A real-world example of the cost of climate change

[glenn1]

There are many who don't want to believe in man made climate change and what it will do. While in a discussion about it's existence and the evidence, they will bring up the question "well what are you going to do about it?" It is not possible to have a reasonable discussion about this without agreeing on the former discussion.

Now you're just being obtuse. I don't have to have scientific agreement with someone to discuss policy issues where that science comes into play. Someone could disagree with the Theory of Evolution and it wouldn't make one whit of difference to whether we should teach creationism in schools or the Endangered Species Act is cost justified. The only reason you think it's not possible to have the conversation when it comes to climate change is because you think agreeing to science about manmade global warming somehow obligates us to take certain policy steps. You completely dismiss mitigation, adaptation, or any other potential reactions to the problem and are willfully ignoring those who argue that the supposed cure is worse than the disease.

 

[crashtech]

Why can't you accept that it's man made? The effects of CO2 on the environment have been proven. We generate a metric shit-load of CO2 every year. Where's the disconnect?

If we were to stipulate that for the purposes of discussion, there is still the matter of being able to foretell the future. So far, little to none of the dramatic predictions made by the most zealous mmgw theorists have come true.

It is rather discouraging to me that when it comes to this issue, you're labelled either a denier or a climate change fanatic. I get flak from both sides on this subject. I have neither patience for those who ignore good science, nor those who believe that said science somehow gives them an infallible crystal ball.

 

[glenn1]

Why can't you accept that it's man made? The effects of CO2 on the environment have been proven. We generate a metric shit-load of CO2 every year. Where's the disconnect?

Okay, for sake of argument I'll accept the idea that it's manmade. I still completely oppose a carbon tax. I will fight any attempts to ban or create punative taxes on any type of vehicles or products. I think tax subsidies to renewable production and most research are completely wasteful. And finally I believe that economic growth is a far better solution for addressing the climate change problem than any CO2 reduction idea proposed by the left.

So now what? See why I said that focusing on the first part of the discussion is pointless?

 

[Paul98]

Now you're just being obtuse. I don't have to have scientific agreement with someone to discuss policy issues where that science comes into play. Someone could disagree with the Theory of Evolution and it wouldn't make one whit of difference to whether we should teach creationism in schools or the Endangered Species Act is cost justified. The only reason you think it's not possible to have the conversation when it comes to climate change is because you think agreeing to science about manmade global warming somehow obligates us to take certain policy steps. You completely dismiss mitigation, adaptation, or any other potential reactions to the problem and are willfully ignoring those who argue that the supposed cure is worse than the disease.

Nether the Endangered species act or teaching creationism have anything to with the theory of evolution.

You have no clue what I think we should do about climate change. I am talking about about agreement of the cause and effects, it doesn't matter if it's man made or not. But if you can't agree on what is causing it and what the effects will be how are you going to be able to prepare. You then aren't doing anything to deal with the problem you are simply reacting to what happens.

 

[Paul98]

Why can't you accept that it's man made? The effects of CO2 on the environment have been proven. We generate a metric shit-load of CO2 every year. Where's the disconnect?

This is only one of the contributions to man made climate change, although a large one.

 

[dphantom]

Why can't you accept that it's man made? The effects of CO2 on the environment have been proven. We generate a metric shit-load of CO2 every year. Where's the disconnect?

No it has not at all been proven. We do know (we think) increased CO2 will lead to a rise in temperatures. We do not "know" what that might be. We do not "know" what the effect other inputs to climate are or may be. We have some ideas, we have some models that have yet to be shown accurate. Proven, no.

But as glenn1 said, lets take your point. It is all man made. What then? If we want that discussion, then the best way to reduce CO2 emissions and other GHG's is to do what we in the US have done over the last 30 years - become more efficient. How do we become more efficient? we create wealth and it takes energy to create wealth. A wealthy society has the capital to expend on things like environmental cleanup/protection.

You won't find that in most of Asia or Africa today. They are energy poor and we need to help them become wealthier by generating more power or helping them generate more power. And as they become wealthier, their CO2 and GHG emissions will decline just like ours has and are continuing to decline even as our energy use continues to rise.

 

[dphantom]

Nether the Endangered species act or teaching creationism have anything to with the theory of evolution.

You have no clue what I think we should do about climate change. I am talking about about agreement of the cause and effects, it doesn't matter if it's man made or not. But if you can't agree on what is causing it and what the effects will be how are you going to be able to prepare. You then aren't doing anything to deal with the problem you are simply reacting to what happens.

Of course we know what you think. You think climate change is man made global warming. And to you it does matter that it is man made. That is your viewpoint.

I can accept climate is changing. I can accept man has some as yet to be determined part in global warming. So what now?

 

[Paul98]

We can discuss at length climate change. For me, I cannot accept though as a prerequisite to such discussion that climate change is primarily man made. If you require that as your starting point, then we will never get anywhere. I can accept man has some as yet to be determined effect on environment. I nor anyone else definitively knows what that is. many may believe they know, but there is no replicatable proof of that. The models are not good enough yet.

However, if you take as your premise that climate is changing, what if anything should we do about it, then you open up all possibilities of discussion. That could include topics such as energy production, infrastructure changes to cope with warming (or cooling) and so forth.

But if you are going to limit the discussion only to man and his effect on the environment and a means to mitigate that, then you are closing a door on a much larger topic and really shows this is more politically motivated than truly science oriented.

No you never only limit it to man and his effect, the point that man is having an effect doesn't even matter. It's not about that, it's about what are the cause and effects of climate change. You need an understanding of this to predict what will happen so you will then be able to make changes and prepare for what will come. If we can't agree on the cause and effects how are we going to have a reasonable discussion on what needs to be done?

 

[crashtech]

Part of the problem is the risk/benefit calculation. In developing countries, the calculation is heavily skewed towards making progress for their people now, even given the chance that there may be global consequences of unknown severity. In Western nations, the overall high standard of living means the calculation has favored some modest steps toward CO2 mitigation, but in the absence of a known accurate prediction of the consequences, it's unlikely this math is going to change, given the drastic economic effects some of the proposed solutions involve.

 

[Paul98]

Of course we know what you think. You think climate change is man made global warming. And to you it does matter that it is man made. That is your viewpoint.

I can accept climate is changing. I can accept man has some as yet to be determined part in global warming. So what now?

You have a major problem there. Right from the start you think you already know what I think. Thus any discussion that we might have is with what you think I think rather than what I write.

 

[dphantom]

You have a major problem there. Right from the start you think you already know what I think. Thus any discussion that we might have is with what you think I think rather than what I write.

So let's start over. What do you think is the cause of global warming?

 

[Paul98]

So let's start over. What do you think is the cause of global warming?

There are lots of causes, major one being expansion of greenhouse effect. But there is also a lot do with ocean cycles it's not a simple question

 

[dphantom]

There are lots of causes, major one being expansion of greenhouse effect. But there is also a lot do with ocean cycles it's not a simple question

Ok good. And what is the cause of the expansion of the greenhouse effect?

I recognize it is not an easy question. What I am looking for is what your viewpoint is on the primary cause of global warming.

I will share mine. I do not think it is man. I do think the Sun influence plays the largest role in changes in climate including today. That includes our orbit, inclination to the Sun as well as the Sun's effects on things like ocean currents. There are other lesser factors as well and minor ones such as man's release of CO2 and other GHG's into the atmosphere.

 

[Spungo]

Okay, for sake of argument I'll accept the idea that it's manmade. I still completely oppose a carbon tax. I will fight any attempts to ban or create punative taxes on any type of vehicles or products. I think tax subsidies to renewable production and most research are completely wasteful. And finally I believe that economic growth is a far better solution for addressing the climate change problem than any CO2 reduction idea proposed by the left.

So you're saying you don't support a 200% reduction in CO2 emissions? (100% to get to 0 then another 100% to capture the stuff we've already released, which is a lot)

Someone on a previous page said we would just need to stop CO2 emissions and the ocean would soak up the extra CO2. This is wrong. The amount of gas held by a body of water strongly depends on temperature. Since we've already started the warming process, and the warmer ocean is now releasing CO2. This makes the warming happen even faster, releasing even more CO2. It gets worse when we factor in all of the CO2 and methane gas that were trapped in or under the ice covering the poles. Siberia is releasing huge amounts of methane into the atmosphere as the permafrost melts. This speeds up the heating process, melting even more ice, releasing even more methane and CO2. There are a lot of positive feedback loops in effect. This is why our climate records often show sudden exponential changes in temperature or atmospheric composition. Once the ball gets rolling, it goes faster and faster.

We're pretty much past the point of no return. You can ask any scientist about Greenland, and they'll tell you Greenland will melt regardless of what we do. The only thing we control right now is how fast it melts. Instead of trying to stop this avalanche of positive feedback loops, our resources would be better spent preparing for what happens next. Some areas will get dry. We should improve our irrigation systems; I'm thinking of Texas in particular right now. Some areas will see increased rain and snowfall, so we should keep that in mind when building new infrastructure.

If we really want to help people in poor countries, we should try giving them jobs. If shitty African countries had developed economies, they could afford to do things like irrigation and water treatment. It would also reduce the reliance on regional food production. If you are trading with the entire world, it doesn't really matter if your particular area has a bad grow season.

 

[crashtech]

In the big scheme of things, an extinction-level event might give rise to a better form of intelligent life in a few million years. It could be that our propensity to eliminate ourselves might end up doing the galaxy a favor.

It's not the end of the world, it's just the end of you.

 

[Spungo]

I will share mine. I do not think it is man. I do think the Sun influence plays the largest role in changes in climate including today.

According to NASA, the sun has been dropping in activity for several decades while global temperatures consistently rise. Scientists are absolutely certain climate change is not being driven by changes in sun activity.

Scientists are also certain that it's caused by CO2 because the location of this heating is exactly where one would expect it to be if the heating were caused by CO2. The main greenhouse gas on this planet is water, so one would expect CO2 to have the largest effects in areas that have little or no water. That's exactly what they find. You might not feel global warming in your city, but the effects at the poles, which are dry due to the cold air, are very extreme. Global warming is maybe 1 degree celcius, but areas in the far north are often seeing temperatures that are 5-10 celcius higher than normal. This is why Greenland, Siberia, Canada, and west Antarctica are melting extremely fast.

It gets even more interesting when you start thinking about how ice caps control global climate. The north and south poles are literally mountains of ice. The ice in some places is greater than 1 mile thick. Mountains are a very important part of climate. For example, British Columbia in Canada is surprisingly warm in winter, but the other side of the mountain, Alberta, is incredibly cold in winter. What's going on? Warm air from the ocean keeps the west side of the mountain warm. The warm air doesn't make it to the other side of the mountain, so the east side of the mountain is bitterly cold. What would you expect to happen in the rocky mountains suddenly disappeared? The climate would change dramatically even though energy has not been added or subtracted from the system as a whole. That same logic applies to the north and south pole. Redirecting air flow as certain glaciers melt can cause one area to become unusually warm while another area becomes unusually cold.

 

[GaiaHunter]

The Sun is just exiting a maximum period.
The temperatures have been increasing for some 200 years now and the last few where man made CO2 could have made a difference haven't increasing at a faster speed. In fact for some 17 years or so, satellite data sets show no temperature increase.

CO2 is a well mixed gas in the atmosphere but for some reason while the Northern hemisphere temperature has been increasing, the Southern hemisphere hasn't.

West Antarctica has been losing ice but the East Antarctica has been gaining ice. The loss and gain of ice have big error bars so it is possible it has been a small net loss or a net gain.

For Greenland to melt it will take hundreds of years due to the topographic shape of Greenland.

West Antarctica is losing some of its ice also due to its topography.

There has been no increase of water vapor in the atmosphere which the models predicted in a warming world.

 

[manimal]

Of course we know what you think. You think climate change is man made global warming. And to you it does matter that it is man made. That is your viewpoint.

I can accept climate is changing. I can accept man has some as yet to be determined part in global warming. So what now?

Do you know how to read? Man has ALREADY determined their part across multiple disciplines. If you choose to ignore science you either dont like to read or you choose to remain ignorant. Its pretty simple. Simple people stay simple because they choose to be ignorant and hold their breath in the face of reality.

I really dont blame you though. Many of you were brought here by the gateway drug known as creationism.

 

[Jaskalas]

According to NASA, the sun has been dropping in activity for several decades while...

According to Scientists, the changes we have measured from the sun's total output are quite minimal and the expected effects are also minimal. Skeptics are waiting to see if weaker sun spot counts continue to dwindle and if that future event will have a significant impact.

Projections for Solar Cycle 25 are quite interesting.

Scientists are also certain that it's caused by CO2 because the location of this heating is exactly where one would expect it to be if the heating were caused by CO2.

1: CO2 GHG theory

EPA’s Greenhouse Gas ‘Hot Spot’ theory is that in the tropics, the mid-troposphere must warm faster than the lower troposphere, and the lower troposphere must warm faster than the surface, all due to rising CO2 concentrations. However, this is totally at odds with multiple robust, consistent, independently-derived empirical datasets...

 

[Paul98]

According to Scientists, the changes we have measured from the sun's total output are quite minimal and the expected effects are also minimal. Skeptics are waiting to see if weaker sun spot counts continue to dwindle and if that future event will have a significant impact.

Projections for Solar Cycle 25 are quite interesting.



1: CO2 GHG theory

You really should try to avoid that blog if you are looking for good information.

 

[schmuckley]

Zomygoodness..must be global warming!
http://www.businessinsider.com/giant-sinkhole-photos-2013-3?op=1

The land is sinking.

Owait..maybe they're just pumping too much water out of the ground.