not something we can afford to get wrong.
57. thomasd - Dec. 1, 1998 - 7:17 PM PT
ptboya -
I think the idea of a 'runaway feedback loop' has pretty much been discredited by both sides in the argument about global warming.
58. resonance - Dec. 1, 1998 - 7:25 PM PT
No, it hasn't. Have you ever heard of an 'ice age'?
I'd like to make a point here -- people are saying that we can't spot trends in the environment on the strength of a dozen years or so worth of study. That's wrong. We can see trends. It's as easy as putting up a chart.
We can even make predictions, that may be right or wrong. The thing is, we can't *understand* what's happening from such imperfect observation.
In another thread, PE was going on about multicollinearity. Well, while considering the earth, we're looking at an analysis where there's many, many more linked dependent variables than we can imagine.
59. thomasd - Dec. 1, 1998 - 7:34 PM PT
resonance -
Talk about taking my post out of context - you've certainly done that.
Take a word from the wise: ptboya was referring specifically to current human contributions of greenhouse gases edging global climatic feedback mechanisms out of control, and I informed him that neither side of the discussion seriously argues that as being a concern. Smaller changes in climate may result, yes, but not the incipient climatic disaster *you* and *he* were referring to.
60. resonance - Dec. 1, 1998 - 7:42 PM PT
I'll take a word from the wise. Go find me a wise man.
"Smaller
changes in climate may result, yes, but not the
incipient climatic disaster *you* and *he* were
referring to. "
Are you drunk? What 'incipient climactic disaster' am I referring to?
And the mechanism for lowering global temperatures isn't all that different from the one which we suppose raises them, thomasd. I wasn't taking anything out of context, though your limited understanding of the context might have suggested otherwise.
61. thomasd - Dec. 1, 1998 - 7:55 PM PT
Re. 60
resonance -
If I was drunk (not likely on tea), I'd still wake up sober in the morning, but you'll be a rather dull ignoramus forever.
Since you can't get it right, why don't you dry up?
62. ptboya - Dec. 1, 1998 - 8:05 PM PT
You know, I could care less whether the data show the cause to be human activity or poison trees, a-la-Ronnie. It doesn't matter… we still may need to act if the data say act. I don't have any idea how long that determination to go or not to go might take, but I think that to rule out the runaway feedback hypothesis at this stage is truly suicidal. It's as foolish a stategy as there is.
63. AuNaturel - Dec. 1, 1998 - 8:27 PM PT
"We can see trends. It's as easy as putting up a chart."
Not so easy. What makes you think the "trend" you see isn't noise? It would have to be an *extremely* short cycle (in terms of climatology) to become apparent over a couple dozen years.
64. AuNaturel - Dec. 1, 1998 - 8:30 PM PT
"And the mechanism for lowering global temperatures isn't all that different from the one which we suppose raises them"
Since you know what the mechanism for lowering temperatures is, all we need do is have you explain to us what it is so we can implement it and reverse global warming.
65. AuNaturel - Dec. 1, 1998 - 8:41 PM PT
"I could care less whether the data show the cause to be human activity or poison trees"
And if the data do not show the cause...?
Taking action itself has a considerable price tag, a price third and second world nations can ill afford..
If we take action and it turns out to be the wrong action it will be far worse than if we had waited for better science. The possibility of global warming may be real. The urgency with which a "cure" is being pushed upon us is absurd. Give it 20 years and there may be real confirmation or it may turn out to be as foolish as the old Club of Rome hyperbole in the late 60s.
66. thomasd - Dec. 1, 1998 - 8:47 PM PT
Perhaps the thing that bothers me more than anything else about the Kyoto Conference's punitive prescriptions is that it will hit hardest those whose expenditures for energy consume the largest proportion of their income: the poor.
67. resonance - Dec. 1, 1998 - 8:48 PM PT
"Not so easy. What makes you think the "trend"
you see isn't noise? It would have to be an
*extremely* short cycle (in terms of climatology)
to become apparent over a couple dozen years."
Why do I get the annoying sense that you have no idea what you're talking about, save for perhaps a stack of occasionally read National Gepographics and maybe some Discovers? Have you ever heard of an El Nino or a La Nina? We can guess that we're in one now, even though it's only been going on for a few years. Right?
Some cycles take place over less than a decade, you know.
And any nimwit can see a trend. This 'noise' nonsense is pseudoscientific gabble -- if we can chart temperatures over half a hemisphere and see that they're rising, well, gee! A trend! There's nothing in that of 'noise', unless you're trying to predict the climate of next year with precision.
"Since you know what the mechanism for
lowering temperatures is, all we need do is have
you explain to us what it is so we can
implement it and reverse global warming."
Sure, since you ask. Blow a bunch of debris into the upper atmosphere. Or lower greenhouse gas concentrations.
Was there anything else you wanted to know, AuNescient?
68. smarternyou - Dec. 1, 1998 - 9:51 PM PT
There will always be uncertainty about climate change. As a systems analyst I know that computer projections are no better than the algorithms (current beliefs)that the programmers feed into the computer. Garbage in, garbage out. True knowledge in, true knowledge out.
The question is what to do now. Should we ratify the Kyoto treaty, and begin to take steps to curb global warming or should we reject the treaty and wait to see what happens?
I believe global warming is a very serious threat. I was unable to join the fray yesterday and it is 12:35 am in New York and I have to get up at 6 tomorrow morning. So I don't have time to stay here much longer. But I'll try to get on at 10PM tomorrow and will almost certainly have time to get on Thursday.
I will say this, however. If we don't treat global warming as a serious threat requiring a serious response, then we might as well do nothing and suffer the consequences. Half measures will not do. One way to test the seriousness of environmentalists is to ask them to take two steps -- move to reduce the immigration rate so that there is zero population growth in this country and allow the increased use of nuclear power. If environmentalists are not willing to take these steps, then they are not taking global warming seriously. And if they do not take global warming seriously, how do they expect conservatives to take it seriously?
67 Senate votes are needed to ratify the Kyoto treaty. If the treaty is not ratified by the United States, it has a provision that says it cannot go into effect. Many of those 67 Senate votes will have to be cast by conservatives.
69. AuNaturel - Dec. 1, 1998 - 9:58 PM PT
"Have you ever heard of an El Nino or a La Nina? We can guess that we're in one now, even though it's only been going on for a few years. Right?"
You are a blithering idiot. El Nino/La Nina are extremely short cycle climatological events that have been measured and recorded over centuries. We *still* can't predict them. The last was heralded as the "Mother of all El Ninos" and basically fizzled. The current La Nina is hardly being noticed.
"Some cycles take place over less than a decade, you know."
Yes. Those are extremely short cycles, climatologically speaking. My words were that such a time frame is useful only for seeing extremely short cycle events. You remain an idiot.
"if we can chart temperatures over half a hemisphere and see that they're rising, well, gee! A trend! There's nothing in that of 'noise'"
You continue to get even more idiotic. Flip a coin ten times. 7 are heads, 3 are tails. Do we have a trend towards heads, something that could be used to make useful predictions? Or do we have random fluctuations? Look at ANY long term chart of global temperature. The variability from one year to the next or even one decade to the next is very large compared to the long term rise or fall. That is why you must average over many years to get useful climatological data.
70. AuNaturel - Dec. 1, 1998 - 10:03 PM PT
Did anyone bother to research the two links provided in message number Message #1?
I didn't think so.
71. smarternyou - Dec. 1, 1998 - 10:08 PM PT
If I am right, then the increased atmospheric turbulence we have been experiencing in the last decade, including El Nino, is the result of the increased accumulation of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. And if I am right then the turbulence will get worse and worse. And if we reject the Kyoto treaty we are likely to do nothing truly meaningful for a decade or two. And by the time we take action on a worldwide level it may be too late to avert a catastrophe.
So the question is, in the face of uncertainty, do we do nothing or do we act?
72. resonance - Dec. 1, 1998 - 10:12 PM PT
"You are a blithering idiot. El Nino/La Nina are
extremely short cycle climatological events that
have been measured and recorded over
centuries. We *still* can't predict them. The last
was heralded as the "Mother of all El Ninos" and
basically fizzled. The current La Nina is hardly
being noticed."
Your words bear little meaning. How does spotting a trend translate out to prediction? Once again, you don't know what the hell you're talking about, and are probably trying to cover that up with bluster. The fact of the matter is that if a trend offers visible evidence, it can be tracked.
"You continue to get even more idiotic. Flip a
coin ten times. 7 are heads, 3 are tails. Do we
have a trend towards heads, something that could be used to make useful predictions? Or do we have random fluctuations? "
Anyone who can compare coin flipping with climactic trends just doesn't need to be taken seriously.
But to answer your goof-ass question, AuNescient, yes, if the 'coin' comes up seven heads out of ten flips, there's a trend. Do you really need someone to tell you that?
73. PseudoErasmus - Dec. 1, 1998 - 10:17 PM PT
resonance (Message #58)
"...we're looking at an analysis where there's many, many more linked dependent variables than we can imagine."
I don't mean to be pedantic (hell, I do), but I think you mean INDEPENDENT or explanatory variables.
74. PseudoErasmus - Dec. 1, 1998 - 10:21 PM PT
I agree with Resonance about AuNaturel's Message #63.
A trend is a trend is a trend. "Noise" comes into play when we are disentangling the various causes.
65. AuNaturel - Dec. 1, 1998 - 8:41 PM PT
"I could care less whether the data show the cause to be
human activity or poison trees"
And if the data do not show the cause...?
Taking action itself has a considerable price tag, a price
third and second world nations can ill afford..
If we take action and it turns out to be the wrong action
it will be far worse than if we had waited for better
science. The possibility of global warming may be real.
"Give it 20 years and there may be real confirmation or it may turn out to be as foolish as the old Club of Rome hyperbole in the late 60s."
A bad comparison. We knew at the time that the Club of Rome predictions were based on the wrong science -- in this case, economics.
75. PseudoErasmus - Dec. 1, 1998 - 10:22 PM PT
AuNaturel (Message #65)
"Give it 20 years and there may be real confirmation or it may turn out to be as foolish as the old Club of Rome hyperbole in the late 60s."
A bad comparison. We knew at the time that the Club of Rome predictions were based on the wrong science -- in this case, economics.
76. PseudoErasmus - Dec. 1, 1998 - 10:23 PM PT
That's to say, the COR model made a lot of patently preposterous economic assumptions.
77. thomasd - Dec. 1, 1998 - 10:34 PM PT
Re. 71 -
The best climatic theory suggests that a reduced average temperature differential between earth's poles and equator (a fundamental result of global warming) translates into *less* severe weather overall simply because the available energy (again, due to temperature *differentials*) needed to fuel this thermally driven activity diminishes.
78. Slackjaw - Dec. 1, 1998 - 10:52 PM PT
smaternyou (Message #68):
"One way to test the seriousness of environmentalists is to ask them to take two steps -- move to reduce the immigration rate so that there is zero population growth in this country and allow the increased use of nuclear power. If environmentalists are not willing to take these steps, then they are not taking global warming seriously."
Not necessarily--there are any number of reasons an environmentalist would not support curbing immigration with an eye to ZPG in this country. First, if labor in a country like the US is used as an input in cleaner production technologies than in a place like Mexico, then a transfer of labor from the latter to the former can be an global environmental plus. Moreover, there are other environmental problems to consider besides global warming, and even if that transfer of labor does nothing to mitigate emission of greenhouse gases, it might help curb some other problem (e.g., SOx emissions). Also, if the migration causes a change in fertility behavior of the immigrants, say the have fewer kids because of different capital intensities in the countries (and therefore different productivity of labor), different social arrangements, etc., that can also be a net plus on a global scale. Which is how enviromentalists tend to think.
79. thomasd - Dec. 1, 1998 - 11:03 PM PT
I happen to believe that, due to the fact that readily recoverable petroleum reserves are being diminished (both known and projected), that, within the next two or three decades, the natural rise in the cost of energy due to market forces will make more efficient use of fossil fuel and reliance on alternative energy sources more attractive without any government intervention in the form of taxes an penalties being necessary.
However, if the US increases subsidies for the development of sharable technologies that take advantage of the above mentioned trends, the world migration toward less dependence on fossil fuels (which is the source of the vast majority of human generated CO2 that will cause any additional global warming) will be facilitated with a minimum of economic distress and be most universally implemented.
80. thomasd - Dec. 1, 1998 - 11:16 PM PT
Re. 79 -
Now, somebody could argue that some modest increases in taxes, along with other Federal budgetary adjustments, could possibly be needed to support increased government support for technological development in the energy field, so I'll concede that possibility.
81. PseudoErasmus - Dec. 1, 1998 - 11:16 PM PT
Message #78
Of course, capital mobility can work against that. If for example Mexico is willing to tolerate more pollution and exacts no penalties on corporations which pollute, an American corporation might find that under such circumstances dirty production in Mexico may be more profitable than cleaner production at home. That could mean a global net increase in pollution. That's why many environmentalists oppose free trade. (Plus, one argument for encouraging American direct investment in Mexico is that it might stem immigration flows by creating higher productivity jobs.)
82. PseudoErasmus - Dec. 1, 1998 - 11:22 PM PT
Larry Summers, the current deputy secretary of the Treasury, remarked while he was the World Bank's Chief Economist that many developing countries, particularly in Africa, were "vastly underpolluted". Of course, this remark provoked howls of outrage, but most of the outraged forgot that Summers is an economist and thus not a normal human being. What he meant by "underpolluted" is that people in many developing countries were willing to live with a certain amount of pollution as a trade-off for improvements in the standard of living. And in his view (and in mine), current levels in many developing countries are probably well below this "certain amount".
(Yes, I know, if they emit greenhouse gases it's not just their problem, but a global problem.)
83. Slackjaw - Dec. 1, 1998 - 11:56 PM PT
Pseudo:
Message #81: true enough, and naturally, there are a variety of stories that might be true. My point is only that under some of them an environmentalist or even one whose only environmental concern is global warming wouldn't oppose immigration into this country.
Message #82: Global or local problem, the notion of an optimal or efficient amount of pollution accosts the average person's sensibilities, as does an efficient amount of crime, etc. I recently heard someone's intellect and sincerity indicted by an educated person on the grounds that they speak in such terms. Naturally, it was a marshmallow-headed, ribbon-wearing, banner-waving humanities student from another institution.
84. RyckNelson - Dec. 2, 1998 - 3:26 AM PT
So much has been presented and there's always so little time to digest it.
Heat and CO2 increases, loops that may occur to increase gases, the oceans role with CO2 and O2, timeline debates, variables galore.
I'm at a loss of were to jump in, so I'll read more and keep trying to pick up something. This is of course an admission of ignorance to the scientific evidences of global warming. I know the media spins take, exhaust emissions, Coals sulfur dioxide and acid rain, depletion of the rainforest, population control, growth versus pollution and other variables. But I've no evidence at hand to comment.
The practicle side as some present that we've choices to make on personal levels but very little to chose wrt others national survival. Thus the world communtiy is, I suppose much to divided to have a concensus.
85. CoralReef - Dec. 2, 1998 - 3:28 AM PT
I thought Carl Sagan said Global Cooling was the real danger.
86. stostosto - Dec. 2, 1998 - 4:33 AM PT
Much as I admire Americans and what they do for the good of this world, I think you're unfathomably hysterical when it comes to considering taxing energy. Are there any good reasons why Americans must continue to use fully twice as much energy as Europeans, or Japanese? (If this is news to you, take a look at this graph)
One of the important reasons Europeans use less energy is that it is higher priced (=taxed). Hence, people and businesses use it more economically.
Apart from Kyoto and the greenhouse debate, there are worthy reasons for taxing energy and thus promoting conservation:
I can think of at least three
1) Stretching the world's energy reserves for the benefit of basically everybody, but notably LDCs and future generations
2) Reducing dependance on Middle Eastern oil (65% of world reserves, 30% of world production)
3) Reducing smog, acid rain, and other non-global warming environmental strains
Then, of course there is the question of using energy taxes as a means to reducing the budget deficit - but that's a somewhat different story. Though, personally, I think it would be a straightforward and legitimate way of dealing with this problem.
But would Americans ever consider electing a guy who pledged:
"Read my lips: New energy taxes!"
87. stostosto - Dec. 2, 1998 - 4:41 AM PT
The link in my former message was not a direct one to the graph I wanted to point to. You can get there by clicking the "Energy consumption per capita" headline. Perhaps you can simply click here but I'm not sure it works:
Graph
88. stostosto - Dec. 2, 1998 - 4:44 AM PT
Blast! It didn't.
(Work, I mean)
(The link, I mean)
(To the graph, I mean)
89. stostosto - Dec. 2, 1998 - 4:46 AM PT
Slackjaw
Nice to see you.
90. Ronski - Dec. 2, 1998 - 7:04 AM PT
Sto,
It could be argued that allowing the market to determine energy prices spurs the discovery of new energy sources that we're going to need eventually anyway, which is why I do not see the European model as superior to the American.
91. Ronski - Dec. 2, 1998 - 7:07 AM PT
And as for our national distaste for taxes, this goes back, perhaps, to an incident in Boston Harbor more than two centuries ago, though, unlike some countries, we actually pay them (I'm thinking of France, allegedly, and Russia, currently).
92. ptboya - Dec. 2, 1998 - 7:28 AM PT
"It could be argued that allowing the market to determine energy prices spurs the discovery of new energy sources that we're going to need eventually anyway, which is why I do not see the European model as superior to the American."
This assumes that new sources of renewable energy are as readily produced as new widgets. It may well turn out that US-style energy consumption profligacy simply depletes fossil fuel sources before market forces provide a viable replacement. A recent comprehensive study on world petroleum supplies (SciAm) predicted a crunch within 30 years, assuming present consumption rates (a major assumption). That may not be long enough to invent and distribute a new technology.
93. PseudoErasmus - Dec. 2, 1998 - 7:43 AM PT
"It could be argued that allowing the market to determine energy prices spurs the discovery of new energy sources that we're going to need eventually anyway, which is why I do not see the European model as superior to the American."
Um, I hate to tell you this, but the market is not prevented from working just because you tax energy consumption. Indeed, as you argue, the current low energy prices are an incentive for energy companies to develop alternative fuels sources and technologies. But how does a consumption tax reduce this incentive? The point of the tax is that while consumers pay the higher price due to the tax, producers continue to receive the market price.
94. Ronski - Dec. 2, 1998 - 7:46 AM PT
ptboya,
But some predictions of catastrophic depletion of fossil fuels have already come and gone, without any problem in supply. Moreover, there are likely to be other energy sources besides fossil fuels, eventually. The market has a pretty good record of responding to people's basic needs throughout recent history, at least in the West. I don't argue against prudence, just against overreaction and fear-mongering.
95. Ronski - Dec. 2, 1998 - 7:52 AM PT
PE,
True, but traditionally production has also been taxed in this country, I believe. Also, while those taxes are passed on to the consumer, generally, raising the price of energy lowers demand, and that lowers company profits, doesn't it? And doesn't that provide less money for exploration and research? Your assistance here is welcome, as usual.
96. ptboya - Dec. 2, 1998 - 7:57 AM PT
That's alright as long as prudence doesn't dictate inaction. We still are a long way from definitive data on the warming issue, however the recent studies on oil use and reserves are much clearer. They are not of a piece with the sort of journalistic scaremongering that became public myth after the 70's oil crises.
97. PseudoErasmus - Dec. 2, 1998 - 7:58 AM PT
Ronski (Message #95)
1) If reduced profits from low energy prices are an incentive to alternative fuels development (which they patently are), why would reduced profits due to lower consumption be a disincentive to the same?
2) It really makes little difference whether the producers or consumers are levied the tax. Consumers will stay pay a large part of the tax bill.
3) All the same, demand for energy is not very sensitive (elastic) to changes in the price in the short-term, but it is in the long-term.
98. PseudoErasmus - Dec. 2, 1998 - 7:59 AM PT
...will STILL pay...
99. stostosto - Dec. 2, 1998 - 8:07 AM PT
Ronski
"It could be argued that allowing the market to determine energy prices spurs the discovery of new energy sources that we're going to need eventually anyway".
It only spurs discovery of new energy resources insofar as prices are sufficiently high. Currently, they are certainly not.
Moreover, it is highly doubtful whether market prices in any way reflect the objectives I stated in Message #86. How would the market agents take specifically American or European national interests into account? In the case of environmental objectives, this is a classic market failure issue: No buyers and no sellers factor in such external costs in their market behaviour.
As to the LDC and future generations objective, this could in principle be reflected in the market price: The producers of oil should choose between realizing their oil reserves now or at some later point in time with an eye to maximizing their discounted revenue. I.e. if there is a glut now, let's wait till LDCs and future generations weigh in on the demand side. The expected higher future price would serve as an interest on the oil in the ground.
In practice, however, there are several caveats.
* Political uncertaincy. If you are the king of Brunei, the prince of Oman or the beloved leader of Iraq, how would you assess your chances of being on top of the oil five or ten years from now? Swiss bank accounts might be a better bet.
* Pressing needs for liquidity now in the face of social needs and imperfect capital markets.
* More generally: What would ensure that the discount rate of the possessors of oil reserves (i.e. their preferencees for income now vs. income later) is the same as for the world as a whole?
100. PseudoErasmus - Dec. 2, 1998 - 8:14 AM PT
Sto: I think Ronski was arguing that a free market would keep oil prices low enough to spur oil companies to find alternative fuels sources. The externalities argument then isn't relevant. But, of course, Ronski's argument doesn't defeat the case for energy taxes, since low prices raise consumption.