Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

1:1...the ratio I am consistently drawn towards. Except in the bedroom.

0 Replies

6:9 ? But that really is out of topic although quite hot ...

0 Replies

Steve (as 41oo) wrote:

Its energy not stones we are talking about.

As I remember it, you quite specifically talk about "peak oil", not "peak energy".

Steve (as 41oo) wrote:

Neolithic man had muscle power. Jevon had coal power. We have coal oil gas nuclear etc, and between them they still add up to an energy shortage in the near future.

And that's what your talk about "peak oil" has to do with Jevons' talk about peak coal (though not under that name). It's an argument that jumps from limitations in the currently dominant energy source to limitations the total amount of energy we can use. In both cases, this is essentially an argument from lack of imagination.

Steve(as 41oo) wrote:

George is right that climatology and particularly the interpretation of data is a very complicated subject. Thats why specialists and people with a great deal of expertise get involved. But some things are very simple. CO2 is[/i] a greenhouse gas. There is half as much again[/i] of it in the atmosphere c.f pre industrial times. Global warming is a fact[/i]. Moreover their conclusion that it is anthropogenic is also a simple concept, though clearly beyond the understanding of some here.

I have never denied that global warming is real, and that it's man-made. I have denied that it's a catastrophy.

Steve(as41oo) wrote:

One last point. Remind me again why we are in Iraq and Afghanistan and why the US has bases all over SW Asia?

Beats me. I always thought Mr Blair would be too smart to fall for the Bush administration's bogus casi belli.

0 Replies

Steve (as 41oo) wrote:

[George is right that climatology and particularly the interpretation of data is a very complicated subject. Thats why specialists and people with a great deal of expertise get involved. But some things are very simple. CO2 is[/i] a greenhouse gas. There is half as much again[/i] of it in the atmosphere c.f pre industrial times. Global warming is a fact[/i]. Moreover their conclusion that it is anthropogenic is also a simple concept, though clearly beyond the understanding of some here.

A hundred years ago, X + Y = Z
now, X + Y = Z + 1 maybe......
So if X + Y used to equal just Z, and now if it maybe equals Z + 1, you have concluded that therefore Y must have increased by 1.

False logic Steve. X may have been the factor that has increased, and in fact it is a proven fact that X is variable, X being the non-man variable. X is proven to vary, no longer a theory, so why do you vest yourself into the conclusion that Y (man) has to be the cause of Y increasing by 1, all without any shred of proof? Although a simple concept, you apparently cannot understand that just maybe X might have increased by 1 instead of Y, this assuming that it has actually increased by 1. This concept clearly appears to be beyond your understanding.

0 Replies

Quote:

Although a simple concept, you apparently cannot understand that just maybe X might have increased by 1 instead of Y, this assuming that it has actually increased by 1. This concept clearly appears to be beyond your understanding.

This is of course speculation. There is no compelling evidence that other factors besides those caused by man have changed.

An objective look at the world, and the time scales involved in the world, would show that the rise of man (and especially the industrial revolution) are undoubtedly the biggest short-term changes our Earth has undergone in some time. Why shouldn't that have an effect? There is evidence that it has had effects, in many ways.

We have to go with the evidence that we have, not with some phantom guess that 'other factors' are responsible. That's bad science.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Greenhouse gases are undeniably accumulating in the atmosphere, and undeniably human activities are a principal cause. Extrapoliating how that will evolve on a time scale appropriate for gross atmospheric change and the carbon cycle is less certain. Estimating any resultant climate changes on a gelogic time scale is even less certain. Various numerical models, which typically represent only some of the variables in this complex dynamic involving oceans, land and atmosphere have been put forward illustrating possibilities that may emerge as changes in ocean currents, climactic patterns and the like. None of these forecasts are scientifically reliable, however many of them are of sufficient merit to be taken seriously.

Many people are convinced that an impending climactic catastrophy confronts us, one that merits drastic action to reduce fossil fuel consumption. Many appear to wish to see a return to a bucolic pre industrial world - one which supported a population of about one billion on the planet - a small fraction of today's population. Unfortunately the energy put into the rather speculative climactic models has not been matched by any corresponding effort to model the economic - and human - consequences of the remedies being put forward.

In addition the high corelation of opposition to nuclear power and global warming fright-mongering among many of the protagonists strongly suggests an unreasoning, emotional basis for their motivation. This is not generally an indicator of reliable judgement on serious matters.

We have seen the repeated failure of various Malthusian theories predicting disasters in food production and other vital commodities, all of which appear, in the clarity of hindsight, to have been rather foolish and shortsighted. That doesn't mean that any new such application of this kind of thinking is necessarily flawed. However, we should remain skeptical of any and all who claim to know the future with special clarity.

0 Replies

I agree; but doesn't it seem that the most prudent course of action would be one that takes into account the uncertainty we have about the future of our climate and energy scenarios?

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

I agree; but doesn't it seem that the most prudent course of action would be one that takes into account the uncertainty we have about the future of our climate and energy scenarios?

Cycloptichorn

I fully agree. It should also consider realistic assessments of the potential of the wind, tide, and solar energy sources being blithely put forward as the instant remedy, and, as well, the economic consequences of what is proposed. In addition, for those who advocate government regulation and management of energy consumption, vehicle design, etc., there should be a realistic evaluaation of the track record of government bureaucracies in doing such things, These issues are notably absent from the contemporary debate. Indeed most advocates of global warming don't acknowledge such things as issues at all.

0 Replies

Quote:

In addition, for those who advocate government regulation and management of energy consumption, vehicle design, etc., there should be a realistic evaluaation of the track record of government bureaucracies in doing such things, These issues are notably absent from the contemporary debate. Indeed most advocates of global warming don't acknowledge such things as issues at all.

Part of this problem undoubtedly stems from the revolving door between industry and regulation of said industry. It would seem that large improvements in the 'track record' of regulation could be achieved by legally barring former regulators from accepting jobs in the industries they regulate.

I would think that the inefficiencies of human monitoring systems that we have established are not of primary importance to many who debate global warming/climate change issues. You have raised an important point however that the debate over what to do about our climate and energy situation exists in terms of both strategy, policy and theory; often one side of the debate is busy arguing from a theory standpoint, another from policy, and a strategy guy just sits there shaking his head the whole time.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

I agree; but doesn't it seem that the most prudent course of action would be one that takes into account the uncertainty we have about the future of our climate and energy scenarios?

Cycloptichorn

The problem is you don't know what the most prudent cause of action is if the uncertainty cuts both ways. With large but limited resources to invest into the future welfare of humanity, every dollar we spend to stop global warming is a dollar we cannot spend to vaccinate people in the third world, to fight malaria by draining swamps, build, to wells that pump clean water, and so forth. With fundamental values on both sides, it isn't clear what 'prudent' means.

0 Replies

Oh, I agree with that, Thomas; but any prudent course of action, despite what we prioritize our spending on, will be one that states:

we have an effect on the environment, one way or another. Our burning of fossil fuels won't last forever, one way or another.

This is more than what is seen normally from advocates of our current energy system.

Also, deciding what to spend our monies on leads us to a sort of utilitarian scenario; is it better to dig clean wells, to save some lives, or to clean the environment, to save many lives? The supposition that it doesnt' take much global warming in order to affect our weather patterns seems to have some validity from a scientific standpoint, and it doesn't take a genius to figure out that small shifts in our weather patterns could have catastrophic effects for most of humanity. When one looks at things from a long-term perspective, it seems that stewarding the environment for future generations would have a greater effect in terms of saving lives, than making small improvments here or there.

I also disagree that we have to make a choice between fighting global warming and draining swamps, digging wells... it seems to me that we can fight global warming in many ways which cost little to nothing, except for conveinence and laziness for the many people who are accustomed to spending any amount of pollution neccessary to avoid having to walk anywhere.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

I also disagree that we have to make a choice between fighting global warming and draining swamps, digging wells... it seems to me that we can fight global warming in many ways which cost little to nothing, except for conveinence and laziness for the many people who are accustomed to spending any amount of pollution neccessary to avoid having to walk anywhere.

Don't knock convenience and laziness. And in any case, stopping global warming is for people too lazy to build dikes and solid houses.

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
I also disagree that we have to make a choice between fighting global warming and draining swamps, digging wells... it seems to me that we can fight global warming in many ways which cost little to nothing, except for conveinence and laziness for the many people who are accustomed to spending any amount of pollution neccessary to avoid having to walk anywhere.

Don't knock convenience and laziness. And in any case, stopping global warming is for people too lazy to build dikes and solid houses.

And for people too selfish to allow the cancer known as homo sapiens to be eradicated from the universe before it exports its barbarity into the cosmos.

(And you thought your comment couldn't be topped, right Thomas!?)

0 Replies

Quote:

Don't knock convenience and laziness. And in any case, stopping global warming is for people too lazy to build dikes and solid houses.

/snark?

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

(And you thought your comment couldn't be topped, right Thomas!?)

I never think that when I'm in a thread with you Frank. Smile

While I was less than perfectly serious, I was also trying to make a point. All measures of cost ultimately boil down to human effort. Conversely, all measures of benefit ultimately boild down to avoiding human effort. Granted, it can be rhetorically powerfull to label as "laziness" the avoidance of human effort you approve of, and as a real benefit the avoidance of human effort you disapprove off. But it's just rhetoric. There is no fundamental difference between building a levee to avoid the effort of rebuilding your home, and driving a car to avoid the effort of walking to work. Labor is labor, and saving it is saving it.

0 Replies

perhaps i'll join madame pampadour and simply say : "Après nous le déluge! "
or the character from mad magazine : "me , worry ?" .
hbg

0 Replies

hbg, I'm with you; "me worry!"

0 Replies

c.i. :
you are taking it even a step further by putting an exclamation mark in Very Happy

!
hbg

love those emoticons !

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
(And you thought your comment couldn't be topped, right Thomas!?)

I never think that when I'm in a thread with you Frank.

While I was less than perfectly serious, I was also trying to make a point. All measures of cost ultimately boil down to human effort. Conversely, all measures of benefit ultimately boild down to avoiding human effort. Granted, it can be rhetorically powerfull to label as "laziness" the avoidance of human effort you approve of, and as a real benefit the avoidance of human effort you disapprove off. But it's just rhetoric. There is no fundamental difference between building a levee to avoid the effort of rebuilding your home, and driving a car to avoid the effort of walking to work. Labor is labor, and saving it is saving it.

So which costs more in labor and money? walking to work or building a levee and stronger houses? As the costs to counteract any changes in environment mount the relative cost to prevent having to make those changes seems to be smaller. It all comes down to which side of the cost/benefit analysis you want to promote.

Which would have been cheaper in the long run. Everyone reduce their driving by 5% or repairing New Orleans after the levee breeched? We can build levees but they always have risks that have to be factored into the equation as well. Now imagine a world in which every major coastal city is behind a levee.

0 Replies

Until our government learns about cost/benefit analysis, we will continue to depend on our cars rather than public transportation.

We live in the San Francisco Bay Area, one of the worst area for public transportation. All our highways are behind the times by about 25 years, and during commute hour, one can expect to spend hours on the roads.

On top of all that, the cost of parking a car in San Francisco is atrocious!

If we had better public transportation, more people will use it and leave their cars behind. That will save on the use of energy, pollution, traffic congestion, and sanity.

0 Replies

Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know