georgeob1 wrote: The rational approach to this problem is to calculate the expected cost of the problem and the expected cost of the remedy and act accordingly.
The final aim of this AGW hysteria is all political, influence and money from a whole bunch (but not only) of unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats and the parasite carbon compensation traders eager to line up their pockets with emission mitigation, not to say the enviros eager to push for the demise of the industrial civilisation.
If they were really concerned about climate change and really want to take efficient actions, which I think everybody should, they would have stressed FIRST on poverty reduction (the best way to combat climate change), dike constructions, aforestation, better short term local weather prediction (especially to forecast flood), irrigation structure building, desalinisation plants... but certainly not emission reduction.
Want to build dikes and anti-cyclone shelters in Bangladesh ? So bad it's not easy: concrete required to build them are big carbon emitters. That's what we are told now and that's ridiculous.
"I have spent the better part of this tour trying to come up with easy ways for us all to become a part of the solution to global warming...
I propose a limitation be put on how many squares of toilet paper can be used in any one sitting."
Sherryl Crow
George and Minitax first deny the science. (But cant anymore without looking silly). Now they say the cost of trying to mitigate the affects of climate change is to high. To high for whom? For us or for future generations?
This is the biggest challenge that we face. Bigger than terrorism or even local wars. Its far to big to be met by private enterprise. It needs the worlds governments coming together and recognising we live on same planet, and whatever our differences we have much more in common than divides us.
If this problem is to be tackled, and its not just climate change, its the scrabble for scarce resources, and the pressure 6+ billion people place on their environment, it needs international action on an unprecedented scale.
Personally I doubt if we will be able or willing to do enough. But future generations wont thank us for recognising the problem but continuing to add to it because we think its too expensive FOR US.
In recent Reith lectures here, Prof Jeffrey Sachs talked about the pressures of living in the anthropocene. He put it all together far better than I can.
But he's American, he believes in our extraordinary abilities to make a difference, and he's an optimist that we both can and have the WILL to do it. Now George and Minitax, whaddya say? Are you going to join this monumental task, or are you just going to sit on the sidelines pointing out the difficulties, he hardships, the costs, and say it will never work?
What was it Kennedy said about putting a man on the moon? "We do these things not because they are easy but because they are hard..."
America has a opportunity here to truly lead the world. But you have to grasp it.
Steve,
Yesterday's Wall Street Journal outlined Boeing's latest quarterly results. Profits are up by 27% and new orders already in hand will fill production capacity for well over two years and make Boeing the world's leading producer of commercial transport aircraft for the next several years - at a minimum. It wasn't long ago that you and others were confidently forecasting Boeing's impending doom because it had not unequivocally invested in super large passenger aircraft. You may recall that my response then was that the competitive issue between Boeing and Airbus was more complex than you represented it to be, that there was reason to doubt the assumed superiority of investment in larger (as opposed to more fuel efficient) aircraft, and that both companies were likely to survive and compete in a continuing struggle for marginal advantage.
The passage of time has rather clearly demonstrated the flaws in your analysis of that issue, and the rightness of mine. I believe there are useful analogies here to our discussion of global warming.
In the first place I am not denying the science at all. It is you who are doing that. My graduate education was in theoretical fluid mechanics (Cal Tech), and my dissertation & research topic involved the then ambitious attempts underway to develop useful numerical models of the dynamic equations of viscous fluids for various applications ranging from meteorology, to aircraft design, implosion blast wave analysis for nuclear weapons warhead design, as well as basic analysis of what was regarded to be the last unsolved problem in Newtonian mechanics - turbulent fluid flow.
There was intense activity and lots of government grant money going into this research then and there are a number of practical and theoretical results produced that still influence our lives today. One of these results was the global numerical weather model that, together with satellite and other automated data sources has replaced the somewhat less effective and much more expensive system it replaced. However the chief theoretical (and as it turns out, practical) result produced was an understanding of the mathematical phenomenon called Chaos which is inexorably present in all coupled, non-linear dynamic systems and the mathematical representations we create for them. Yo may wish to consult any of the many texts on this subject.
Basically it involves what is called the "sensitive dependence on initial conditions" that makes both the real physical systems - as well as the mathematical representations and numerical models we use to represent them - subject to major variations over time resulting from even miniscule variations in the assumed initial conditions. These variations grow rapidly over time, severely limiting the accuracy of all predictions. What is worse, inherent to this sensitive dependence, is the fact that the variations in the real physical system are not related to those that occur in the numerical model used to represent it. The key result has been that numerical weather forecasts are limited in their utility to but a few days. After that the resuts produced - though they often look reasonable and like familiar weather patterns, bear no relationship to what accurately happens.
This problem infects all attempts to numerically forecast the future dymamic behavior of fluid systems. A good example is the 'El Ninho' current in the South Pacific. It is known to historically follow a cycle with period ranging from about 10 to 20 years. However, despite the explosion in computer power and science of the past decades we are still unable to accurately predict the timing of its next cycle. The various papers published dourly predicting the long term collapse of the Atlantic Conveyor current (that carries tropical heat to the North Atlantic ) due to AGW and ice cap melting are based on exactly the same models that are already known to fail to predict the observed variations in El Ninho.
You are suggesting that the world should be made to reallocate about one fifth of its resources on the basis of an analysis of this kind of known unreliability. In view of the many competing and truly immediate problems competing for these same resources, how can you (or anyone) rationally argue for this?
Humans are notoriously unable to deal rationally with questions involving the small risk of horrific outcomes, particularly those involving risks unseen and outside of our daily experience. We grossly exaggerate some and blithely ignore others. We know beyond doubt that, absent AGW, the natural planetary cycles have yielded repeated ice ages in the temperate zones; repeated collapses and reversals of the earth's magnetic field; repeated episodes of extensive volcanism related to plate movements; and repeated large asteroid impacts, some probably associated with mass extinctions. Given all these geological facts, it is, at best, strange to observe the contemporary fascination with this imagined new problem.
Sometrimes I wonder if all those ubiquitous security cameras under which the British live their lives are not having some undetected impact on psycholoigical behavior.
Shouldn't someone ask Paul Wolfowitz for his take on the problem. Once we have it, we can do the opposite with the assurance that it is the correct course of action.
Advocate wrote:Shouldn't someone ask Paul Wolfowitz for his take on the problem. Once we have it, we can do the opposite with the assurance that it is the correct course of action.
I am using your theory about using contrarian advice to solve a problem, but instead I am using Sheryl Crow's take on the problem.
But Wolfy has a long history of being wrong on everything. Does Crow?
Steve 41oo wrote:George and Minitax first deny the science. (But cant anymore without looking silly). Now they say the cost of trying to mitigate the affects of climate change is to high. To high for whom? For us or for future generations?
Man, your wholesale accusation is way off chart Steve.
You say I deny the science, whatever that means, whereas I'm sure you've been studying the subject 10x less than me. I read reports and studies, discuss on climate forums, ask question to scientists, make calculations, verify numbers... and the more I know of the subject, the more I realised how bad the climate science is and how thin the evidence for the AGW theory is.
The subject of mitigation is societal & political and is on a completely other ground than the science. Just because the topic has shifted to it doesn't mean in any way I have ceased to be skeptic on the science. Stating otherwise would be utterly absurd.
Advocate wrote:But Wolfy has a long history of being wrong on everything. Does Crow?
It's easy not to be wrong when your main responsibilities have been to sing cute songs.
My fingers can already tell you that Crow's idea of regulating the number of permitted toilet paper squares is stinkily wrong
georgeob1 wrote:In the first place I am not denying the science at all. It is you who are doing that. My graduate education was in theoretical fluid mechanics (Cal Tech), and my dissertation & research topic involved the then ambitious attempts underway to develop useful numerical models of the dynamic equations of viscous fluids for various applications ranging from meteorology, to aircraft design, implosion blast wave analysis for nuclear weapons warhead design, as well as basic analysis of what was regarded to be the last unsolved problem in Newtonian mechanics - turbulent fluid flow.
Hey, wellcome to the club. I have a PhD in theoretical physics and spent my 3 years thesis modelling flow & diffusion of... supercritical CO2 in an applied reseach program (SC CO2 is a very good solvent which leaves no residue and is used for example for decaffeination or electronic wafers cleaning) then spending 3 more years in industry doing fluid modelling.
We modellers know what models can do and what climate models CAN'T do. The layman don't and are oversold 100 years prediction by unvalidated models. Hey, we can't compete as long as climate modellers have no penalty and all advantages for exagerated or false claims.
The Pope addresses the climate change conference as US church leaders lobby Bush on global warming.
[Seriously, I really do believe that my concern about environment is deeply rooted in my education during childhood.]
Quote:Protect God's creation: Vatican issues new green message for world's Catholics
· Pope addresses climate change conference
· US church leaders lobby Bush on global warming
John Vidal and Tom Kington in Rome
Friday April 27, 2007
The Guardian
The Vatican yesterday added its voice to a rising chorus of warnings from churches around the world that climate change and abuse of the environment is against God's will, and that the one billion-strong Catholic church must become far greener.
At a Vatican conference on climate change, Pope Benedict urged bishops, scientists and politicians - including UK environment secretary David Miliband - to "respect creation" while "focusing on the needs of sustainable development".
The Pope's message follows a series of increasingly strong statements about climate change and the environment, including a warning earlier this year that "disregard for the environment always harms human coexistence, and vice versa".
Observers said yesterday that the Catholic church is no longer split between those who advocate development and those who say the environment is the priority. Cardinal Renato Raffaele Martino, head of the Pontifical Council of Justice and Peace, said: "For environment ... read Creation. The mastery of man over Creation must not be despotic or senseless. Man must cultivate and safeguard God's Creation."
According to Vatican sources, the present Pope is far more engaged in the green debate than John Paul. In the past year Benedict has spoken strongly on the need to preserve rainforests. In the next few weeks he visits Brazil.
"There is no longer a schism. The new interest in climate change and the environment is not surprising really. Benedict comes out of 1960s Germany, where environment and disarmament were major issues. It's conceivable that his ministry could even culminate in a papal encyclical on the environment," said one analyst. This would be the most powerful signal to the world's Catholics about the need for environmental awareness at every level.
The Catholic church is just one major faith group now rapidly moving environment to the fore of its social teachings. "Climate change, biotechnology, trade justice and pollution are all now being debated at a far higher level by the world's major religions," said Martin Palmer, secretary general of the Alliance of Religions and Conservation (Arc).
In some cases the debate is dividing traditionalists from younger congregations. In the US the diverse 50m-strong conservative evangelical churches are increasingly at war about the human contribution to global warming.
Many evangelical leaders say they are still not convinced that global warming is human-induced and have argued that the collapse of the world is inevitable and will herald the second coming of Christ.
But most younger leaders have broken ranks. About four years ago the progressives began to argue strongly that man had a responsibility to steward the earth. Redefining environmentalism as "creation care", they are now lobbying President Bush and the US administration to take global warming far more seriously.
"They are the most effective lobby," said one observer yesterday. "They represent the conservative vote so Bush has to listen to them."
Although the World Council of Churches in Geneva has had a department to investigate climate change since 1990, churches have come late to the debate. "The [environment and religion] is a no-brainer, but we are all only now realising it", said Claire Foster, environmental policy adviser to the Church of England.
Many faiths also realise their potential to influence politicians and financiers. A survey by US bank Citigroup found that the 11 major faiths now embrace 85% of the world's population and are the world's third largest group of financial investors. In the US the United methodist church pension fund alone is worth $12bn-$15bn (£6bn-£7bn). Total investment of US churches is nearly $70bn. Switching to ethical investments would be hugely significant.
One Catholic priest impatient for change is Seán McDonagh, a Columban missionary and author of books on ecology and religion. "The Catholic church's social teaching on human rights and justice has been good, but there has been little concern about the impact on the planet. The church has been caught up on its emphasis on development and on resisting population control, but if we are pro-life we should be banging the drum now about climate change."
Backstory
Most of the world's mainstream faiths have at their core a deep respect for nature, but over hundreds of years many have developed an ambivalent attitude towards ecology and the pressures put on the earth by humans. Church leaders have largely stayed silent on the extinction of species and natural capital and have concentrated their ethical teachings on the need to relieve human poverty. But the reality of impending climate change and the effects it will have on the poor is concentrating minds and causing many to fundamentally reassess their understanding of man's place in the world.
Source
Apropos 'climate conference'
Divisions over global warming threaten EU-US climate meeting:
Quote:Divisions over climate change threaten to derail a set piece EU-US summit and overshadow moves to strengthen transatlantic economic ties.
With time running out before Monday's meeting in Washington, some EU diplomats suggested that a weak declaration on global warming would be worse than no statement at all.
The meeting, which will be hosted by George Bush and attended by Germany's Chancellor, Angela Merkel, was seen as an opportunity for Europe and the US to align their positions on climate change before a G8 meeting in June. That gathering will be chaired by Ms Merkel, who holds the presidencies of the EU and G8 and who is pressing for a deal on the fight against global warming.
But the divisions prompted key players to play down the importance of the meeting yesterday. The US ambassador to the EU, C. Boyden Gray, said the summit "will not be a defining moment" on climate change, suggesting that agreements on transatlantic economic co-operation will be more concrete and far-reaching.
The German EU presidency said it was confident that the communiqué language will be agreed. However, European diplomats cast doubt over the likelihood of a significant breakthrough. The US has dug in over its insistence that there should be no commitment to binding targets unless developing countries such as China and India follow suit.
The hard line from the White House prompted internal divisions on the European side and tension among different parts of the government of Germany.
Ms Merkel's economic adviser, Jens Weidmann, reflected the caution over what can be achieved, conceding that it was "asking for a bit too much" to expect the US to be convinced to sign up to binding CO2 emissions targets.
He added: "What's important is that we engage in discussions with our American friends which make it clear for the need to act, and on that basis we can pursue discussions as part of the G8 process."
European officials have been fighting for a communiqué that makes a reference to EU climate change policies, recognises that the problem of global warming is manmade and that there is a need to reach a worldwide deal on tackling it but that the EU has committed to a 20 per cent reduction in CO2 emissions by 2020.
Mr Gray said there were "some differences" over the declaration, adding: "The main difference is over the weight you give to new technologies versus binding targets now."
The US argues that it is investing more than the EU in technologies such as carbon capture, which could help countries such as China to tackle emissions.
He said there would be "real meat on the bone" of discussions on setting up a transatlantic economic council to identify barriers to trade and co-ordinate regulations and commercial and technical standards.
Walter,
Aren't you a bit ashamed to raise an ecclesiastical argument at this stage of the debate? The Catholic hierarchy opposed Gallileo as well. I don't recognize them as an authority on weather forecasting. Besides, the Pope is a German.
There is so much that already divides Europe and America. A little more will hardly be noticed.
Moreover Europeans are rather selective in the issues in which they really want U.S. leadership. I'm sure they can do without us on this one, as on so many others.
miniTAX wrote:Hey, wellcome to the club. I have a PhD in theoretical physics and spent my 3 years thesis modelling flow & diffusion of... supercritical CO2 in an applied reseach program (SC CO2 is a very good solvent which leaves no residue and is used for example for decaffeination or electronic wafers cleaning) then spending 3 more years in industry doing fluid modelling.
We modellers know what models can do and what climate models CAN'T do. The layman don't and are oversold 100 years prediction by unvalidated models. Hey, we can't compete as long as climate modellers have no penalty and all advantages for exagerated or false claims.
I suspected as much from your earlier posts. My work mostly involved turbulent viscous flows. Most numerical models look very good - up until the point when one gets to compare the results with real data. As we both know it takes a great deal of empirical effort in such comparisons to establish the (usually very limited) bounds of accurate representations in any coupled, non-linear problem, particularly those involving parabolic differential equations. Still it is disappointing to observe the public credulity attached to meaningless 50 year climactic projections, given the obvious fact that we can't accurately predict the weather a month into the future.
I am bemused by the European's insistence that the U.S. participate in any binding effort on global warming, while simultaneously rejecting the notion that China and India should also be included. What explains this?
What has prevented the European nations from achieving the goals they so solemnly (and voluntarily) undertook at Kyoto? I don't think it was the U.S. that stopped them.
Walter,
I heard Sarkozy (in all probabilities the next French president) yesterday declaring he would lobby Brussel to impose a carbon tax on goods from all those countries who don't respect Kyoto, understating it would target the US & China.
What a good moment of laughter.
1. the prime target would be most European countries who can't meet Kyoto
2. his target China is just a populist excuse since China respects Kyoto (hey easy, it belongs to Annex 2 countries, those not compelled to limit their emissions)
He doesn't take many risk with this kind of posturing since France has plenty of nuclear and has arranged no reduction for itself in the Kyoto protocol.
Who said GW is all about the science ? It appears to be all about diplomacy and geopolitics and has nothing to do with science.
georgeob1 wrote:I am bemused by the European's insistence that the U.S. participate in any binding effort on global warming, while simultaneously rejecting the notion that China and India should also be included. What explains this?
Well, and I wonder why the US allows some to have buclear weapons and others not etc etc.
Certainly it's a lot of politics - or lack of it.
An Irish blasphemer spat
Quote:Aren't you a bit ashamed to raise an ecclesiastical argument at this stage of the debate? The Catholic hierarchy opposed Gallileo as well. I don't recognize them as an authority on weather forecasting. Besides, the Pope is a German.
Category error. The Catholic hierarchy are also not authorities on human biology but you would possibly hold that they have some relevant voice on the matter of abortion. Ninny.
georgeob1 wrote:I am bemused by the European's insistence that the U.S. participate in any binding effort on global warming, while simultaneously rejecting the notion that China and India should also be included. What explains this?
Because per capita, an European emits 5x more CO2 than a Chinese or 7x more than an Indian. Period.
I would not imagine them being sermoned : "hey guys, stop spewing so much CO2. We propose 2 solutions, either keep your current per capita level which we will reach down in year 2200, inchallah, or if you want cars, microwave, cheap travel..., reduce your population."
miniTAX wrote:Because per capita, an European emits 5x more CO2 than a Chinese or 7x more than an Indian. Period.
Maybe if they'd just shut up that number might drop?
