Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
|
Jan 12, 2010 - 03:21pm PT
|
"Well, if that´s what it takes to get through to some people.....anyone willing to read the science already knows there is pretty much unanimous consensus among scientists studying climate change"
The first part of that sentence was exactly my point. The second part may say too much: consensus does not equal unanimity. This holds particularly true about the magnitude of anthropogenic climate change, and our ability to counteract it. On the partisan thread (I consider this thread non-partisan), Rokjox has posted a rather frightening argument for why global warming is inevitable, and why we now can do little to materially change it. If that is right, we're wasting money, effort and morality on focusing on carbon combustion.
To put this in the context of your ending sentence, an insurance policy makes sense only after considering its cost and payout. The cost of most current carbon combustion reduction strategies is quite high, and its benefit uncertain. That's the real area of debate. As the science continues to advance, the uncertainty will probably lessen, and the cost will almost certainly do so as technology adapts. Right now, however, those who question whether it's worth it aren't being irrational.
John
|
|
August West
Trad climber
Where the wind blows strange
|
|
|
Jan 12, 2010 - 04:07pm PT
|
Rokjox
Regarding methane: A tipping point that starts releasing a large amount of methane from the tundra and the ocean bottom is a real concern. To use some hated language: it is a known unknown. I'm not sure whether you are just trolling if your post is serious. But even if this tipping point is inevitable (which I don't believe it is), the faster humans pump greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere, the quicker we will reach that tipping point.
But I rather suspect that the world will manage to argue (and mostly do nothing) until it is clear that we are past a real tipping point.
|
|
kunlun_shan
Mountain climber
SF, CA
|
|
|
Jan 12, 2010 - 04:15pm PT
|
¨.....an insurance policy makes sense only after considering its cost and payout. The cost of most current carbon combustion reduction strategies is quite high, and its benefit uncertain. That's the real area of debate.....¨
John, I hope you will take the time to watch this video with Amory Lovins of the Rocky Mountain Institute. He´s an incredibly bright guy and has a entire strategy to get America away from oil dependence. It´s win-win for everyone, especially business.
Winning the Oil Endgame:
http://mitworld.mit.edu/video/346/
Free book for download here: http://www.oilendgame.com/ReadTheBook.html
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jan 13, 2010 - 11:15am PT
|
JEleazarian writes: "For the cerebral (and fact-oriented) we have Ed. For the others, we have Rolling Stone."
From your comment, I expect that you've read the cover stories in the latest RS (otherwise you'd be talking out of your ass, and I can tell you're too smart for that). So, from your read, perhaps you can point out the inaccurate claims in the articles.
Not everybody in this world is a scientist, like Ed. So, not everybody can understand the science-talk. For those that don't, articles in layman terms are a good thing. Especially ones that expose the facts.
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
|
Jan 13, 2010 - 07:03pm PT
|
k-man,
As Rokjox has already shown me, I've been less than clear on this subject. My point was exactly yours (I think) -- that there are various ways to reach various people. My dig about facts, however, simply recogizes that the Rolling Stone piece had an axe to grind. Ed's posts have been, essentially, defending the science and methods employed.
John
|
|
August West
Trad climber
Where the wind blows strange
|
|
|
Jan 14, 2010 - 02:19pm PT
|
Rokjox:
Your description is rather over the top, but I guess I will still bite...
I don't think most of the climate scientist think things are yet inevitable. And even if it were, I would rather enjoy the world for another 20 years instead of just a week. Futhermore, if we slow things down, it may give us time for other options. Someday, we may have the technology to economically remove greenhouse gases directly from the atmosphere (on a scale to make a difference). Not that I personally want to bet the health of the planet on this, but more time is still better.
This idea that we must either do nothing or destroy the economy is a false choice. There are lots of things that are worthwhile in the own right. Getting off imported oil. Increasing insulation. Improving air quality, etc.
Spending around 1% of GDP would, I think, make a huge difference and is hardly the thing of destroying the economy. And even if you are right that this would make no difference as to the rate of global warming (a view I don't share), it could still have a lot of other benefits (as I mentioned).
On another note, methane only sticks around for 100 years or so, but it then breaks down into CO2. Which then sticks around for 1000s of years.
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
|
Jan 14, 2010 - 02:33pm PT
|
August,
I think your reply is on the right track, but the implications of your analysis may lead you places you don't want to go.
First, I agree with your assertion that saying we must either do nothing or ruin the economy presents a false dichotomy. The problem comes because that's not the choice most anti-business climate change advocates give us. Their choice is we do everything imaginable to reduce carbon combustion, or we do nothing. That is just as false a dichotomy. The realistic solution is that we do the optimal amount to reduce carbon combustion.
I particularly agree with your concept of buying time, but that's the concept that could lead in several directions. Delaying the massive release of methane would certainly give us more time to figure out what to do about it (or whether and how we can prevent it). Using internal combustions engines, though, might also give us more productivity in arriving at a solution by, for example, moving vulnerable building and people faster, saving commute time to allow us to work more and better, etc.
The real rub is in determining the optimal amount of carbon combustion reduction we want. Who decides, and by what methods and crireria?
My personal problem comes with dictatorial solutions, for example California's ban on incandescent lighting. That may save energy, but it is not costless -- a combination of incandescent and flourescent lighting gives truer light. How dare the government decide for me how I spend my energy budget! I may wish to use less heating and air conditioning, so I can have a combination of lighting when I play the piano, because my eyes aren't what they used to be.
I know a lot of conservatives don't like "cap and trade" strategies, but they have a tremendous advantage over one-size-fits-all environmental dictatorship -- they let individuals decide their "carbon budget" based on their own tastes and preferences.
John
|
|
corniss chopper
Mountain climber
san jose, ca
|
|
|
Jan 14, 2010 - 08:27pm PT
|
We should carefully watch what the warmists idiots wish for. They could get some of it.
The most outrageous would be the shutting down of unnecessary CO2 sources - like, for instance, the fermentation of alcoholic beverages. Yeasts spew out a lot of CO2, they will warn in an end of the world tone.
Obvious now that religious fanatical warmists have wandered into the world of tin foil hat wearers so no goofy idea they have should surprise us
ie Cap and Trade.
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jan 15, 2010 - 10:55am PT
|
John,
Sorry, but your dig at RS was about the truthfulness of their publication, implying that Ed had facts whereas RS, well, did not. The fact is that many people, mass media, financial, yadda yadda, have put money and power behind efforts to cloud the climate change issue. Well those are facts too. Exposing their plays, it's not an ax to grind, it's called "investigative journalism."
The truth is, you trashed RS without reading the articles that you were trashing, and now you're trying to spin your way out. Sorry, but I had to call you on it.
|
|
EdBannister
Mountain climber
CA
|
|
|
Jan 15, 2010 - 11:38am PT
|
yep,
climate change skeptics, a bunch of uninformed fools....
the head of meterology at MIT.
the head of NASA
and a few thousand other incapable non scientists...
compare that with the inventor of the internet, Al Gore!
Politics and science don't have a great record when blended:
in the 70s we were all going to die of overpopulation by 2000.
in the 90's 70% of the worlds heterosexual population was going to die from aids, and we were all going to get the maiming poultry flu, for sure.
Now Bill Patzert can get research dollars for global warming, so it's the rage, create a disaster .. get funding.
or. without the research dollar as motive please consider:
Yosemite Valley was filled with ice, 4 recessional moraines witness 4 periods of stability, l o n g periods of stability, followed by long periods of warmer weather and less snow accumulation.
all long before the evil Henry Ford and Eli Whitney.
Check your church of Al Gore's data though, he measured icepack
from mid winter to not 12 or 24 months later, but 18 months later,
mid winter to mid summer the next year,
and oops!
"they" are starting to find out about all the suppressed data that did not fit the agenda!
when the politics don't fit the science, the science gets altered?
no.
we should not pollute squander or otherwise disregard the planet,
Al Gore does though, instead of public transportation, he uses a private jet.
I leave the toyota sequoia in the driveway and ride the bus to work most of the time (90%+)
The climate is getting warmer over time, but our sample is too small to hope to be able to blame it on anything, our entire output of Greenhouse gases on the planet is less than it's annual variability,
WATER VAPOR is the most significant greenhouse gas, are we to eliminate that? and one good volcano puts more greenhouse gases in the air, than man ever has, we are a pimple, and insignificant zit on the surface of the planet, and to act like a 10% reduction of individual factories, or industries will make a difference, is like saying one helium biner subbed for one 33 will get you up the Titanic at the needles.... absurd, uninformed, emotional, and least of all scientific.
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
|
Jan 15, 2010 - 12:36pm PT
|
Sorry, k-man, but I read the article. It communicates in a way different from Ed's. I agree with its basic thrust, which I understand to be that those who would profit from less or no effort to reduce carbon emissions are funding those whose research and opinions support that position.
I doubt that many would disagree about that fact.The piece, however, is one of argumentative advocacy, not objective analysis. The article has an occasional "truth-and-a-half," to use Richard Armour's term. Its tone and content uses the fact of who funded the research to discredit the research. In a way, it's the flip side of climategate, where climate change skeptics use evidence of bias and peer advocacy by some researchers to discredit all research that supports climate change.
Ed's advocacy has been for the science and scientific methods used to reach conclusions, and an attempt to strip away the numerous red herrings that have crept (or, more often, stormed) into the debate. Reading his posts works for me -- and I suspect for others -- in a different way from the way RS works.
John
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jan 15, 2010 - 12:56pm PT
|
John,
Thanks for the thoughtful reply. I agree, the tone is way different (not exactly objective, and sensationalized). Still, I think there is an important message there--Power and Money are behind much of the effort to debunk human-caused GCC.
Kelly
On another note, to those who continue to say that efforts to curb CO2 emissions would destroy our way of life and economy... I presume you think our addiction to oil (and our sending Bazillions of $$$ to OPEC nations), results in a sound US economy and better way of life. How about spending research dollars in the US to figure out clean ways to move away from our OPEC-oil addition. How about it, spend money on US goods? Good grief...
|
|
Chaz
Trad climber
greater Boss Angeles area
|
|
|
Jan 15, 2010 - 12:58pm PT
|
None of the movers are talking about "science", you can tell because facts aren't facts if they're up for a vote (concensus).
It's all about politics, which means it's all bullsh#t.
|
|
August West
Trad climber
Where the wind blows strange
|
|
|
Jan 15, 2010 - 02:57pm PT
|
I agree with the comment that we should make the changes that give us the most bang for the buck. And some suggestions are better than others.
But I guess my basic position is: we are doing almost nothing when a tremendous amount of things should be done. Pushing for very aggressive measures may (if we can stare down the fox news types) result in society taking some useful baby steps.
Most of the claims that are attributed to activists that sound really extreme are straw man arguments created by climate change deniers. Claims that huge industries are going to be shut over night or electric bills will rise by thousands of dollars are preposterous. The acvitists have no such power (it still takes 60 votes to end a fillibuster). And even if they had such power, they obviously want to do things at the miminal cost (if for no other reason than to not piss off future voters).
Like the claim that activist want to shut down fermation. Give me a break. There isn't even a useful reason to do that. At worst, would be a requirement to capture the gases (and if it is methane that could potentially be burned for power).
We have been through this before. Arguments for things like catylitic converters, protecting the ozone, air bags cause hysterics during the proposal stage and then turn out to be rather cheap to implement.
Dealing with global warming is not primarily an economic/engineering problem (although new technology could help), it is mostly a political problem.
|
|
kunlun_shan
Mountain climber
SF, CA
|
|
|
Jan 15, 2010 - 05:41pm PT
|
"So in the two hours I been gone NONE of you can come up with a SINGLE idea of a actual positive action that would help STOP global warming?"
Hey Rokjox,
Sent you a PM. don´t know if you got it?
Watch this:
Winning the Oil Endgame:
http://mitworld.mit.edu/video/346/
About the Lecture
Cars, trucks and planes lie at the heart of Amory Lovins plan for kicking the oil habit. We must make all our vehicles both lighter and stronger, using composite materials; more aerodynamic; and capable of running on biofuels, says Lovins. “We could cut oil use in half by 2025, and by 2040, oil use could be zero,” he states. It’s a $180-billion-dollar investment “with handsome returns.” Lovins marshals many arguments against the skeptics. First, much of the technological know-how already exists to “bring affordable, ultralight advanced composite vehicles to market.” And Lovins believes government incentives will stimulate demand among manufacturers and consumers for this revolution. The government could provide leases for energy efficient cars to low-income customers, provided they scrap their “dirty” vehicles; establish green transport for the entire government fleet; and lend the airlines money for efficient new planes. Lovins sees a big inducement for the military, which spends 1/3rd of its budget moving people and machines around. What if Defense invested in energy efficient goals “as DARPA did earlier with the Internet, GPS and chips,” ponders Lovins. “It would transform the civilian car, truck and plane industries.” In the private sphere, Walmart and other retail giants looking to save on fuel dollars would readily switch to a new line of efficient big trucks; and farmers would likely embrace a gigantic new market for biofuels.
“Big fast changes have happened before,” Lovins reassures us—just look at the transition from whale oil to coal and gas. These days, it costs less not to buy oil than to buy it. The ultimate prize if we phase out oil? Geopolitical and climate stability, stronger economies – in short, says Lovins, “a much safer world.”
|
|
Chaz
Trad climber
greater Boss Angeles area
|
|
|
Jan 15, 2010 - 06:30pm PT
|
You'll never get a majority of Americans to go along with that, let alone the rest of the world.
Unless you want a totalitarian government based on whatever sounds green.
|
|
jogill
climber
Colorado
|
|
|
Jan 15, 2010 - 06:51pm PT
|
Wouldn't it be FAR better to spend a quarter as much on figuring out what we are going to do when the time comes than wasting a lot of that money trying hopelessly fend off the inevitable?
Amen. I was once a meteorologist for the USAF, and I can't say I'm convinced of anything at this point - especially the contention that humanity is to blame. The earth wobbles a tiny bit and the repercussions are enormous. If there's a consensus the oceans are going to rise, let's expend our energies thinking of ways to protect coastal population centers or have a plan to move affected residents out.
|
|
August West
Trad climber
Where the wind blows strange
|
|
|
Jan 15, 2010 - 06:53pm PT
|
Sure you could pump sulphites into the atmosphere which would reduce the amount of heat the planet receives. But that actually wouldn't stop climate change.
Having a world that has much more greenhouse gases and sulphates could (if the quantities correlate) result in a planet with the same overall average temperature as in the recent, pre-industrial, past.
But the planet would have a more homogenous temperature. The artic would be warmer (and other parts, would be cooler). This would dramatically change rainfall patterns. As an example, the southeast asian moonsoons would probably be greatly reduced.
So the local temperatures would still change in most places (even if they averaged out on a global scale) and even where they didn't change, rainfall likely would. And a huge change in rainfall pattern is climate change, whether the average temperature changes or not.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!