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

Thomas wrote:

blatham wrote:
Of course, it does not matter how severe or catastrophic the consequences of global warming might be, 'positives' for some peoples or species or ecosystems will be a certain consequence.

On the other hand, it does not matter how insanely great and beneficial the consequences of global warming might be, "negatives" for some peoples or sepecies or ecosystems will be a certain consequence.

I guess that's my point. The net impact of global warming on our well-being should be determined by a sober cost-benefit analysis. Instead, what you read in the press is a repetition of the same anecdotes over and over again. Everyone with an interest in public affairs knows about the melting permafrost, the flooded islands, and the increase in hurricane intensity. But are these stories more typical of the impact than the "good news" about Greenland's potato farmers and Germany's vintners? From reading newspapers, and from watching TV and movies, it's hard to tell if the depressing stories are really more typical of what's going on, or if they merely get repeated more often.

I think that this doesn't really address the true problem of GW - unpredictability.

Germany's vintners might have a good year or three but will it be good in perpetuity? Doubtful.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

I think that this doesn't really address the true problem of GW - unpredictability.

Germany's vintners might have a good year or three but will it be good in perpetuity? Doubtful.

Cycloptichorn

Perpetuity is a very long time. Germany's vintners have never ben guaranteed favorable weather in perpetuity. Indeed given the geological record of repeated ice ages, the opposite is true. Global Warming promises, at most, only a reduction in the cold weather they will have to face.

Unpredictability in climactic matters is inherent in the geological and atmospheric dynamic of the earth. This is a not-sufficiently-understood fact of natural science and the dynamical systems it describes. Unpredictability is neither enhanced nor diminished by the claims of AGW advocates.

0 Replies

maporsche wrote:

okie wrote:
The truth is there are countless people including scientists working on it, and they haven't yet come up with the magic bullet.

No one will disagree with you on this point. Where the disagreement will come is when you start asking questions about government oil subsidies, or tax breaks. When you start talking about opening up our coastlines, wildlife refuges, etc.

We need to stop spending government money on an old technology and increase our spending/funding for new batteries, more efficient hybrid technology, improving the electrical grid infrastructure in some areas, etc.

Well stated.

No magic bullet needed, just a regular common sense variety bullet.

T
K
O

0 Replies

thomas wrote :

Quote:

The net impact of global warming on our well-being should be determined by a sober cost-benefit analysis.

certainly sounds like a reasonable suggestion .
while i respect scientists and economists , i have some doubt that it would ever be possible to carry out a "sober cost-benefit analysis" on such an enormous - and controversial - subject .

imo it's like trying to make a cost-benefit analysis of the promises poltical parties make prior and even after an election .
i have not yet been able to choose how to spend my vote based on such an analysis .
it still sounds good , but it would first be necessary to demonstrate on a somewhat smaller basis that such an analysis could actually be carried out successfully imo .

(as an aside : our small city has hired numerous consultants over the years to help them make minor and major decisions on the city-infrastructure . so far , these studies have not proven to be very satisfactory .
most - if not all - of these studies have a lot of "assumptions" in them .

and thinking back of my many years working for different businesses , i have experienced my fair share of "consultants" - often the companies paid a lot of money for suggestions that had already be made by line managers or the recommendations were not what the chief executive was anticipating - and they were therefore shelved .

just thinking of THE BIG THREE car companies . they certainly have plenty of scientists and economists working for them , yet they are having great problems satisfying the customers and the shareholders .
one has to wonder : WHY ?)

of course , i really don't have an answer either Rolling Eyes

!
hbg

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

I think that this doesn't really address the true problem of GW - unpredictability.

Germany's vintners might have a good year or three but will it be good in perpetuity? Doubtful.

It's not just a good year or three. Grape quality at harvest time has been steadily improving in Germany for about 30 years. Deutschlandfunk, a reputable German radio station, recently had a feature about wine in the Mosel region. They quoted several vinters and agricultural biologists to this effect, all of which said the major factor in the improvement have been longer growing seasons and a warmer climate. Both are predictable enough consequences of global warming.

0 Replies

The likelihood that added government spending on "improved batteries, more efficient hybrid technology, or improving the electrical grid infrastructure..." will make any difference in our consumption of fossil fuels is about nill.

In the first place government doesn't develop these technologies either very much or very well. In the second, what we have in these areas is quite good and there are few prospects for breakthrough improvements of sufficient magnitude to make a meaningful difference on energy production from fossil fuels.

We already have the needed technology to make at least a 30% reduction in our use of fossil fuels - nuclear power. The 25+ year old plants we have today constitute about 10% of our generating capacity but about 20% of the power actually produced - because they are more reliable and far cheaper to operate than any alternative, including coal, wind and solar power sources -- no subsidies needed. Moreover, we already have enough enriched uranium to last us for well over a century, and ample untapped sources of additional ore are readily available. (Interestingly, several of the European countries that so loudly and piously swore off nuclear power a few years ago - most notably Sweden and Spain - have quietly suspended these programs and resumed the construction of new plants).

Better lightbulbs, solar and wind power are at best able to give us a 5%-10% reduction in fossil fuel consumption, and because solar and wind power are much more expensive, they will require government subsidies - money that someone will be required to pay.

If you are serious about AGW, then you must be serious about expanding the use of nuclear power as a matter of some urgency. If you do not accept that, then you don't deserve to be taken seriously by thinking, knowledgable people.

0 Replies

Bernie wrote-

Quote:

Here's a classic example of why I don't much bother to enter into an analytic discussion with you. The sentence is factually false. It is false because you aren't apparently concerned with accuracy. Generalizations like this are lazy and serve myopia, not clarity.

You'll claim that a greater truth is served by the generalization and it is therefore logically permissable. It isn't, of course. I wonder whether you perceive that the real function of such 'argumentation' is simply to provide you with a position not open to disproof.

I know why you don't much bother to enter into an analytic discussion with me. I have heard them saying "What we need to do blah blah...." The sentence is true. Nothing lazy about it. Accurate enough. And it doesn't serve my myopia because I have no myopia to serve.

It is lazy etc to keep on with those platitudes, or to be satisfied by them, and ignoring the question of how the need is to be provided for. I was criticising the lazy, shallow, meaningless of what mappie said.

One doesn't just sweep one's arm over a fabulous social organism like the US with some utopian cliches that have no meaning in reality. Politics is the art of the possible isn't it. Those policies mappie offered will affect different entities in different ways and some compromise has to be worked out based on the self interest of those entities not on some high sounding generalisations.

What does mappie mean by "We need..". Who is the "we"? Why do we "need" those policies?

We need to cut the birth rate because it is people who pollute. How to do that--- start ridiculing the "Molly and me and baby makes three stuff". Start calling them little monsters instead of cute little bundles of joy.

Fat chance eh?

0 Replies

Quote:

No magic bullet needed, just a regular common sense variety bullet.

That's lazy. Whose common sense? The writer's I suppose.

I said without totalitarianism. There are plenty of people who say that it is common sense to scrap the internet. Or TV. Or democracy.

0 Replies

spendius wrote:

Quote:
No magic bullet needed, just a regular common sense variety bullet.

That's lazy. Whose common sense? The writer's I suppose.

I said without totalitarianism. There are plenty of people who say that it is common sense to scrap the internet. Or TV. Or democracy.

Yes the writer's common sence. I agreed with Maporshe's point. I found it to be very intuitive, hense common sense. It's sad to be wrong about something like that.

T
K
O

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

blatham wrote:
Of course, it does not matter how severe or catastrophic the consequences of global warming might be, 'positives' for some peoples or species or ecosystems will be a certain consequence.

On the other hand, it does not matter how insanely great and beneficial the consequences of global warming might be, "negatives" for some peoples or sepecies or ecosystems will be a certain consequence.

I guess that's my point. The net impact of global warming on our well-being should be determined by a sober cost-benefit analysis. Instead, what you read in the press is a repetition of the same anecdotes over and over again. Everyone with an interest in public affairs knows about the melting permafrost, the flooded islands, and the increase in hurricane intensity. But are these stories more typical of the impact than the "good news" about Greenland's potato farmers and Germany's vintners? From reading newspapers, and from watching TV and movies, it's hard to tell if the depressing stories are really more typical of what's going on, or if they merely get repeated more often.

I understand, thomas. Of course, I'd want to know who is doing such an analysis and what interests they may have in finding a particular conclusion or probability.

But as I've tried to argue earlier, change, particularly very rapid change, is almost always destructive to existing biosystems and human cultures. Any gardener or farmer understands that this is a fundamental to the success of their activity. Any anthropologist or historian can point to disastrous periods or instances when equilibriums have been upset by rapid climate (or other) change...this is almost never good news. At some point up the road, new equilibriums will be achieved but that leaves out the decimation which preceded that new point.

Aside from that...I'll bet you have Krugman's new book. A measure of the insight and intelligence of the book is how often his paragraphs read as if they might have been written by a canadian friend of yours.

0 Replies

Bernie wrote-

Quote:

Any gardener or farmer understands that this is a fundamental to the success of their activity. Any anthropologist or historian can point to disastrous periods or instances when equilibriums have been upset by rapid climate (or other) change...

Then why do you support the dramatic change to atheism. And it is dramatic.

Are you a boat-rocker or just unsteady on your feet?

0 Replies

Changing your hair color is dramatic. So is removing that thumping pound of flesh. There's drama and then there's drama.

Who said I'm pushing for atheism? Likely some catholic hanging about and up to no good at all.

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

The likelihood that added government spending on "improved batteries, more efficient hybrid technology, or improving the electrical grid infrastructure..." will make any difference in our consumption of fossil fuels is about nill.

In the first place government doesn't develop these technologies either very much or very well. In the second, what we have in these areas is quite good and there are few prospects for breakthrough improvements of sufficient magnitude to make a meaningful difference on energy production from fossil fuels.

We already have the needed technology to make at least a 30% reduction in our use of fossil fuels - nuclear power. The 25+ year old plants we have today constitute about 10% of our generating capacity but about 20% of the power actually produced - because they are more reliable and far cheaper to operate than any alternative, including coal, wind and solar power sources -- no subsidies needed. Moreover, we already have enough enriched uranium to last us for well over a century, and ample untapped sources of additional ore are readily available. (Interestingly, several of the European countries that so loudly and piously swore off nuclear power a few years ago - most notably Sweden and Spain - have quietly suspended these programs and resumed the construction of new plants).

Better lightbulbs, solar and wind power are at best able to give us a 5%-10% reduction in fossil fuel consumption, and because solar and wind power are much more expensive, they will require government subsidies - money that someone will be required to pay.

If you are serious about AGW, then you must be serious about expanding the use of nuclear power as a matter of some urgency. If you do not accept that, then you don't deserve to be taken seriously by thinking, knowledgable people.

I never asked the government to create these technologies. I asked the government to provide more grants and monies to colleges, research companies, for-profit companies that are trying to develop these technologies. The money should be shifted from big oil tax breaks and subsidies.

And I'm sorry, there is MUCH potential in battery technology, solar electric, etc. What we have now is not "quite good" and to say that "there are few prospects for breakthrough improvements" is short-sighted. Who was it that said something along the lines of 'everything that can be developed, has been developed'.

As far a nuclear energy. I do support the expansion of nuclear power plants and I said as much in a recent post.

0 Replies

What "big oil tax breaks and subsidies"????

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

I understand, thomas. Of course, I'd want to know who is doing such an analysis and what interests they may have in finding a particular conclusion or probability.

For starters, Google "William Nordhaus" and global warming, perhaps with the restriction "site:yale.edu". Nordhaus's interest is academic excellence. Krugman, one of his pupils, calls him "the best" when it comes to applying sound economics to public policy. Nordhaus does come out in favor of a carbon tax, but the measures he proposes are much less drastic than what's being discussed by European politicians these days. In particular, he has been a consistent opponent of the Kyoto Protocol.

blatham wrote:

But as I've tried to argue earlier, change, particularly very rapid change, is almost always destructive to existing biosystems and human cultures.

I might well agree with this, depending on your definition of "rapid". But the IPCC'd median prediction is a change of five degrees Fahrenheit over a century. This isn't rapid by anyone's definition.

blatham wrote:

Aside from that...I'll bet you have Krugman's new book. A measure of the insight and intelligence of the book is how often his paragraphs read as if they might have been written by a canadian friend of yours.

True. I don't agree with everything in The Conscience of a Liberal, but I agree it's an insightful, intelligent book. The best I've read since, uh, Paul Krugman's last book. (Sorry George.)

0 Replies

Quote:

I might well agree with this, depending on your definition of "rapid". But the IPCC'd median prediction is a change of five degrees Fahrenheit over a century. This isn't rapid by anyone's definition.

I can't agree with your perspective here, thomas, and I doubt you'd find much agreement from anthropologists. Assuming that 5 degree rate of change will prove an accurate estimate, this will mean that over only two or three generations many ecosystems around the globe will be seriously altered and many of the human populations which rely upon them are certain to be critically compromised.

In any case, I am presently installing the final series of temperofibbrilators into my time machine and thus will soon be able to go back and right things by setting up a hunting trip for Barry Goldwater and a young Dick Cheney. Two bodies in a swamp and a better future for all.

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

I can't agree with your perspective here, thomas, and I doubt you'd find much agreement from anthropologists. Assuming that 5 degree rate of change will prove an accurate estimate, this will mean that over only two or three generations many ecosystems around the globe will be seriously altered and many of the human populations which rely upon them are certain to be critically compromised.

I agree that global warming will bring a significant change in ecosystems. But what do you mean by human populations being "critically compromised"?

To a first approximation, global warming will cause temperature patterns, ecosystems, and the people who like them, to move towards the poles. Thus, if your great-grandchildren should find the climate in early 22nd century Oregon too warm, they will compensate by moving to British Columbia, which is about 3 degrees colder. That's not a hard adaptation -- your great-grandparents all lived much farther from Portland than that. Moreover, it isn't even clear that your great-grand children actually will dislike the climate in the Portland of 2100. After all, according to the IPCC, it will likely resemble the climate of Berkeley CA today, which is very agreeable. Just ask Cycloptichorn -- or George, if he can bring himself to admit he ever set foot on Berkeley soil.

0 Replies

Or they could just stay right where they are and turn up the air con. I agree I really dont see what the fuss is about.

0 Replies

It's about jobs, funds, personal publicity, dissipating inner rage and getting on TV. The beter one is at it the more one has power to stamp one's footprint.

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

blatham wrote:
I can't agree with your perspective here, thomas, and I doubt you'd find much agreement from anthropologists. Assuming that 5 degree rate of change will prove an accurate estimate, this will mean that over only two or three generations many ecosystems around the globe will be seriously altered and many of the human populations which rely upon them are certain to be critically compromised.

I agree that global warming will bring a significant change in ecosystems. But what do you mean by human populations being "critically compromised"?

To a first approximation, global warming will cause temperature patterns, ecosystems, and the people who like them, to move towards the poles. Thus, if your great-grandchildren should find the climate in early 22nd century Oregon too warm, they will compensate by moving to British Columbia, which is about 3 degrees colder. That's not a hard adaptation -- your great-grandparents all lived much farther from Portland than that. Moreover, it isn't even clear that your great-grand children actually will dislike the climate in the Portland of 2100. After all, according to the IPCC, it will likely resemble the climate of Berkeley CA today, which is very agreeable. Just ask Cycloptichorn -- or George, if he can bring himself to admit he ever set foot on Berkeley soil.

thomas

Really, this sounds a bit like Cheney describing life for detainees in guantanamo in the manner he actually did, "They've got it pretty good, you know, they are living in the tropics".

What temperature range humans find pleasant for water polo misses most everything of importance. The grassland region of west/central canada has permitted rich wheat production not merely because of its temperature range but because of that range in tandem with unique soil deposits. Much further north (that is, much warmer) and there goes wheat. Replacement with some other food crop will realisticially take how long? What of all the other food/business operations further upline who've used that wheat? Changes in climate/rainfall ranges will bring, with certainty, other unexpected complications for human communities just as the pine beetle has done in BC as pests/diseases previously kept under control by length or severity of winters now move out into ecosystems upsetting their equilibriums with cascading effects. In poorer regions and countries, mass migrations will be a consequence and political stability will not be enhanced.

It ain't going to be just that Vancouverites will get to have more sunday picnics.

Now, stop arguing or Krugman will have to write another book detailing why I've got this right.

0 Replies

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

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know