Which part of AGW theory do you not accept?

[Deuce]

The majority of this board's members are conservative, and conservatives are more likely to disagree with AGW theory. (how this became a right/left issue is beyond me)

So, I'm wondering what the general distribution of the skepticism is. I'm sure some of you would like to say "everything, the scientists are lying about everything!" but that's not really an answer. Being skeptical of CO2's warming influence doesn't make sense if you don't believe the world is getting warmer. The main categories of contention I've come across:

1) The existence of the greenhouse effect
2) That the world is getting warmer
3) That CO2 is a greenhouse gas and is affecting the current warming trend
4) Mankind as contributing to increases in CO2 levels
5) The calculations of how much influence CO2 has, relative to other influences
6) The impact of AGW/a warming climate
7) I accept AGW theory
8) Other


Also, please expand on your view.

 

[cpwill]

The majority of this board's members are conservative, and conservatives are more likely to disagree with AGW theory. (how this became a right/left issue is beyond me)

So, I'm wondering what the general distribution of the skepticism is. I'm sure some of you would like to say "everything, the scientists are lying about everything!" but that's not really an answer. Being skeptical of CO2's warming influence doesn't make sense if you don't believe the world is getting warmer. The main categories of contention I've come across:

1) The existence of the greenhouse effect
2) That the world is getting warmer
3) That CO2 is a greenhouse gas and is affecting the current warming trend
4) Mankind as contributing to increases in CO2 levels
5) The calculations of how much influence CO2 has, relative to other influences
6) The impact of AGW/a warming climate
7) I accept AGW theory
8) Other


Also, please expand on your view.

#5: Only about 5 percent of hundreds of runs of these simulations predict the lack of a significant warming trend that has been observed in the last 14 years — even in the Climategated University of East Anglia temperature history. In other words, the earth’s climate is behaving in a way that would normally compel scientists to reject, on statistical grounds, the hypothesis that these models are predictive.

 

[jamesrage]

I voted other. I do not believe in the man made global warming theory. I actually believe that climate change is naturally occurring regardless of how minute or severe those changes are.

 

[FederalRepublic]

I'm skeptical of #'s 2, 3 (partially), 4, 5, and 6. Why am I skeptical?

2- I'm not confident that we can possibly take enough data points to have a meaningful statistical sample of global surface temperature, much less a 3-D picture of it.

3- I believe that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, but I don't believe it is causing a warming trend. CO2 is measured in parts per million, which basically means it's a trace element in the makeup of the atmosphere. I find it extremely difficult to believe that the measured change in the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere can possibly correlate to a measurable change in the temperature of the globe.

4- This one is much easier to believe, but there are many factors in CO2 generation around the globe and I believe that human activity is probably a minor one. My suspicion is that temperature drives CO2 generation, not the other way around. I haven't done any research, but that's what I got from Al Gore's graph in his presentation. I know it's the opposite of what he said, but Al Gore is an idiot and doesn't know how to read a graph.

5- Like I said before, doubling the amount of a trace element, still a trace element.

6- This has been probably the greatest source of demagoguery in my lifetime. Every hurricane, hail storm, drought, heat wave and cold spell has been attributed to AGW by some politician or another. Is it really any wonder this has become a left/right issue?

 

[spud_meister]

That somehow extra taxation will fix it.

 

[Deuce]

#5: Only about 5 percent of hundreds of runs of these simulations predict the lack of a significant warming trend that has been observed in the last 14 years — even in the Climategated University of East Anglia temperature history. In other words, the earth’s climate is behaving in a way that would normally compel scientists to reject, on statistical grounds, the hypothesis that these models are predictive.

An unsourced news article from a decidedly right-wing online source. Is there something more authoritative to back up that 5% number? It's a pretty vague statistic. Less than 5% "predicted" the lack of warming? To what degree of accuracy? Maybe they all predicted a slowing period but only 5% nailed it dead on. When a journalist gives you a number, always check his source to see what that number actually represents.

I voted other. I do not believe in the man made global warming theory. I actually believe that climate change is naturally occurring regardless of how minute or severe those changes are.

Clarify. So, we're not impacting temperature trends. Is it because our addition of CO2 to the atmosphere isn't having an effect? That would fit in #5.

I'm skeptical of #'s 2, 3 (partially), 4, 5, and 6. Why am I skeptical?

2- I'm not confident that we can possibly take enough data points to have a meaningful statistical sample of global surface temperature, much less a 3-D picture of it.

You should take a statistics class . Also, satellite temperature trends can be used for wide-area measurements.

3- I believe that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, but I don't believe it is causing a warming trend. CO2 is measured in parts per million, which basically means it's a trace element in the makeup of the atmosphere. I find it extremely difficult to believe that the measured change in the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere can possibly correlate to a measurable change in the temperature of the globe.

It's a small part of the atmosphere, but you have to remember that nitrogen and oxygen, the vast majority of the atmosphere, are transparent to infrared radiation. CO2 is only ~.04% of the atmosphere, but it's a much higher percentage of greenhouse gases. Water vapor is at most 4% in tropical regions, a trace gas in dry regions. Also, CO2 distributes itself evenly throughout the atmosphere, including the upper atmosphere, while water vapor is almost entirely in the very lower levels. Finally, with AGW we're really more concerned about the change in greenhouse gases. Mankind emits gigatons of CO2 every year that stays in the atmosphere for a long period of time. However, we can dump gigatons of water vapor into the atmosphere and nothing will really happen: the air almost immediately dumps the water back out in the form of rain. CO2 levels have increased about 40% since the start of the industrial revolution. Water vapor has not.

To reiterate one point: these "small amounts" of CO2 we're adding are measured in gigatons.

4- This one is much easier to believe, but there are many factors in CO2 generation around the globe and I believe that human activity is probably a minor one. My suspicion is that temperature drives CO2 generation, not the other way around. I haven't done any research, but that's what I got from Al Gore's graph in his presentation. I know it's the opposite of what he said, but Al Gore is an idiot and doesn't know how to read a graph.

This is slightly contradictory. You just said CO2 is a greenhouse gas, but now you say that CO2 doesn't drive temperature. I'll assume you meant CO2 doesn't drive temperature noticeably/very much/etc.

In reality, you're both right. CO2 is described as both a feedback and a forcing. CO2 is a greenhouse gas, it absorbs the outgoing longwave infrared radiation, warming the planet. (climate forcing) However, there's an enormous amount of CO2 trapped in the ocean and in ice caps. When the world warms, the ocean releases CO2 (think like a soda bottle) and ice caps melt, releasing stored CO2. This addition of CO2 to the atmosphere amplifies the existing warming. (climate feedback) That's one of the concerns of climatologists: that the relatively small addition of CO2 from our influence gets magnified by nature.

You might think that the small atmospheric % of CO2 wouldn't affect much, but how did you arrive at this conclusion? "It doesn't seem like" is not a very good basis for scientific discussion. Me, I'll let some smart people crunch the numbers on that one. Helicopters don't seem like they should be able to fly, but they do! (because they're so ugly the earth repels them.)

5- Like I said before, doubling the amount of a trace element, still a trace element.

As above, trace element, but a more significant % when you're only looking at greenhouse gases.

6- This has been probably the greatest source of demagoguery in my lifetime. Every hurricane, hail storm, drought, heat wave and cold spell has been attributed to AGW by some politician or another. Is it really any wonder this has become a left/right issue?

Never, ever listen to a journalist or politician on a scientific topic of any sort. Both groups share some common traits: They're too dumb for honest work, and telling the straight truth leaves them jobless pretty quickly.

That somehow extra taxation will fix it.

We could mandate tomorrow that no more fossil fuels ever be burned ever again anywhere on the planet. It would fix the AGW issue! Of course, billions of people would probably starve to death and we'd regress technologically about 200 years overnight, save for a few bastions of nuclear-powered communities that still have cell phones but no way to grow food. Me, I think the smarter way is a smooth transition.

Taxes on fossil fuels provide a financial incentive for people and businesses to either be more efficient or use something else. Cap and trade has actually already been enacted in the United States. Under a Republican president, no less. It was applied to sulfur dioxide and a few other pollutants, targeted primarily at sources of acid rain if I remember right. And guess what? It was pretty successful. Acid rain in the US has dropped dramatically with the decrease in those emissions. Hooray free market!

Cap and Trade (for CO2) was even touted by Sarah Palin and John McCain during the 2008 campaign, as a free market alternative to those dang liberals and their environmental fascism or whatever. But now there's a (D) in office, so it's an economy-breaking socialist nightmare now.

edit: If it were up to me, I'd do something like Cap and Trade, but for now I'd leave some exceptions for agriculture and maybe a couple other applications. (a tax break that offsets the carbon tax, or something) Right now, there's no viable alternative for those applications. You can't run a tractor on batteries, the technology just doesn't exist for that yet. Plus, making food more expensive just hurts everyone. Transportation costs would go up, but I think the market can adjust towards more locally-produced goods in stores. All that cheap crap we get from China would end up costing more, but maybe that will help American business compete. I've always thought it was weird to have a guy 12000 miles away make a plastic cup and send it to me anyway!

 

[cpwill]

An unsourced news article from a decidedly right-wing online source. Is there something more authoritative to back up that 5% number? It's a pretty vague statistic. Less than 5% "predicted" the lack of warming? To what degree of accuracy? Maybe they all predicted a slowing period but only 5% nailed it dead on. When a journalist gives you a number, always check his source to see what that number actually represents.

not exactly a journalist

Patrick J. Michaels is a Distinguished Senior Fellow in the School of Public Policy at George Mason University. He is a past president of the American Association of State Climatologists and was program chair for the Committee on Applied Climatology of the American Meteorological Society. Michaels was also a research professor of Environmental Sciences at University of Virginia for thirty years. Michaels is a contributing author and reviewer of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007. His writing has been published in the major scientific journals, including Climate Research, Climatic Change, Geophysical Research Letters, Journal of Climate, Nature, and Science, as well as in popular serials such as the Washington Post, Washington Times, Los Angeles Times, USA Today, Houston Chronicle, and Journal of Commerce. He was an author of the climate "paper of the year" awarded by the Association of American Geographers in 2004.

 

[Manc Skipper]

So where did he pluck his numbers from?

 

[FederalRepublic]

Deuce, you said "how this became a left/right issue is beyond me", but you seem to understand well enough. Are you being disengenuous?

For the record, I've had a couple of statistics classes, enough to understand how to use and/or abuse statistics to make your point. I have a pretty decent understanding of math and I remain unconvinced that we have to tools required to measure the small changes in global average surface temperature that we're talking about. Large changes, yeah I could see that. Small ones, not so much. I'm not saying it's impossible, just that I'm not convinced by what I've seen.

I also know a little about heat transfer, which is the main reason I'm skeptical about the warming effects from relatively small changes in the levels of a trace element in the atmosphere. I haven't seen any scientific justification for all this talk about human-generated CO2 causing temperature increases. It would not be all that hard to show and they aren't showing it. I'm sorry if it offends you, but that makes me skeptical.

Instead, they are talking about consensus and models. A critically thinking person might wonder why they are using consensus and models that few if any understand (including those who created the models) when a couple of experiments would support their position much more effectively.

Lastly, I know you're not honestly trying to tie people like me to John McCain. I said exactly the same thing about John McCain's support for cap & trade as I do about Obama's support for cap & trade. Just because McCain supported it, doesn't keep it from being an economy-breaking socialist nightmare. Your statement of what would happen if it were up to you is a prime example of why I call it a socialist nightmare. "I'd leave some exceptions for agriculture and maybe a couple other applications." The exception invariably end up being some politician's brother-in-law and the rest of us pay for him to get rich. It's no way to run the government.

 

[Deuce]

Deuce, you said "how this became a left/right issue is beyond me", but you seem to understand well enough. Are you being disengenuous?

It's a scientific topic, but we somehow managed to let the discussion be lead by journalists and politicians.

For the record, I've had a couple of statistics classes, enough to understand how to use and/or abuse statistics to make your point. I have a pretty decent understanding of math and I remain unconvinced that we have to tools required to measure the small changes in global average surface temperature that we're talking about. Large changes, yeah I could see that. Small ones, not so much. I'm not saying it's impossible, just that I'm not convinced by what I've seen.

On what do you base this opinion? Your gut is not a very scientific instrument.

I also know a little about heat transfer, which is the main reason I'm skeptical about the warming effects from relatively small changes in the levels of a trace element in the atmosphere. I haven't seen any scientific justification for all this talk about human-generated CO2 causing temperature increases. It would not be all that hard to show and they aren't showing it. I'm sorry if it offends you, but that makes me skeptical.

Gigatons of CO2, and we're talking about astronomical (literally) levels of energy here. More than a kilowatt per square meter of incoming solar radiation. A sizeable portion of that is reemitted as longwave infrared radiation. Capturing an additional small percentage of that huge amount of energy adds up. Again, you're making the mistake of using that "gut feeling" to try and measure something on a global scale. At some point, you have to let some people run the calculations. It's a fairly in depth calculation, but certainly not beyond our capabilities. If you can figure out how much energy CO2 will absorb with a given volume and density, you start to figure out how much extra energy the earth will absorb. You say "they haven't shown it," but really, yes they have. The problem is that people look at a peer-reviewed paper full of equations and calculations and their eyes glaze over. If you put it on TV, nobody is going to watch that nerdy crap, put football back on!

Instead, they are talking about consensus and models. A critically thinking person might wonder why they are using consensus and models that few if any understand (including those who created the models) when a couple of experiments would support their position much more effectively.

I don't even know what to say to this. Models are not the source of climate science, they're the result of it. The concensus is that of people who actively research the subject, and read eachothers work. It's not like they just took a vote one day before researching, that's not how science works. There's an enormous amount of experimentation and measuring happening. Want some experiments? Talk to the USAF. They did a tremendous amount of research and experimentation with the absorption characteristics of atmospheric gases, most especially in the infrared spectrum. Apparently when you want to hit a 500mph fighter plane with a missile that tracks the target using the infrared spectrum this is useful information. Who knew. The general absorption characteristics of various atmospheric gases have been known for more than a century, but the USAF really fine-tuned it down to the exact wavelengths.

Lastly, I know you're not honestly trying to tie people like me to John McCain. I said exactly the same thing about John McCain's support for cap & trade as I do about Obama's support for cap & trade. Just because McCain supported it, doesn't keep it from being an economy-breaking socialist nightmare. Your statement of what would happen if it were up to you is a prime example of why I call it a socialist nightmare. "I'd leave some exceptions for agriculture and maybe a couple other applications." The exception invariably end up being some politician's brother-in-law and the rest of us pay for him to get rich. It's no way to run the government.

Not sure where you'd get the idea I was referring to you. I was responding to Spuds.

Yes, exceptions to laws tend to be based on politicians friends and families. Fortunately, I said "if it were up to me." Because I'd be a ruthless dictator and anyone who asked for special privileges would probably get thrown in a dungeon for a while. Wait, what do you mean we don't have dungeons anymore? Build one, minions!

Wait, what were we talking about?

 

[bowerbird]

#5: Only about 5 percent of hundreds of runs of these simulations predict the lack of a significant warming trend that has been observed in the last 14 years — even in the Climategated University of East Anglia temperature history. In other words, the earth’s climate is behaving in a way that would normally compel scientists to reject, on statistical grounds, the hypothesis that these models are predictive.

Why are you accepting the opinion of a well known spin doctor over places like NOAA and the Australian BOM and Japan's climate centre and Hadley and all those others...............

On July 27, 2006 ABC News reported that a Colorado energy cooperative, the Intermountain Rural Electric Association, had given Michaels $100,000.[15] An Associated Press report said that the donations had been made after Michaels had "told Western business leaders ... that he was running out of money for his analyses of other scientists' global warming research" and noted that the cooperative had a vested interest in opposing mandatory carbon dioxide caps, a situation that raised conflict of interest concerns.[16]

According to Fred Pearce, fossil fuel companies have helped fund Michaels' projects, including his World Climate Report, published every year since 1994, and his "advocacy science consulting firm", New Hope Environmental Services.[17]

Patrick Michaels - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[FederalRepublic]

It's a scientific topic, but we somehow managed to let the discussion be lead by journalists and politicians.



On what do you base this opinion? Your gut is not a very scientific instrument.



Gigatons of CO2, and we're talking about astronomical (literally) levels of energy here. More than a kilowatt per square meter of incoming solar radiation. A sizeable portion of that is reemitted as longwave infrared radiation. Capturing an additional small percentage of that huge amount of energy adds up. Again, you're making the mistake of using that "gut feeling" to try and measure something on a global scale. At some point, you have to let some people run the calculations. It's a fairly in depth calculation, but certainly not beyond our capabilities. If you can figure out how much energy CO2 will absorb with a given volume and density, you start to figure out how much extra energy the earth will absorb. You say "they haven't shown it," but really, yes they have. The problem is that people look at a peer-reviewed paper full of equations and calculations and their eyes glaze over. If you put it on TV, nobody is going to watch that nerdy crap, put football back on!




I don't even know what to say to this. Models are not the source of climate science, they're the result of it. The concensus is that of people who actively research the subject, and read eachothers work. It's not like they just took a vote one day before researching, that's not how science works. There's an enormous amount of experimentation and measuring happening. Want some experiments? Talk to the USAF. They did a tremendous amount of research and experimentation with the absorption characteristics of atmospheric gases, most especially in the infrared spectrum. Apparently when you want to hit a 500mph fighter plane with a missile that tracks the target using the infrared spectrum this is useful information. Who knew. The general absorption characteristics of various atmospheric gases have been known for more than a century, but the USAF really fine-tuned it down to the exact wavelengths.



Not sure where you'd get the idea I was referring to you. I was responding to Spuds.

Yes, exceptions to laws tend to be based on politicians friends and families. Fortunately, I said "if it were up to me." Because I'd be a ruthless dictator and anyone who asked for special privileges would probably get thrown in a dungeon for a while. Wait, what do you mean we don't have dungeons anymore? Build one, minions!

Wait, what were we talking about?

Deuce, a proper experiment in high school chemistry lab could show what they are trying to prove. It's a simple heat transfer problem involving radiant energy, with the change indicated by temperature variation. You can show that on TV. It's not that boring and it's not at all complicated. I look forward to your presentation, but please do a better job than these guys:
BBC News - Newsnight - Putting the science of global warming to the test

You also mentioned something about how much energy the earth will absorb, which is something altogether different than discussing surface temperatures and climate change.

The mass of the earth is 6 x 10^12 Gigatons. The mass of earth's atmosphere is 5 million Gigatons. Annual CO2 emissions due to human activity in 2007--29 Gigatons. 29 vs 5 million vs 6 x 10^12. Let's be honest about the scale of things we're discussing.

 

[jamesrage]

Clarify. So, we're not impacting temperature trends. Is it because our addition of CO2 to the atmosphere isn't having an effect? That would fit in #5.

Wouldn't stating "I actually believe that climate change is naturally occurring regardless of how minute or severe those changes are." mean I do not buy into the man made global warming fairy tale regardless of what part you religious nuts try to claim has an effect on the climate?

 

[Manc Skipper]

Wouldn't stating "I actually believe that climate change is naturally occurring regardless of how minute or severe those changes are." mean I do not buy into the man made global warming fairy tale regardless of what part you religious nuts try to claim has an effect on the climate?

Like the insecure believers who insist that atheism is a religion, the only one fervently clinging to unsupported dogma is you.

 

[Deuce]

Deuce, a proper experiment in high school chemistry lab could show what they are trying to prove. It's a simple heat transfer problem involving radiant energy, with the change indicated by temperature variation. You can show that on TV. It's not that boring and it's not at all complicated. I look forward to your presentation, but please do a better job than these guys:
BBC News - Newsnight - Putting the science of global warming to the test

You also mentioned something about how much energy the earth will absorb, which is something altogether different than discussing surface temperatures and climate change.

The mass of the earth is 6 x 10^12 Gigatons. The mass of earth's atmosphere is 5 million Gigatons. Annual CO2 emissions due to human activity in 2007--29 Gigatons. 29 vs 5 million vs 6 x 10^12. Let's be honest about the scale of things we're discussing.

The vast majority of that atmosphere is irrelevant to the greenhouse effect because it doesn't absorb infrared, so who isbeing dishonest? Subtract all of the nitrogen and oxygen from that.

It shocks me that you think these experiments haven't been performed, that this table-top high-school experiment is what professional researchers work with.
Papers on laboratory measurements of CO2 absorption properties « AGW Observer
Then there's the previously mentioned heat-seeking missile research that NASA and the USAF did.

edit: The thread in my signature has some more of the basic info.

 

[Deuce]

Wouldn't stating "I actually believe that climate change is naturally occurring regardless of how minute or severe those changes are." mean I do not buy into the man made global warming fairy tale regardless of what part you religious nuts try to claim has an effect on the climate?

So, to clarify, you don't think CO2 levels have risen due to mankind's activity and you don't think CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

 

[FederalRepublic]

The vast majority of that atmosphere is irrelevant to the greenhouse effect because it doesn't absorb infrared, so who isbeing dishonest? Subtract all of the nitrogen and oxygen from that.

It shocks me that you think these experiments haven't been performed, that this table-top high-school experiment is what professional researchers work with.
Papers on laboratory measurements of CO2 absorption properties « AGW Observer

I'm not going to give you a lesson on heat tranfer here, but you can't simply subtract nitrogen and oxygen from the mass of the atmosphere. Or are you saying that, in the atmosphere, we have a few Gigatons of CO2 that are super-high energy zipping around the sky? Remember that you started talking about the scale of things, trying to impress me with a few Gigatons. In order to raise the temperature of any particular mass, you need energy. Large mass requires huge amounts of energy, the larger the mass, the more energy required.

Do you really believe you can make a valid argument regarding temperature increase when you are only taking into account 0.00058% of the mass in question? Honestly? I find that pretty shocking...

 

[Deuce]

I'm not going to give you a lesson on heat tranfer here, but you can't simply subtract nitrogen and oxygen from the mass of the atmosphere. Or are you saying that, in the atmosphere, we have a few Gigatons of CO2 that are super-high energy zipping around the sky? Remember that you started talking about the scale of things, trying to impress me with a few Gigatons. In order to raise the temperature of any particular mass, you need energy. Large mass requires huge amounts of energy, the larger the mass, the more energy required.

Do you really believe you can make a valid argument regarding temperature increase when you are only taking into account 0.00058% of the mass in question? Honestly? I find that pretty shocking...

You have a very large mass to heat, but you also have a very large amount of energy being absorbed and a very long time in which to do that absorbing. But you know what? I'm nowhere near qualified to run these numbers in my head and decide if they match the observed temperature change. I'd rather let someone experiment and actually calculate these things.

 

[RightinNYC]

I question whether the data used to calculate temperatures over the past century has been properly adjusted to take account for external factors such as the location of those facilities and their accuracy.

I question whether the projections for future temperature increases properly account for inevitable technological developments and societal advances.

I question whether the reports detailing the projected costs of this projected warming properly account for the projected benefits as well.

I question whether the costs of the most commonly heralded methods of curbing temperature growth would outweigh the costs of doing nothing or taking more limited action.

I question whether most proposals that the US or the western world limit their CO2 production would result in anything more than a subsidy to developing countries.

Finally, I question the motives of many proponents of comprehensive reform, as many of the programs that they suggest sound less like environmental programs and more like social programs.

 

[Deuce]

I question whether the data used to calculate temperatures over the past century has been properly adjusted to take account for external factors such as the location of those facilities and their accuracy.

Errors associated with station siting do not create a significant warming bias, as shown by Watts' own work. (the guy behind the effort to attack the temperature record by photographing the stations) Even when using only the stations that Watts' team labeled as "good" or "best," you get an almost identical temperature record.

I question whether the projections for future temperature increases properly account for inevitable technological developments and societal advances.

There are various projections based on different CO2 emissions scenarios ranging from "current rate of increase goes completely unchecked" to "emissions stop and we return to year 2000 levels of CO2 in the atmosphere," and several in between. Unless you have a crystal ball, I'm not sure what else you'd expect to be taken into account.

I question whether the reports detailing the projected costs of this projected warming properly account for the projected benefits as well.

Crop yields are a prime focal point, and they do factor in all sorts of things like changing growing seasons, how CO2 impacts plant growth, how increased temperatures impact different types of crops, changes in usable land, and changes in severe weather events.

I question whether the costs of the most commonly heralded methods of curbing temperature growth would outweigh the costs of doing nothing or taking more limited action.

To do this accurately you'd have to decide how much a human life is worth.

I question whether most proposals that the US or the western world limit their CO2 production would result in anything more than a subsidy to developing countries.

Explain this. How does America reducing its oil consumption subsidize another country?

Finally, I question the motives of many proponents of comprehensive reform, as many of the programs that they suggest sound less like environmental programs and more like social programs.

Cap and Trade is a social program now? ... who are you and what did you do with the normally levelheaded RINYC?

 

[FederalRepublic]

You have a very large mass to heat, but you also have a very large amount of energy being absorbed and a very long time in which to do that absorbing. But you know what? I'm nowhere near qualified to run these numbers in my head and decide if they match the observed temperature change. I'd rather let someone experiment and actually calculate these things.

Again, you are the one failing to see the scale of what we're talking about. You have a large mass to heat and you are arguing that a small change in composition of 0.00058% of said mass has the capacity to appreciably change the temperature of the other 99.99942%. Does that draw a better picture of my skepticism for you? Does that sound remotely reasonable to you?

 

[RightinNYC]

Errors associated with station siting do not create a significant warming bias, as shown by Watts' own work. (the guy behind the effort to attack the temperature record by photographing the stations) Even when using only the stations that Watts' team labeled as "good" or "best," you get an almost identical temperature record.

My point is that regardless of whose evaluations you use, I am a bit leery about ascribing absolute accuracy to temperature figures that were written down by some lighthouse keeper back in 1890.

There are various projections based on different CO2 emissions scenarios ranging from "current rate of increase goes completely unchecked" to "emissions stop and we return to year 2000 levels of CO2 in the atmosphere," and several in between. Unless you have a crystal ball, I'm not sure what else you'd expect to be taken into account.

I don't think you're understanding my point. I'm saying that the projections we hear about most often say things like "if we do nothing, the seas will rise by X feet and temperatures will rise by X." Statements like that do not take into account the possibility/probability/certainty that we will make technological and societal advances that will ameliorate or even eliminate the growth in warming.

Crop yields are a prime focal point, and they do factor in all sorts of things like changing growing seasons, how CO2 impacts plant growth, how increased temperatures impact different types of crops, changes in usable land, and changes in severe weather events.

I don't see how that's really a response to my point. As above, the most commonly heard refrain is that global warming will cause a litany of bad results. Far less common is a discussion of the positive effects of warming.

To do this accurately you'd have to decide how much a human life is worth.

We already do this all the time, so I'm not sure why it seems so off-limits now. It's ridiculous to use that as an excuse for not conducting a true cost-benefit analysis.

Explain this. How does America reducing its oil consumption subsidize another country?

Artificial curbs on industry raise costs. As costs rise, a competitive advantage develops for other countries that are not subject to those curbs. This is not controversial at all.

If the US started imposing additional costs on its businesses, that would drive those businesses to countries that do not have those costs. The total pollution output would not be decreased by much (if at all), and the additional costs would in effect be a subsidy to those foreign countries.

Cap and Trade is a social program now? ... who are you and what did you do with the normally levelheaded RINYC?

The proposed cap and trade plan would have imposed a substantial tax on the energy industry and used a portion of that money to hand out checks to lower income families, leaving higher income families to bear the costs. That sounds a lot like a social program to me.

 

[Deuce]

Again, you are the one failing to see the scale of what we're talking about. You have a large mass to heat and you are arguing that a small change in composition of 0.00058% of said mass has the capacity to appreciably change the temperature of the other 99.99942%. Does that draw a better picture of my skepticism for you? Does that sound remotely reasonable to you?

Yes, it sounds reasonable to me that the change in CO2 could cause the temperature change. Because some science guys ran the calculations to figure it out.
It doesn't sound reasonable for me to try to estimate that affect in my head and declare that the work the scientists did is wildly inaccurate. I mean, how many of the numbers are in your head? What's the formula for determining the amount of energy that a given density of CO2 will absorb with a given volume and amount of longwave infrared radiation? Can you tell me how much energy the earth releases in that spectrum? How much solar energy comes in and the spectral distribution? How did you do all this math in your head?

Science is not determined by what "seems reasonable," is my point. If you've got the expertise to show with your own calculations that these guys are wrong, you should probably be publishing that in a peer-reviewed science journal.

 

[bowerbird]

My point is that regardless of whose evaluations you use, I am a bit leery about ascribing absolute accuracy to temperature figures that were written down by some lighthouse keeper back in 1890.



I don't think you're understanding my point. I'm saying that the projections we hear about most often say things like "if we do nothing, the seas will rise by X feet and temperatures will rise by X." Statements like that do not take into account the possibility/probability/certainty that we will make technological and societal advances that will ameliorate or even eliminate the growth in warming.



I don't see how that's really a response to my point. As above, the most commonly heard refrain is that global warming will cause a litany of bad results. Far less common is a discussion of the positive effects of warming.



We already do this all the time, so I'm not sure why it seems so off-limits now. It's ridiculous to use that as an excuse for not conducting a true cost-benefit analysis.



Artificial curbs on industry raise costs. As costs rise, a competitive advantage develops for other countries that are not subject to those curbs. This is not controversial at all.

If the US started imposing additional costs on its businesses, that would drive those businesses to countries that do not have those costs. The total pollution output would not be decreased by much (if at all), and the additional costs would in effect be a subsidy to those foreign countries.



The proposed cap and trade plan would have imposed a substantial tax on the energy industry and used a portion of that money to hand out checks to lower income families, leaving higher income families to bear the costs. That sounds a lot like a social program to me.

a) the probable impacts were and are given as "confidence levels" - we thinks somewhere between this value and that - but the news media being the attention whores they are will ALWAYS hype anything

b) This is why it was important to get EVERYONE on board - even the third world countries were not granted special provisions forever. There was a passing nod to the fact that most of the CO2 problem came from the developed countries so we should be doing our fair share of the clean up but the developing countries were not going to be able just to replace us in pollution.

 

[FederalRepublic]

Yes, it sounds reasonable to me that the change in CO2 could cause the temperature change. Because some science guys ran the calculations to figure it out.
It doesn't sound reasonable for me to try to estimate that affect in my head and declare that the work the scientists did is wildly inaccurate. I mean, how many of the numbers are in your head? What's the formula for determining the amount of energy that a given density of CO2 will absorb with a given volume and amount of longwave infrared radiation? Can you tell me how much energy the earth releases in that spectrum? How much solar energy comes in and the spectral distribution? How did you do all this math in your head?

Science is not determined by what "seems reasonable," is my point. If you've got the expertise to show with your own calculations that these guys are wrong, you should probably be publishing that in a peer-reviewed science journal.

If I were a scientist who was trying to prove a point, I would look up the formulas and plug in the numbers. I'm not going to do it because I think it would be a waste of time, like pouring a glass of fresh water in the ocean and trying to figure out how much you've altered the percentage of salt in it. You could certainly run the numbers, but why would you bother (unless somebody was paying you to do it)?