Global Warming vs. Terrorism

Parados wrote:


Kuvasz has argued x and y.. Bernard has argued that must add up to Z. There is no way to argue that pointing out that global warming exists can only lead to destroying the economy. It is a strawman. False logic. Complete BULL S***.

You have argued that we shouldn't do anything about CO2 emissions. Not doing anything could lead to the deaths of billions. Ergo we add 2+2 and get 10,000 and see that you are advocating killing billions of people. Why don't you admit your opinion instead of being coy. Just admit it. I admit my opinions. Are you scared of your obvious opinion? You are for killing billions obviously we only need to add 2 + 2. (I will leave out the name calling for now but your argument certainly leaves you open to being called one.)

Prove that slowing down CO2 emissions MUST destroy the economy. You can't. In fact, history SHOWS us that we can grow our economy while decreasing CO2 emissions. Look at how much more energy efficient the US economy is today than it was in the 70s. We use flourescent lighting and have reduced electrical usage for lighting by over 50%. Within 10 years we will be using LEDs for most of our lighting and our energy usage for lighting will be less than 50% of what it is now. (Maybe about 10% of current usage.) http://www.luxeon.com/

Why did companies move to flourescent lighting? Because the government gave them tax breaks to help with the upfront cost, that's why.


Your argument that the government had no part of the changes in the past shows complete ignorance of history. Try riding a horse down a city street. You will find it is illegal these days. No, no government mandates at all.

Who paid for most of the research in computers and the internet? The government. (What the hell do you think a State university is if not government funded?) In the early years of the internet EVERY routing computer was at a university. Look up ARPA sometime. Who provided the land for the train tracks that created cross country railroads? The governnment. Who created the present road system in the US? The government. Who created the cafe standards for automobiles that raised our mpg? The government. Who gave rebates to move to more efficient appliances and lighting? The government. The government has helped to move a lot of technologies forward through paying for research, tax breaks to implement it, or outright mandates.

All of this history PROVES your argument is BULL ****.
Saying we need to reduce our CO2 emissions in no way calls for a destruction of the US economy.

What the hell do you call this?
http://www.energy.gov/taxbreaks.htm This is filled with incentives by the government to move to more efficient energy use like...

Quote:
The Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPACT), signed by President Bush on August 8, 2005, offers consumers and businesses federal tax credits beginning in January 2006 for purchasing fuel-efficient hybrid-electric vehicles and energy-efficient appliances and products. Most of these tax credits remain in effect through 2007.


I see you think Bush is destroying the economy based on your simplistic argument so far.

Go burn your ****** strawman and get in the real world. Neither Kuvasz or myself has proposed destroying the US economy. Asking for clarification about your strawman is completely pointless. It is YOUR STRAWMAN (or Bernards' in this case) Your argument is BS. Nothing to clarify at all. BS.
end of quote
Let's take this hysterical screed one thing at a time.

The hysterical Parados says:
QUOTE

"Not doing anything could lead to the death of Billions"

Really? Why? Tell us Why? You have never told us why and when and how.

I will tell you something you apparently don't--NOT DOING ANYTHING TO STOP IRAN FROM DEVELOPING A NUCLEAR DEVICE COULD LEAD TO THE DEATH OF BILLIONS AND THAT, HYSTERICAL PARADOS IS MUCH MORE LIKELY TO HAPPEN THAN YOUR FRANTIC WARNINGS.

No one said that slowing down Co2 Emissions would destroy the economy. It is obvious that you do not know how to read..

Dr. Lomborg has stated in his book---The Skeptical environmentalist--and I have replicated it many times-
quote
"We should not spend vast amounts of money to CUT A TINY SLICE of the global temperature increase when this constitutes a poor use of resources"

AND

"We should focus more of our efforts at easing the emission of greenhouse gases O V E R T H E L O N G R U N. This means that we have to invest much more in research and development of solar power, fusion and other likely power sources of the future>"
end of quote

Then the clueless Parados tells us that the country is more energy efficient today than in the seventies!
Of course, the country is much more energy efficient today than it was in the 1970's. Only a moron would deny that, but IN THE SAME COMPUTER MODELS THAT THE HYSTERICS USE TO PREDICT THE END OF THE WORLD, ENTRIES ARE MADE WHICH SHOW A GROWTH IN POPULATION.

This means, of course, that the growth overcomes any energy efficiency IF THE HYSTERICS ARE CORRECT. and that is doubtful.


The frantic Parados indicates that both Okie and I are against government mandates...That is ridiculous.

Again,and for the tenth time, WE SHOULD NOT SPEND VAST AMOUNTS OF MONEY TO CUT A TINY SLICE OF THE GLOBAL TEMPERATURE INCREASE WHEN THIS CONSTITUTES A POOR USE OF RESOURCES AND WHEN WE COULD PROBABLY USE THESE FUNDS MORE EFFECTIVELY IN THE DEVELOPING WORLD.


The confused Parados cites a law signed by President Bush called EPACT to show ? that the government does take some actions on energy???

Of course if does but it cannot and must not take PRECIPITOUS( look it up-Parados) Action. It must take actions which are slow, measured and can be evaluted after a few years as to their necessity and effectiveness.

But, Parados would have us believe that he has a solution to ???.

HE CANT EVEN ANSWER BASIC QUESTIONS ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING.

I HAVE ALREADY ASKED #1, #2, AND #3 AND HE, THE 'EXPERT" HAS COME UP WITH NO ANSWERS.

So, before you become hysterical again, Parados, try to convince us that there really is a SERIOUS problem.

You have not answered #1 , #2, and # 3, but I will still ask you # 4.

see below

*********************************************************


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question # 4 Exactly what are the predictions for the alleged warming?

How many degrees will the earth warm by 2050? By 2075?By 2100?

A precise answer, please, Mr. Parados.


A very simple question for Mr. Parados who tells us that Billions will die!!!

Why will Billions die, Mr. Parados-SPECIFICS PLEASE!!!!!

Paul Ehrlich--another of the enviromentalist kooks wrote a book in the 1970's called "The Population Bomb". In this book he argued that since population was increasing so rapidly in the world, there would BE MASSIVE FAMINES WHERE MILLIONS WOULD DIE AND THAT THERE
WOULD BE FAMINES I N T H E U S A.

A real hysteric, Ehrlich did not know that not only would population slow much more dramatically than he dreamed but that the GREEN REVOLUTION in which more crops, sturdier crops. more nourishing crops and crops that were able to be harvested more than once a year would cut famine down to nothing.


Indeed, the annual death rate from Famine which was 5 persons per 100,000 in the sixties has diminished to 1.5 per person per 100,000 in the 1990's.


Ehrlich was another Hysteric. They come along every so often and tell us that the sky is falling!!!

Bernard, with respect to your point #2, I repeat, there is a large body of research which ties the slight reduction in temp from about 1940 to about 1975 to sulfate aerosols (and aerosols generally). And since you hang breathlessly on his every word, you may be interested to know that Bjorn Lomborg concurs. I suggest you reread his TSE, specifically p. 280 (at least in my edition), where he says, (emphasis added) "THE SO2 EMISSIONS ARE IMPORTANT, BECAUSE SULFUR AEROSOLS COOL THE CLIMATE. Thus, if emissions are cut sooner, we will be unable to postpone as much of the warming as under IS92a." No qualifications there:SULFUR AEROSOLS COOL THE CLIMATE. You will note that he remarks on the speed with which SO2 emissions have been reduced, not only in the developed world, but now in the developing world, as the result of pollution controls.

Now if he says it, I know you regard it as gospel. He's talking here about future projections, but if SO2 cools the climate today and in the future, it certainly did so in the past.

Which is where the explanation for the slight cooling comes in. Precisely the mechanism Lomborg says. Ta Da. Industry grew geometrically during WWII and the postwar period. Much to most of it originally powered by coal (and much more inefficient internal combustion engines than later). Coal is much dirtier (i.e. emission heavy) than oil or natural gas. Sulfates and aerosols generally and particulate matter only stay in the atmosphere for days to weeks to at most a couple years (depending on what they are). So they have to be continually renewed to have an effect. CO2 is there for on average a century. So when there was a general switch to oil, and then LNG, and increasingly strict pollution controls were phased in from the 60s on, sulfates were dramatically reduced in the developing world (as Lomborg mentions). The damping effect they had created was removed, and the CO2, which had been increasing all the time, now unmasked, started kicking things up again.

The IPCC looked at a large body of research to reach that conclusion. The research itself is referenced on Spencer Weart's website, and Bjorn Lomborg says that mechanism works that way. And as I think it's Parados mentions, there was some heavy volcanic effect during that period too.

So the cooling, as well as most of the warming, is mostly anthropogenic. Nobody said we couldn't walk and chew gum at the same time--no reason to think the things we do have no effect, or only one effect.

And in terms of government having a positive effect, that the free market doesn't, I propose a tax that will actually save you money, and cut the use of a significant portion of our electricity by three-quarters: a "gas-guzzler" tax on regular incandescent light bulbs so that they cost the same as (or more than) those twisty energy-saving compact fluorescents.

I've been using the energy savers for five years or so now. The first generation weren't great, but the ones now produced are as bright, with a spectrum very similar, fit in regular sockets, are instant-on, and last multiple times longer. I find no down side to their use. They cost more generally (tho my local bargain store has had them for 49 cents for the last three years, and believe me they make a profit on what they sell, so that's not that far out of line with incandescents). When you cost out the energy use, after the four months life, roughly, of an average light bulb, you'd save about $6 to $7 in electricity with the fluoro--three or four times the cost of the bulb over the incandescent--and the fluoro is likely to last three or four times that. But people are put off by the higher initial cost. Tax it to make that differential zero, and people will have an incentive to switch. If they do, they'll save money and keep on saving it(AND they won't have to pay the tax). If they don't, the government will have some additional revenue to overcome George W's soaring deficits. And we'll reduce a significant fraction of our dependence on foreign oil (bankrupt those "Islamofascists", right, Bernard?), and it's green, green, green, reducing that CO2. Doesn't look like there's any downside, and all it takes is a little creative gov't action.

Oh, I have read it, Username and read it carefully. Apparently you have not read it as carefully as I have.

Here is what Dr. Lomborg says;

CAPITALS MINE

p. 267

QUOTE:

Basically, the aerosols in the IPCC MODELS are posited to hide a strong warming from Co2 BUT THIS HINGES ON THE CLAIM THAT PARTICLES OVERALL HAVE A LARGE COOLING EFFECT. However, as is apparent in the chart( Global Mean radiative forcing and UNCERTAINTIES due to a number of agents--IPCC 2001: table 6.ll, figure 6.6) THIS ESTIMATE IS V E R Y U N C E R T A I N. There are a large number of effects from different aerosols, both positive and negative and ALL HAVE VERY LARGE UNCERTAINTIES. Sulphate Particles have a significant cooling effect but WITH AN UNCERTAINTY FACTOR OF TWO--THE ACTUAL COOLING COULD BE HALF OR TWICE AS GREAT...in SUMMARY, THE IPCC STATES THAT
'THE EFFECT OF THE INCREASING AMOUNT OF AEROSOLS ON THE RADIATIVE FORCING IS COMPLEX AND NOT YET WELL KNOWN.

Yet, almost all AOGCM's ( models) ONLY INCLUDE THE SULFATE EFFECT. While such a decision makes sense for modelers trying to LIMIT the number of UNCERTAIN factors, picking out just ONE cooling effect out of MANY cooling and warming effects essentially allows one to better fit the output with reality without needing to change the predicted CO2 warming. The nagging question is whether it is sulfate particles that are temporarily cooling an otherwise relentless Co2 warming or whether the climate sensitivity to CO2 TRULY IS SMALLER THAN PREVIOUSLY EXPECTED.

As pointed out in a recent overview, this leaves MODELS LESS ROBUST THAN IS OFTEN CLAIMED. For instance, studies making optomistic conclusions such as the one by the IPCC that "there is a large consistency between models and observations" is problematic: The conclusion would be singificantly modified if, for example, the additional negative forcing due to the indirect effect of sulphite aerosols had been included...Moreover,recent estimates seem to indicate that the direct cooling effect from particles may be MUCH SMALLER THAN PREVIOUSLY EXPECTED, The newest study in "Nature" 2001 shows that using better miuxing models the total forcing is actually 0.55w/m2 or MUCH HIGHER THAN EXPECTED IN THE PREVIOUS IPCC TABLE--REFERENCED ABOVE--"global mean radiative forcing". THE RESULT IS THAT "THE W A R M I N G E F F E C T F R O M B L A C K C A R B O N MAY NEARLY BALANCE THE NET COOLING EFFECT OF OTHER ANTHROPOGENIC AEROSOL CONSTITUENTS."

This would mean that the climate models are back to O V E R E S T I M A T I N G THE ACTUAL WARMING AS IN( global average temperature simualations from the Hadley Centre GCM---IPCC/DDC 2000.) INDICATING THAT THE TOTAL WARMING FROM CO2 HAS TO BE LOWERED.

END OF QUOTE

************************************************************

So, Username, do you really think that consideration of "sulfate Particles" and their role in simulations, is definitive when all of the UNCERTAINTIES listed above are examined?


Perhaps you will agree to serve as a proxy for the inarticulate Parados and Kuvasz?

The first question is simple-- What will the surface temperature of the earth be in the year 2050? Why?

The second question is also simple. If this is true what can be done to forestall the outcomes listed?

I use the same lightbulbs that you do, Username,but my son's brother in law who regulary travels to China says that anything we might do, IF global warming is a problem, is as nothing when compared to the Chinese industrial climate!!!

Bernard, the surface temperature in 2050 obviously depends in large part on what humans do. Unlike climate, human action is not now, or most likely ever, precisely predictable. You can, however, project an envelope of outocmes, depending on what people choose to do (such choices of course iteratively can depend too on what the projections tell people is likely to happen if they make certain choices, i.e. making a projection can change what choices people make when they know what the projection says)/ So it is perfectly appropriate for models to project what happens when population growth is high, when it's the median estimate, or when it is lower because of demographic/economic social changes). Similarly it's appropriate to provide a bundle of scenarios dependent on whether people follow your view and just produce every molecule of CO2 we can ssimply because we can, or put in more conservation measures, or develop and use alternative technologies (none of which are completely ready for prime time yet, so their effects, and indeed existence, are problematic), or whether the developing world uses the same wasteful technology we do, or something better comes along.

No one can predict what will be chosen or developed there. No one makes any pretense that that can be pinned down now. But what can be done is to predict that if , says, the combination X, Y, and Z are chosen or developed, then A is the likely outcome. But if instead we do T, U, and V, then B will be the outcome.

Which is why the IPCC produces so many scenarios--so that the outcomes of combinations of different events and choices can be evaluated--same principle as a business decision, or a personal decision: If A happens, then I should do X, but if B happens, I should do Y. You don't know which of the possibilities will happen, but you make plans for as many of the reasonably likely ones as you can. Though of course the 10 ton safe can always fall on your head tomorrow anyway.

I agree , Username and then after I agree with your post I must, I am constrained to, I cannot avoid re-posting three of Dr.Lomborg's conclusions-

l. Do we want to handle a tiny bit of global warming in the "most efficient way or do we want to use global warming as a stepping stone to other political projects? Before we make this clear to ourselves and others, the Debate will continue to be muddled."

2. We should not spend vast amounts of money to cut a tiny slice of the global temperature increase when this constitutes a poor use of resources and when we could probably use these funds far more efficiently in the developing world

and 3. Since cutting back Co2 emissions quickly becomes very costly and easily counterproductive, we should focus more of our efforts of finding was of easing the emission of greenhouse gases OVER THE LONG RUN. This means we need to invest much more in research and development of solar power, fusion asnd other likely power sources of the future.



end of quote

And, Username, I hope you enjoyed my response on "sulfate particles"

With regard to scenarios produced by the IPCC--Dr.Lomborg mentions 40( forty) new IPCC scenarios and says-\

quote

"One of the modeling groups fairly honestly points out that the new IPCC scenarios are "an attempt at computer-aided story telling"

And I repeat Lomborg's clear, succinct, no-qualification-at-all statement: "sulfur aerosols cool the climate".

If you read my post directly from Dr, Lomborg's book, you will find that he qualified that statement in quite a few different ways. You are invited to go back to read my post so you can rebut what he wrote. Your one line answer in your last post is most disappointing and, frankly, quite puerile, after I showed that your comment was much too simplfied!

OMG, did you really just post this? Do you not understand satire of your position? You claimed an extreme as my position. I claimed an extreme as your position. WOW.... You don't get it.

Do you know anything about CAFE standards okie? What is draconian about them? Did the economy tank when they were introduced? They actually reduced per vehicle gas usage and reduced the overall usage for a few years. Raising the standard to 35-40 mpg by the year 2010 or 2012 is feasable and would reduce our usage by quite a bit. The cost would be minimal. The savings in fuel costs would more than offset any increase in vehicle price. There would be no destruction of the economy.

The real question for you okie is what increase in energy costs would destroy the economy? Would it destroy the economy if the costs doubled in 5 years? How about if the costs tripled in 5 years?

yeah, those dang Chinese. They have cars that get 30 mpg. Their mandated mpg for vehicles will be 32mpg in 2008, 5 more than the US.

Let's ignore the standards set down by the Chinese government.


http://www.pnl.gov/aisu/pubs/chandgwin.pdf

Not to mention the fact that China has been planning to meet a huge portion of its future energy needs in the central part of the country with the largest public works project it has ever undertaken--the Three Rivers Gorges dam, a hydropower project that does not produce greenhouse gases (dams do have environmental problems, but that's another question), now nearing completion. Government taking an active part to rise to problems and meet them. Would that it happened here.

You miss the whole point, Parados. Cafe standards is not going to reduce CO2 from the overall trend. The fallacy of your argument is as follows.

1. You assert that a severe problem exists, that unless fixed, will be catastrophic.

2. You propose solutions that are demonstrably inadequate to solve your catastrophic problem.

3. Your debate opponents, Bernard and I, assert that the solutions necessary to fix the problem as you outline it, will be draconian and hurt the economy.

4. You accuse us of accusing you of something you do not propose.

It is obvious, Parados, that you are not being realistic about this debate. You assert a problem, but then your solutions have no basis in reality, if the problem is as you say it is. So which is it? Is the problem catastrophic? If so, how come your solutions are not commensurate with your problem? Its like saying the car has a flat tire, but to fix the problem, adjust the rear view mirror. Bernard and I simply say that if the car has a flat tire, then you will need to stop and change the tire. Your answer to that is I never said the tire needs to be changed. Ridiculous argument, Parados.

Environmentalists have been fighting any new hydroelectric projects in this country for decades, and in fact the Sierra Club calls for removal of Lake Powell. Things could be happening here if it weren't for the environmentalists. The environmentalists killed new nuclear power generating capacity 25 years ago, and now some are complaining about why we don't do more of this type of power, which is clean and emits nothing but water vapor. Blame the tree huggers.

okie,
Your simplistic assessment of a car with a flat tire is nothing if not simplistic. It has nothing in common with the idea behind global warming or the possible solutions. There is no danger.

Lets say you have a cup of coffee you are holding in your hand and the waitress is pouring what you think is hot scalding coffee into it. A catastrophic event will occur if she continues to pour the coffee and it overflows causing 3rd degree burns. You seem to think the ONLY solution to prevent being burned is to stop pouring coffee. That is not true. The waitress could slow down the rate at which she is pouring coffee into your cup. It might not solve the problem completely but it does give you more time to solve it another way. If you slow down the rate at which she is pouring the coffee may cool so you won't get burned as badly. If you slow down the rate you might be able to grab a cloth napkin to prevent burning. There are many solutions that could present themselves other than one. You could add ice to the cup if she is pouring slower.

The idea that since you can't solve it one way we should just forget it is hardly an answer. It is fatalism


As for your argument that CAFE standards aren't going to affect the trend. BS.. Slowing down the rate at which the coffee is poured into the cup is a good first step.

Now to the rest of your silly argument. Lets say there are 2 waitresses pouring coffee into the cup. You can slow down the rate that one of the waitresses pours her coffee but the other one is going to speed up. Do you slow her rate down or forget about it because the other waitress will make up for any slow down you can create. I think any Jr High school student could answer this question correctly.

My debate opponents have posited that since you can't solve the problem completely we should ignore the problem. It is a false argument. My debate opponents have also posited that any measures that might solve the problem would destroy the economy yet my opponents have presented ZERO evidence to support that contention. What increase in the cost of energy will destroy the economy? Please inform me of % increase in cost would cause the destruction you claim would occur? Give me the access to the computer models that show this destruction.

I will ask again..

IF the energy costs double in 5 years will it destroy the economy? Yes or no?

Bingo!

Gee, if this poor 60 year old -- who once wrote on abuzz that he lived on the largesse of his son -- knew anything about me, he would find be embarrassed.