Global Warming

[pbleighton]

"And maybe I would find that it's true, that there is a genuine consensus,"

 

A couple of years back I read an account of a climatology conference where the participants were polled on the issue. My (somewhat fuzzy) recollection is that in excess of 80% believed that global warming exists, and that human behavior is a significant contributor to it. Have you read of polls among climatologists with substantially different results?

 

" in which case I would go along with it."

 

If you were a legislator, and had to vote on a clump of bills regarding global warming, which meant that you would essentially have to say yes or no to laws which would combat global warming by changing human behavior, what probability that human behavior is a significant contributor to it would convince you to vote for these bills?

 

Assume that the bills were reasonable, given the assumption.

 

BTW, I have absolutely no quarrel with any investigation that you would like to make. But how do you propose that our politicians, who typically have little scientific training, decide what to do? This is really the main issue.

 

Peter

[DrTodd13]

David_c was eloquent in his posts here. Certainly, all this information is greatly filtered by the time it gets to us. The worst filter is the media who have an agenda that they want to push. They could have entitled the article "scientists debate the cause and degree of global warming" but instead they chose to say "the sky is falling." This is the level at which most people stop getting their news. They've heard news story after news story saying it is true so they believe it. They are told of this so-called consensus and so don't investigate it. Really, the masses are the people driving the political process and they have no right to be doing say because they are essentially ignorant. A few of us here may take the time to skim the literature to get a better informed opinion. Those of us with scientific training may spot methodologies and interpretations of statistics that are invalid. There may be things for which a mathematician isn't qualified to speak about in climatology. So, really, you'd need years and years of training in climatology to have a really informed opinion. Personally, I really hate democracy so the idea that we define truth by taking a vote amongst experts is abhorent. Whatever the truth may be, there are a whole range of valid questions that either no one is asking or are asking but aren't getting any press. Most people have their heads in the sand about the issue of running out of oil. Will new fuel technologies be available in time? Given that oil will run out probably by 2050, will we do irreperable harm to the earth during that time period if you believe CO2 is the main problem?

[pbleighton]

"So, really, you'd need years and years of training in climatology to have a really informed opinion."

 

Agree.

 

What do you think we should do, if anything, about energy, CO2, etc.?

 

Peter

[cherdano]

I strongly disagree with the notion that you can't find out yourself about the scientific consensus:

1. Go read the IPCC reports (www.ipcc.ch).

2. Read/watch media you can trust. (Yes I do think that exists.)

 

Arend

[bid_em_up]

Who would've beleived that the BBO Water Cooler could have this effect:

 

Today on, http://www.yahoo.com/

 

 

Buzz Log - What the world is searching for » More Buzz

 

Holloway mysteryWith all the twists and turns in the Natalee Holloway case, searchers seek out the truth. More...

Popular News Searches

1. Natalee Holloway

2. Hybrid Vehicles 3. Real Estate Bubble

4. Global Warming

 

 

:lol:

[pbleighton]

"Holloway mysteryWith all the twists and turns in the Natalee Holloway case, searchers seek out the truth. More...

Popular News Searches

1. Natalee Holloway

2. Hybrid Vehicles 3. Real Estate Bubble

4. Global Warming "

 

You forgot:

5. Flannery declared a threat to national security.

 

Peter

[joshs]

"Holloway mysteryWith all the twists and turns in the Natalee Holloway case, searchers seek out the truth. More...

Popular News Searches

1. Natalee Holloway

2. Hybrid Vehicles 3. Real Estate Bubble

4. Global Warming "

 

You forgot:

5. Flannery declared a threat to national security.

 

Peter

Hey Bill Flannary isn't that bad a guy, but didn't one of the hyjacked planes start in Pitssburgh?

[DrTodd13]

"So, really, you'd need years and years of training in climatology to have a really informed opinion."

 

Agree.

 

What do you think we should do, if anything, about energy, CO2, etc.?

 

Peter

What is our goal in this discussion? Perhaps a reasonable goal is to minimize human suffering. If we are causing GW and do nothing and the worst projections happen then sea levels rise, people's houses are flooded, arrable zones shift perhaps decreasing world food production, deserts expand, etc. However, if you cut CO2 emissions by enough to make a difference then you would do serious damage to the world economy and a worldwide depression is not very good for human suffering either. To me, the latter is more of a given than the former. Before I do something that I know is going to result in suffering, I want to be damned sure that the suffering I know will happen will be less than the suffering that would happen if we do nothing. To me, I would require "beyond a reasonable doubt" sort of proof before I would accept restrictions. I don't believe that level of proof is out there when the issue still being debated by climatologists.

 

Personally, I'd try to put fusion power on the fast-path and make sure we can switch to a fusion and fuel-cell economy before we run out of oil. This kind of economy is basically a zero-emission economy. If we know we are going to transfer to this kind of economy in 50 years then we need to ask how much damage would we do to the climate in the meantime if GW were real. The projections I keep seeing are "over the next century temperatures will increase..." All these projections assume we'll keep belching the same emissions that we are now and to an even greater degree.

[pbleighton]

"However, if you cut CO2 emissions by enough to make a difference then you would do serious damage to the world economy and a worldwide depression is not very good for human suffering either."

 

You have a lot of assumptions buried in this statement. A carbon-based tax can be implemented over 15-20 years which would provide huge incentives for conservation and alternative energy sources. Explicit goverment subsidies for these alternative sources should be made available, as well.

 

I agree with you on fusion, though the political obstacles are huge. You left out solar power, which is getting cheaper and cheaper. Eventually, there should be solar cells on every roof.

 

Peter

[mike777]

David_c was eloquent in his posts here.  Certainly, all this information is greatly filtered by the time it gets to us.  The worst filter is the media who have an agenda that they want to push.  They could have entitled the article "scientists debate the cause and degree of global warming" but instead they chose to say "the sky is falling."  This is the level at which most people stop getting their news.  They've heard news story after news story saying it is true so they believe it.  They are told of this so-called consensus and so don't investigate it.  Really, the masses are the people driving the political process and they have no right to be doing say because they are essentially ignorant.  A few of us here may take the time to skim the literature to get a better informed opinion.  Those of us with scientific training may spot methodologies and interpretations of statistics that are invalid.  There may be things for which a mathematician isn't qualified to speak about in climatology.  So, really, you'd need years and years of training in climatology to have a really informed opinion.  Personally, I really hate democracy so the idea that we define truth by taking a vote amongst experts is abhorent.  Whatever the truth may be, there are a whole range of valid questions that either no one is asking or are asking but aren't getting any press.  Most people have their heads in the sand about the issue of running out of oil.  Will new fuel technologies be available in time?  Given that oil will run out probably by 2050, will we do irreperable harm to the earth during that time period if you believe CO2 is the main problem?

I really agreed with Dr. Todd's posts until this one but diversity can be good. :lol:

 

We will not run out of oil in 2050, in fact I would bet my house we will never run out of oil. Give me enough billions and my lab will always come up with one more gallon of oil. :o

 

I hope we never replace politicians/messy democracy with scientists making these decisions.

 

The major argument against all these one world, climate change laws is they will cause much greater pain than just letting the markets run wild.

 

With that said I do think fuel cells or some technology will come along before 2050 and widely replace many uses of Oil.

 

Price and a free market can accomplish alot. In the USA we will grumble at 3 bucks a gallon, whine at 4$ but gives us 5$ for 12 months or more and I bet we will change our oil patterns in a major way. Until then let the silly games begin with Oil under 5$ bucks in the USA.

 

BTW has anyone noticed that printer ink costs more than 5$ a gallon, talk about needing to MAKE A LAW!!!!!!!!!!!!

[joshs]

"So, really, you'd need years and years of training in climatology to have a really informed opinion."

 

Agree.

 

What do you think we should do, if anything, about energy, CO2, etc.?

 

Peter

What is our goal in this discussion? Perhaps a reasonable goal is to minimize human suffering. If we are causing GW and do nothing and the worst projections happen then sea levels rise, people's houses are flooded, arrable zones shift perhaps decreasing world food production, deserts expand, etc. However, if you cut CO2 emissions by enough to make a difference then you would do serious damage to the world economy and a worldwide depression is not very good for human suffering either. To me, the latter is more of a given than the former. Before I do something that I know is going to result in suffering, I want to be damned sure that the suffering I know will happen will be less than the suffering that would happen if we do nothing. To me, I would require "beyond a reasonable doubt" sort of proof before I would accept restrictions. I don't believe that level of proof is out there when the issue still being debated by climatologists.

 

Personally, I'd try to put fusion power on the fast-path and make sure we can switch to a fusion and fuel-cell economy before we run out of oil. This kind of economy is basically a zero-emission economy. If we know we are going to transfer to this kind of economy in 50 years then we need to ask how much damage would we do to the climate in the meantime if GW were real. The projections I keep seeing are "over the next century temperatures will increase..." All these projections assume we'll keep belching the same emissions that we are now and to an even greater degree.

Thats intresting that you understate the potential negative impacts of global warming, and overstate the potential negative impacts of envoronmental regulation. Personally I think exactly the opposite:

a. Environmental regulation can't have a significant long term negative impact on the world economy (rather it forces innovation) as long as its not done disruptively (starting next wednesday no one is allowed to consume oil) since the control feedback system is purely human behavior (e.g. we certainly can adapt)

b. Climate change can have a significant long term effect on humans/the world economy, since the control system may well be out of our control (e.g. if the polar icecaps melt so much that most of the major cities are underwater, and so that our food supply is deicimated, we may or may not be able to compensate for this.

 

Anyway, this is all a classic risk assessment problem. We need to assess:

a. what is the likelihood of each of a number of bad things happening

b. what are the consequences

c. what can we do to prevent this from happening or from mitigating the consequences, and what would that cost (or alternatively what is the probability distribution of consequences associated with the mitigations)

 

Since there are great uncertainities here, the usually strategy is to consider a distribution of liklihoods, and of consequences, and be somewhat conservative in assessing the odds of really bad consequences occuring.

 

E.G.

 

If your table was:

50% of the time nothing much happens

29% of the time a few cities are lost over a period of 20 years, and the standard of living in the world goes down by 5%

20% of the time our food supply is cut, and many cities are lost so 20% of the human population is lost, and the standard of living goes down by 25%

1% of the time there is mass extinction

 

And you have uncertainties so that that last consequence might be as much as 5% (say thats your 95% confidence bound) you might do your analysis assuming slightly conservative %'s since the conseqeunces are so severe...

[pbleighton]

"Price and a free market can accomplish alot. In the USA we will grumble at 3 bucks a gallon, whine at 4$ but gives us 5$ for 12 months or more and I bet we will change our oil patterns in a major way. Until then let the silly games begin with Oil under 5$ bucks in the USA."

 

Why wait until market prices keep oil at $5 - have a tax that increases every year, so that the free market is incentivized sooner rather than later.

 

Peter

[mike777]

"Environmental regulation can't have a significant long term negative impact on the world economy (rather it forces innovation) as long as its not done disruptively (starting next wednesday no one is "

 

 

I see this argument often, "If the stupid government just comes up with the right carrot and stick approach we can FORCE wonderful innovation with little pain" Hogwash. Key Hogwash words are Force and little pain.

 

Here is my alternative solution "allowing market forces to operate with some minimum/very limited but reasonable government restraints and some limited basic scientific research funded by the government, humans can innovate and change the world in wonderous ways."

 

An open political discussion can best resolve what the words "very limited" mean.

[Al_U_Card]

Aside from the technical problems, which have way-laid research and development for the last 40 years, one big problem with fusion reactors is the radioactive contamination by tritium......

[pbleighton]

"Aside from the technical problems, which have way-laid research and development for the last 40 years, one big problem with fusion reactors is the radioactive contamination by tritium...... "

 

It won't be easy, or happen soon, or happen in the private sector (sorry Mike, way too many dollars and a VERY long and somewhat iffy payoff), but I think we need a united world effort on fusion. I would like to be totally green, and think that eventually we can meet all of our energy needs from renewable sources, but I have to acknowledge that it may not be the case. Fossil fuels are not the long term answer, and fission is a known environmental disaster. There's a good chance fusion is a lot cleaner, and it certainly has more and cheaper fuel in the long run.

 

Peter

[1eyedjack]

Price and a free market can accomplish alot. In the USA we will grumble at 3 bucks a gallon, whine at 4$ but gives us 5$ for 12 months or more and I bet we will change our oil patterns in a major way

Hmm, that works out at GB£0.74 per litre or thereabouts. We are pushing GB£1 per litre now (mostly in taxes). We grumble, but we pay. If it is gradual enough, you learn to get used to it.

[luke warm]

i read david_c's posts several times and i agree with him that it's probably better to read the facts upon which the differing opinions are based rather than accept as truth an opinion written by an authority with whom we might be philosophically aligned

 

however, for most of us (at least this is true for me) i could read all the facts from all the sources and still have no idea... i simply don't have the education to evaluate the truthfulness of either proposition... that's why so many of us accept arguments "on authority"

[Codo]

you simply cannot "read all the facts". There are just too many facts to know, so you must believe. You just can hope, that your source is well informed and trustworthy.

[helene_t]

There is a third option: accepting one's ignorance.

[Al_U_Card]

There is a third option: accepting one's ignorance.

Which perhaps explains the use of only 10% of the human brain......We were blessed with the ability to conceive of abstract concepts based only on our perceptions. We are the ultimate problem solving machine (and Lord knows we create more than enough problems to solve!) so the sand is getting hotter dear ostriches so get your heads out and start seeing and thinking!

[helene_t]

There is a third option: accepting one's ignorance.

Which perhaps explains the use of only 10% of the human brain......We were blessed with the ability to conceive of abstract concepts based only on our perceptions. We are the ultimate problem solving machine (and Lord knows we create more than enough problems to solve!) so the sand is getting hotter dear ostriches so get your heads out and start seeing and thinking!

Actually, we do use 100% of our brain (as explained by Danny Kleinman in The Bridge World) and I agree that it's a good idea to keep it that way. Probably ostriches do as well, they just have smaller brains.

 

My point was that it does not necesarily show superior brain-usage skills to pick some (arbitrary?) belief whenever one encounters a challenge, the solution to which is not obvious.

[cherdano]

There is a third option: accepting one's ignorance.

Well, but when someone chooses that option, he(*) should rather refrain from political comments about whether we should do something to reduce the human contribution to global warming. (And not tell anyone else that it is impossible to have an informed opinion.)

 

Arend

 

(*) I was going to edit to use a gender-neutral formulation here, but on second thoughts, this seems to be a male problem usually.

[Al_U_Card]

Before horsepower was used to refer to car engine output, it referred to ....horses. Why go from horses to oil based power? Cheaper and more convenient and more powerful. (these qualifiers are generally associated with "better" but we can see that full appreciation can dispute that designation)

 

But when there was no petroleum readily available, only profit motives drove the exploration, research, production and distribution of these products as well as their designated recipient devices.

 

How can we make the same paradigm shift to solar/fuel cell/whatever (Doc. Brown) and help clean up the earth? Did someone mention profit? Ah yes. make it profitable and they will find a way.

[pbleighton]

"Ah yes. make it profitable and they will find a way."

 

A huge carbon tax (phased in gradually) would make it profitable.

 

Peter

[luke warm]

different philosophies at work... instead of a huge tax, regardless of how gradually it's phased in, why not give tax breaks to companies who create cheaper, safer, *workable* alternative fuels (for example, a car company that produces cars with hydrogen engines that the average person can afford)?

 

as a general rule i'm against taxation when the market is capable of handling a problem, but for that to work there must be choice... presently the choices available are either non-existent else not very cost effective