A Few Things Ill Considered

Equally important as the future depletion of fossil fuels is the fact that working on reducing global CO2 emissions would not necessarily bring hardships to the world.

The history of economic development teaches us that new technologies open new markets, create new jobs and opportunities etc. It is true that they may destroy some old industries, but with proper public policies, this does not need to be a big problem.

Imagine, for example, the US government giving a loan to the Big Three but requiring them to retool their factories to build electrical cars (which is hopefully happening now), but also requiring them to make the new electrical motors in such a way that they can be retrofitted in older cars. Now, raise the taxes on cars with internal combustion engines, but also offer a subsidy to the Big Three, directed solely to making new electrical cars and motors cheaper. Now think how many people would buy new cars or retrofit their older cars. That also means more money for the Big Three (which should be reinvested, not given as bonuses for managers), more jobs, more taxes etc.

Big infrastructure projects to change the living patterns in the US, provide more means for public transportation, shorter distances which can be walked etc. Again, a mass of jobs, spending, taxes, profits...

Offering various support schemes, and also directly financing research on clean technologies would again provide jobs, and also the technologies developed for ecological purposes would certainly have unexpected uses elsewhere in the economy. That's simply how technology is, or, rather, how people are. Inventiveness is a fantastic trait.

You get the idea. New technologies mean new investments, which can soak up the losses from older industries, and even expand the economy further. This is not just some odd theory, it's how economic development works. Read Werner Sombart, Friedrich List, John Kenneth Galbraith, Joseph Scumpeter, , Ha-Joon Chang even Friedrich von Hayek etc, all leading names in development theory.

Posted by: Ivan | December 10, 2008 6:39 AM

No one is forgetting that fossil is non-renewable. When a resource runs low, it becomes scarce, and the price goes up. When the price goes up, alternatives become economically viable. It's economics 101.

Any time you force people to adopt a less suitable product, when a more suitable one is available, you create economic inefficiency that makes everyone worse off. If I am forced to pay $100 for an energy source when a $50 energy source was available, I am poorer for it. It is the same as if I were robbed of $50.

You might say that the alternative energy dealer got my money, so value was still created. But that's just a version of the Parable of the Broken Window.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window

So no, we will not be "in a better place"... we will be poorer as a society on the whole. Global wealth will be destroyed. Even worse, it will be regressive. Poorer people spend more of their money on energy than wealthy people, percentage wise.

Posted by: Gigs | February 16, 2009 9:33 PM

Alternative energy seems expensive because AGW deniers never factor in the total cost of burning fossil fuels. If you consider the cost of environmental clean up, then alternative fuels become much more economically feasible.

In the 1970s we were able to force businesses to clean up their effluent by making it a cost of doing business. We can and should do the same thing for greenhouse gas pollution.

Posted by: mikatollah | February 17, 2009 8:08 AM

What about other countries... We are not going to wait for Pakistan or Indochina or Beijing to move before we take action on climate change. That idea died in the last election. The adults are back in charge in Washington now and it is only a matter of time before we are once again leading the world.

Once the goals are established and a plan it in place we can begin to put pressure on developing nations by offering economic and diplomatic incentives and by exporting the technology they will need to comply.

Posted by: mikatollah | February 18, 2009 5:53 AM

So what have we learned from Trevor today?

Environmentalists hate freedom... and humans.
AGW is a government conspiracy to keep Trevor out of church.
Global warming must be stopped tomorrow... or it doesn't count.
Electricity won't turn large wheels.
Alternative energy is a joke..except nuclear is too much $$$
We're all going to have to walk... or ride our bikes.
Environmentalists love manual labor best.
Mass government policy driven starvation is inevitable.
We know for sure that China hates the environment.
Don't forget about the nuclear war we will be fighting with India and China (presumably while we starve).
AGW will double food production, but we have to wait for another post to learn how. (My guess: AGW is good for us!)
The middle east hates westerners... loves Chinamen.
Loss of SUV worse than nuclear war and starvation.
Nuclear war best cure for AGW.
AGW mitigation efforts sure to keep Trevor from blogging.

Did I miss anything?

Posted by: mikatollah | February 18, 2009 2:46 PM

Sooo... what did we learn from Trevor today?

Mischaracterization of statements sadden Trevor.
Environmentalist don't hate themselves, but should still commit suicide.
Trevor loves freedom, hates nuclear war and blames liberals.
Only fossil fuels make cars go.
When Chinese nukes kill mikatollah and Trevor, who will be left to gloat?
"As bad as" is much better than "worse".
Communists love freedom more than Americans.
Still waiting for food-doubling post.
Snide remarks sadden Trevor.
Middle East loves future Chinamen more than current Chinamen.
Freedom is a beautiful thing (even if you're not a Commie).
If you need Trevor, he will be following his priorities.

Ok, I'll stop...

Posted by: mikatollah | February 19, 2009 11:13 AM

And now, finally, the long-awaited and much-anticipated explanation of how global warming will increase food supplies.

(Note: I will probably re-post this explanation under "What's Wrong With Warm Weather", since that topic seems slightly more appropriate for this discussion.)

(Disclaimer: though I have had some education in agronomy, animal science, and other agriculture-related topics, I am not an "agronomist". My degrees (BS and MS) are in Agricultural Economics. My brother, however, is an agronomist, and he endorses this explanation 100%, and in fact helped me to compose it. I suspect that at least 90% of agronomists would also agree with most of what I am about to say.)

There are three things that all plants need more than anything else - heat, water, and carbon dioxide. These three elements are absolutely critical to the germination, growth, development, and reproduction of crops, and (within certain limits) the more of these things the crops have, the higher their yields will be. I intend to explain how each of these necessary elements will INCREASE under any realistic global warming scenario. However, I realize that, in many cases, "too much of a good thing" can be bad, and therefore I also intend to explain why that is not a concern in the case of these three elements with respect to crop production. I will look at each element in turn.

CARBON DIOXIDE
The theory of anthropogenic global warming blames the increasing global average temperatures on man-made emissions of carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels. So therefore, if AGW continues, it will be due to further increases in CO2. The fact that I don't buy AGW theory does not change the fact that CO2 is, undeniably, increasing, and will continue to increase as long as mankind continues burning fossil fuels at the current rate. So, the fact is, whether global warming continues or not, CO2 levels in the atmosphere WILL continue to increase, at least until our fossil fuel reserves run out.

Agronomists have repeatedly identified carbon dioxide as the single most limiting factor in crop growth and development. Basically, no matter what the levels of other factors, it is a scientific fact that you can ALWAYS get better yields by adding more carbon dioxide. Of course, carbon dioxide doesn't come in powder or pellets that you can spread on the ground, and it wouldn't do any good there anyway, because it has to be absorbed from the air. So increasing carbon dioxide for crops is (usually) not an economically viable option. Which is why the level of carbon dioxide is such a constraint on crop yield.

Nevertheless, under greenhouse conditions (I'm talking about REAL greenhouses - fully enclosed environments where the internal atmosphere can be controlled and manipulated - which has nothing to do with the so-called "greenhouse effect" of Earth's atmosphere), growers have increased CO2 levels up to many times higher than atmospheric levels, with UNIFORMLY POSITIVE RESULTS. Even at these absurdly high levels of CO2, there are ZERO harmful effects on plant germination, growth, development, or reproduction. Now, I suppose, at some ridiculously high concentration of CO2, one that has not yet been tested in greenhouse conditions, the effects of additional CO2 will turn to a net negative. But such a concentration is note something that we are ever going to see on this planet, even if we had UNLIMITED fossil fuel reserves.

WATER
No one can claim that water isn't good for crops. If water was bad for crops, farmers wouldn't pray for rain, Native Americans would not have developed "rain dances", and growers in dry areas wouldn't spend billions of dollars on water and irrigation equipment. Too much water? At the wrong time, yes, that's bad for crops. (Though it's worth noting that rice, the number one food crop in the world, is routinely flooded through most of the growing season. In fact, the "wrong time" for too much water in a rice field is limited to a day or two after planting and a couple of days prior to harvest. Any other time of the year, there's no such thing as "too much water" in a rice field.)

But the question is, what will global warming do to water supplies in crop fields? Well, warmer weather means more evaporation of ocean water. More evaporation means more water vapor in the atmosphere. More water vapor in the atmosphere means more water vapor condensing to form clouds. More clouds mean more rainfall. Now, of course, the total volume of water on the planet doesn't change. But at any given time, more of it is being deposited as precipitation on land, where the crops are planted. And that's what's really important for crops, not the total volume of water on the planet.

Now, the global warming alarmists warn us of "shifting precipitation patterns". They never really explain how such a shift will be initiated (except one really ridiculous theory about major ocean currents shifting, which NO ONE seriously believes), but they reason that changing the temperature simply MUST have SOME kind of effect on precipitation patterns. My answer to that is, okay, so what? So all of a sudden, areas that historically received a lot of rainfall will receive a lot less, and areas that were historically dry will receive a lot more rainfall. Where's the problem in that? Okay, at the level of the individual farmer, whose family has been farming the same land in Pennsylvania for 200 years, that guy, or his grandson, might not be able to raise a crop of corn anymore. But in terms of total global food production, that loss will be offset by some new farmer in, say, Nigeria, whose land all of a sudden gets plenty of rainfall to plant corn. And get this. The new Nigerian farmer won't have to contend with the insects specifically evolved to be corn pests, and he won't have to spray as much insecticide. If you want to, you can feel bad for the farmer in Pennsylvania that went out of business (and sold the land to a real estate developer for $20,000/acre, took a job in construction, or driving an 18-wheeler, and is now making twice as much as he would have made farming, even if he DID have the rain). But we're talking about GLOBAL food production, and that's going to increase.

Other alarmists warn us of "drought" and "floods". I've never actually seen a convincing scientific argument that such extreme weather events are going to be any more prevalent than they have ever been (except that some coastal areas may be flooded due to rising sea levels). However, if the worldwide precipitation patterns change to the extent supposed in the previous paragraph, I guess I could see someone calling it a "drought" when a historically-high-precipitation area suddenly started getting less rainfall; or calling it a "flood" when a "historically-low-precipitation area suddenly started getting more rainfall. But when measured by absolute amounts of rainfall, rather than compared to historic levels, I don't see any reason to believe drought or flooding will be any more common due to global warming than they ever have been.

That said, let's suppose the alarmists are correct about this, and there are real, absolute droughts and floods, in greater number and of greater severity than in pre-global-warming times. Again, the question is, so what? The entire western half of the United States is basically a dessert. Yet it contains some of the highest-yielding corn and wheat acreage in the world. Why? Irrigation. You see, it turns out that, even in these dry areas, there's an abundance of water either in rivers and reservoirs, or in underground aquifers. Getting the water to the fields where the crops are planted is but a minor problem, easily overcome. If the eastern half of the United States dries up, then growers there can simply adopt the same irrigation practices that western US growers use now (and many already have, just so they don't have to DEPEND on rainfall). Or, as alluded to earlier, the areas suffering from drought can simply stop growing crops, and their slack will be easily taken up by new crop-growing areas.

What about flooding? What if there really is a statistically-significant increase in flooding due to excessive rainfall (and not just a shift of flooding from one area to another)? As I mentioned earlier, "flooding" is not a major problem for agriculture UNLESS it happens at the "wrong time". What is the "wrong time"? Well, planting time is a bad time for flooding, because tractors can't get into the fields to plant the crops. Likewise, harvest time is a bad time because the combines can't get into the fields to harvest them. But, as far as field operation are concerned, this is no big deal at all because, as I'll show when I get to the section about Heat, the growing seasons for all crops will be lenghtened considerably, giving growers a lot more flexibility in the timing of their planting and harvesting.

But still, there are times, BETWEEN harvesting and planting, when excessive rainfall, and standing water in fields, can obstruct the uptake of certain nutrients from the air and the soil. And if flooding is more common in the future due to global warming, then one could reasonably expect more yield loss due to such flooding. However, ON AVERAGE, the beneficial effects of increased rainfall, on a worldwide scale, will easily overshadow the small yield losses due to increased flooding.

Excessive rainfall, at the wrong time, can also hamper certian physiological processes in a plant, including reproduction. And as any agronomist knows, reproduction is the process that actually creates the edible part of the crop (the grain or "fruit"), so interference with reproduction is something we would very much not like to see. But again, an extended growing season is going to enable growers more flexibility in the timing of planting. And therefore, planting will be more staggered, temporally, than it is now. This means that a smaller percentage of a given crop will be entering the critical stages of production at any given time. While this may result in a higher probability that some percentage of the acreage will suffer from "wrong time" flooding, it also means there is a smaller probability that the ENTIRE crop will suffer that fate. And again, even if there is net yield loss due to this effect, it will be more than offset by the many, many beneficial effects of increased rainfall.

There is one other bad effect of flooding on crops. It is called "soil heaving". When certain types of soil are fully saturated with water, freezing temperatures can cause cause the water in the soils to freeze, and therefore expand, causing significant movement of the soil. This process can easily damage the roots of certain crops (like winter wheat) that are planted in the fall and harvested in the spring. But if you look back carefully, you will see that this process only occurs when temperatures fall below freezing. And we are, after all, talking about global WARMING. So, while one of the conditions (flooding) necessary for heaving might be more likely under global warming, the other condition (freezing) is most definitely LESS likely. So, all in all, heaving will be a lot less common under global warming than before global warming. And it really only affects over-wintered crops anyway.

Sorry, folks, but I'm going to have to put off the final section of this essay, Heat, until next week. But please stay tuned, because I suspect it will be very enlightening to those of you who don't have a clue about agronomy.

Regards, Trevor

Posted by: Trevor | February 20, 2009 10:20 AM

Awww shucks Trev, I was just tweakin' you a bit. But I honestly don't know how else to respond to arguments like environmentalist should commit suicide and Communist Chinese care more for their freedom than Americans.

Where does this stuff come from?

Posted by: mikatollah | February 20, 2009 3:42 PM

Adam:

The statement you quoted was a disclaimer, not an admission of possible error. You see, unlike global warming alarmists, I don't make false claims of "concensus", which is why I used a number less than 100%, yet still included the word "suspect". In reality, the statements I have made are well-established in the agronomic community, though there may be a few dissenters out there (note I did not call them "deniers", because, again unlike global warming alarmists, I respect healthy skepticism of scientific dogma). For example, I have read one journal article that, while it does not directly contradict anything I have said, does point out, based on greenhouse experimentation, that excessive carbon dioxide can cause harvested rice to contain slightly less protein than rice grown under "normal" CO2 levels. Of course, as explained in the original post, it's not possible to regulate CO2 in field experiments, so we don't know that the same thing would happen in the field. But even if protein was slightly less, people don't consume rice for protein - they consume it for carbohydrates, which are not decreased by excessive CO2. Moreover, even if protein was a consideration for people eating rice, the increase in yield means that people could easily increase their consumption of rice to get the total protein consumed back up to pre-global warming levels.

In reality, Adam, the statements I made in the previous post are not only supported by 200+ years of agronomic theory, but have been proven, time and time again, EMPIRICALLY. That is far more than we can say for the "science" of anthropogenic global warming.

If you want to criticize me for making up a CONSERVATIVE number to represent the proportion of agronomists who agree with me, rather than making a bold but unfounded statement that ALL agronomists agree with me, go right ahead. It just illustrates not only the dishonesty of the global warming alarmists, but their complete disdain of honesty when others exhibit it.

As for making up numbers, other than the 90% figure, which I have already explained, the only numbers that are even IN the previous post are 2, 18, 100, and 20,000:

2 was the coefficient I placed on Oxygen (O) in the chemical notation for Carbon Dioxide ("CO2"). It is well established that a molecule of carbon dioxide contains one atom of carbon and two atoms of oxygen. If you look closely, it's right there in the name ("carbon DIoxide" - "DI" meaning "two"). I did not make this number up. If you are challenging this number, I would love to hear your reasoning. (However, I must confess that in TRUE chemical notation, the 2 should appear as a SUBSCRIPT after the O. I regret that I do not know how to initiate such a font effect in this forum. But I think most people know what I'm talking about when I say "CO2", even though the 2 is too large and too high.)

18 was used in a parenthetical and hypothetical statement about what a corn farmer in Pennsylvania might do if forced to retire from farming because of changing weather patterns, and referred to the total number of wheels on the tractor-trailer rig he might drive for a living. "18-wheeler" is a common name for such a vehicle. Again, I did not make that number up. However, I confess that this hypothetical future retired farmer might end up driving a truck with something fewer than 18 wheels. For that matter, he might not drive a truck at all, or work construction, which I gave as another possibility. He might go to college and become a accountant. Or a professional global warming alarmist. It doesn't matter, though, for the purpose my example. The point is, he would probably make a lot more money doing something other than farming.

100 was used as a percent that I assigned to the level with which my brother, the agronomist and certified crop consultant, agrees with my analysis of the effect of carbon dioxide, water, and heat on crop production. I did not make this number up. My brother stated to me in a telephone conversation that he agreed "completely" with my analysis.

20,000 was a number I used, in the same parenthetical, hypothetical statement as the 18, to represent the number of dollars per acre the hypothetical retired farmer might sell his farmland for. I admit to making this number up. I also admit to ASSUMING that the land would be rezoned residential or commercial. But again, the whole thing was a hypothetical statement, and it was not at all crucial to the point of the post. In fact, the only reason I brought it up was to point out, for the relief of those more concerned about an individual farmer's well-being than global food production, that the farmer would probably make out alright. Nevertheless, my estimate of the value of residential/commercial-zoned but undeveloped land 50 years in the future is just as good as any other estimate out there. But if you don't like it, feel free to substitute your own estimate. It has zero bearing on the main point of the post.

Regards,
Trevor

Posted by: Trevor | February 23, 2009 5:14 AM

Trevor,
There was an old commercial that claimed more doctors who smoked, smoked Camels:

http://blogs.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2009/02/26/More-Doctors-Smoke-Camels-Than-Any-Other-Cigarette.aspx

The clear inference here is that smoking Camels was good for you, or at least it was not harmful as many smokers who woke up coughing each morning suspected.

Your suspicion that 90 percent of agronomists support your belief is disturbing in much the same way. Even if we take your word for it and grant you this scientific consensus, it doesn't necessarily follow that these agronomists agree that AGW is a good thing.

I'm no "agricultural economist", so my first thought was, giving the regional nature of crop production and the global nature of climate change, the imbalances created by AGW would more than offset any plant benefit from increased CO2 and actually inhibit crop production.

But I'm still with you on the water thing... water good.

Posted by: mikatollah | February 23, 2009 10:07 AM

Great posts Trevor.

Posted by: John | February 24, 2009 8:34 AM

During the Mid-Cretaceous period ca. 120 to 90 Million Years Ago, the earth was a distinctly warmer place. That warming period clearly happened, and it was clearly not caused by human beings, but that's another story for another day.

What is true, is that life flourished during this time. Fossil evidence indicates that breadfruit trees grew as far north as Greenland and the warm water corals grew far further north than they do today. During that period of time the earth was much warmer than it is today and CO2 levels were much higher than they are today. What happened... not the death and destruction which you predict, but an earth which was literally bursting with life.

d;?D

Posted by: T Lu | February 24, 2009 10:57 AM

Coby posted.....

>>>Is this supposed to mean that the theory of anthropogenic global warming must be wrong? First things first, understand that the problem is real and present. ****There is no point in discussing the best solutions or the cost of those solutions with someone who does not yet acknowledge the problem***.

Are you honestly arguing that those of us who have serious doubts about the credibility of the scientific arguments that are being used to create this anthropogenic global warming case must first agree with this position before we are even allowed to debate it? It sure sounds to me that this is what you are saying! If so, I guess you will not even bother to read my post. However, I'll give it a whirl anyway.

Let me try a different type of an argument in an attempt to demonstrate why some thinking-people - some of who are actually scientists and engineers (I am an engineer) - might doubt that burning fossil fuels could have much of an impact on global warming.

Consider a purely mathematical argument. Currently the level of CO2 in our atmosphere is defined in Al Gores film as being about 385 PPM. I'll take his word for that. Other Gorephiles also claim that the total CO2 in the atmosphere by weight is 750GTs. I'll take their word for that also. So, assuming both numbers are reasonably correct, 385PPM = 750GT of CO2.

The Gore team also argues that burning of fossil fuels is releasing between 5.5 and 7.0 GTs of anthropogenic CO2 annually. Of that, they claim, about 3 GT remains in the atmosphere, while the rest becomes absorbed by the ocean, plants, and land mass. I'll also accept that argument. Thus far, I have no disagreement with this part of Al Gore's argument.

So, lets assume that mankind will in fact increment the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere by as much as 300 GT in the next 100 years. At this rate CO2 will increase from 750GT to an alarming 1050 GTs by the year 2100. Whooooo, that's very alarming! So, if 750 GTs = 385PPM, than 1050 GTs would equal 539PPM. Houston... we have a problem!!!! NOT!!!!

Lets think about those weird scientific "PPM" numbers in a way which is more visual. Imagine the entire atmosphere as a tube containing 10,000 four inch balls. At 4 inches in diameter, stacked three high, about 35 of those balls would occupy every cubic foot of space. So a tube with a 1 square foot base which was 285 ft tall (approximately the height of 28 story building) would be perfectly sized to contain all 10,000 of those balls.

With this as a visual model of our atmosphere, the 10,000 balls represent all the various gases in our atmosphere. Most of those balls, over 99% in fact, would represent Nitrogen, Oxygen, Water Vapor and Argon. The remaining few hundredths of a percent collectively would be balls which represented the other trace gases such as He,H,N,K,So2,Methane,CO2 and more.. In our model of the atmosphere in this 285 ft high tube the in which 10,000 balls represent the entire atmosphere, at 385PPM, less than 4 of those balls would be CO2. That's 4 out of 10,000. Now, if we increment CO2 in the atmosphere at the alarming rate of 3 GT per year or 300 GT in 100 years (300 giga tons.. wow, sounds like a lot), in 100 years instead of CO2 be represented as 4 out of 10,000 balls, CO2 would be represented as 5.5 out of 10,000 balls.

So, even using the numbers which Al Gore suggests as being real, my question is how can any thinking person really believe that such a minor change in the overall makeup of the earth's atmosphere would have a "dramatic" impact on the temperature of the earth? I believe it is absolutely silly to believe that the minor "substitution" of 1.5 CO2 balls for 1.5 other balls in our model would have even the slightest impact on the temp. of the earth. Compared to N2 and O2, the dominant gases in the atmosphere, there is nothing particularly unique about the specific heat capacity of C02. In fact, the specific heat capacity of CO2 is actually slightly less than that of N2 or O2. So, CO2 does not possess some super ability (compared to the other atmospheric gases) to absorb or emit heat. Those of you who feel a compelling need to control the temperature of the atmosphere should be going after water vapor since the heat heat of H2O vapor is more than twice that of Nitrogen, Oxygen, and Caron Dioxide.

For even those who believe that a slight warming of the planet is a bad thing, the argument against the use of fossil fuels, makes no sense from beginning to end because it simply does not add up to a hill of beans when you do the math!!

Posted by: T. Lu | February 24, 2009 1:23 PM

Aren't denialists the ones that continually argue that climate modeling is invalid as evidence? Then, you presume to toss out this incredibly simplified mathematical analysis as proof that anthropogenic global warming doesn't exist, complete with the Aww-shucks conclusion from personal incredulity so favored by denialists of all stripes.

In addition to what mikatollah mentioned, you failed to incorporate methane into your "analysis", which, though it is a much smaller percentage than CO2, has a much higher influence on warming per molecule. Atmospheric methane levels have more than doubled since the Industrial Revolution and can contribute up to 20% of heating.
http://eesc.columbia.edu/courses/ees/slides/climate/gh_gases.gif
http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_tar/?src=/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/017.htm

And that's just one of the other greenhouse gases that are released from industrial processes.

Posted by: Adam | February 24, 2009 2:27 PM

I wonder if T Lu bothers to wash his hands. You can't even see those pesky little germs; how could they possibly make him sick?

Posted by: Steve | February 24, 2009 7:50 PM

T Lu,

For an engineer, you're sure not that smart. Why don't you try reading in detail about a topic before you feel fit to criticize work that's way out of your field. Your mistakes are elementary and demonstrate clearly that you are coming from a pre-determined position. As others so ably point out, part of what you said in your appeal to incredulity was akin to saying "look how tiny that bacterial organism is, it can't possibly harm me, I'm huge". Do you see how ridiculous that is?

The large majority of molecules that make up the atmosphere are totally transparent to the wavelengths of infrared we are talking about. It's those pesky, vanishingly rare few that do all the dirty work - this is 19th century physics mate, you should try reading about it. The roughly six degree Celsius difference in global averge surface temps between the depths of an ice age and the periods of interglacial warmth (the latest of which has seen civilisation arise and flourish) requires a differnce in atmospheric CO2 concentration of only about 100-120PPM, from lows of around 170-180 up to natural highs around 280-295. So coming off a peak of around 285 to the current levels approaching 390, when we should, in fact, be dropping is bound to have major consequences, no?

The rampant use of fossil fuels that has rapidly released major amounts of natural carbon that have been sequestered for millions of years IS a very dangerous thing. Climate models (though wonderful tools that are getting more useful with every leg-up from Moore's Law) are NOT required to work any of this out, it was predicted late last century and is being confirmed physically around the world every day.

As for Trevor, anyone for whom "a tremendous mass extinction event" caused by humans, is "of no concern to me in any event, as long as humans aren't on the list" is beneath contempt. You have zero insight into the evolution of life on earth, the interdependence of its products and the sensitivity of ecological relationships. You display a 'speciesist' scorn for fellow life typical of pathetic religious zealots and are perfectly representitive of all that is so, so wrong with a 'dominion' view of man's place.

Posted by: Matt Bennett | February 25, 2009 4:30 AM

Matt:

"As for Trevor, anyone for whom 'a tremendous mass extinction event' caused by humans, is 'of no concern to me in any event, as long as humans aren't on the list' is beneath contempt. You have zero insight into the evolution of life on earth, the interdependence of its products and the sensitivity of ecological relationships. You display a 'speciesist' scorn for fellow life typical of pathetic religious zealots and are perfectly representitive of all that is so, so wrong with a 'dominion' view of man's place."

You insult my lack of concern for other species. That makes you a "concern-ist".

You also claim that I have "zero insight". Clearly you think those with insight (like, presumably, yourself) are "superior" to those with no insight. That makes you an "insight-ist"

You display a scorn for "pathetic religious zealots", proving that you are a pathetic-ist, a relgion-ist, and zealotry-ist.

And finally, you consider yourself superior to those of us who believe in a 'dominion' view of man's place. So you're also a dominion-ist.

Hey, if you can make up words to insult me, I can do the same. At least my "speciesism" is not discriminatory against other HUMANS. You rant against me discriminating against other species, but you can't even treat all HUMANS with equal respect. In one paragraph, you have discriminated against me, a fellow human, on no fewer than six personal characteristics.

Regards,
Trevor

Posted by: Trevor | February 25, 2009 1:22 PM

Yes Trevor, beneath contempt - look it up. That's why I wouldn't waste another minute of my day trying to patiently reveal the many and varied inconsistencies in your thinking and the totally out-of-date and innately destructive nature of your world veiw. I wouldn't stand a chance of changing your mind because you're not amenable to logic. That's part of why you aren't able to accurately assess scientific information with regards to AGW. Anyone on here who knows what they're talking about sees that immediately and are probably wiser than me in resisting the temptation to devote you any keystrokes.

And no, I don't believe we are superior or special or divine - we are simply one more species that has had EXACTLY the same amount of time to evolve as every other line that has made it to today. Our large brains are another's long wings but that probably doesn't make much sense to you. It's those exact brains that have both put us in trouble and given us a source of hope for escape. So forgive me if I don't take up the offer to argue ad nauseum with someone who doesn't even understand their place in the scheme of things - it's doomed to failure from the start. I certainly don't wish you or any other person the slightest bit of physical harm, your right to exist alongside me on our little spaceship is absolute and I'd defend it to my death - but I'm sure as hell glad the days of people like you holding the reins of power are dying. Perhaps there's a chance...

Posted by: Matt Bennett | February 25, 2009 4:09 PM

Matt -

Unfortunately, I'm proving you wrong in this case, because I put way too much effort looking up information to respond to Trevor's posts and then replying to them.

I'm well aware that he has no intention of changing his mind, and that it's likely impossible to do so unless Rush Limbaugh tells him otherwise, but I'm hoping that future visitors to this page will gain something from the various responses.

Posted by: Adam | February 25, 2009 5:13 PM

I wonder if we went back 12000 years, whether Trev would consider Homo floresiensis and its attendent ecosystem worthy of protection under H. sapiens umbrella? Or were there just enough great ape grandmas lying temporally between to render them expendable. Don't ask me to guess how it works....

Posted by: Matt Bennett | February 25, 2009 6:05 PM

Very good comments Trévor ! Thank you

It is not some degrees furthermore that are going to starve the planet. The global warming is visible on all the planets of our solar system. This reheating is one benefaction for us all. Expansion of the agricultural zones on the cold regions where the culture is impossible in winter. Fires, drought ? The man manages very well today.
Polar bears? We don't care! They speak about a catasprophe ? It is to sell ! Sell taxes ! Of the wind !

Posted by: humorix | February 26, 2009 5:07 AM

....and the childish rant continues. If you can't tell the difference between sustainable populations of organisms living within an ecosystem, with all its abundant predator/prey relationships, versus wishing them EXTINCT (or at least not caring whether they are or not - there's little difference) then its even more futile arguing with you than I'd thought. Your understanding of the world around you and the inherent value in biodiversity is close to zero. Thank goodness you have at least elected a president over there who puts a high value on scientific literacy - with any luck, within a generation there won't be so many people who believe it is their god-given right, as upright apes, to rape and pillage the Earth as they see fit. That's if we even get that chance, with AGW looming large, it's not a guarantee.

I'm outta here, I gotta flex these new found wings...

Posted by: Matt Bennett | February 26, 2009 5:17 AM

A bit late. The time to rally the forces of hate against President Obama was before the election. Maybe Bobby Jindal, Sarah Palin and Rush Limbaugh can stop him.

Better keep JtheP on call...

Posted by: mikatollah | February 26, 2009 6:13 AM

Trevor, you have the gift of crap... there aren't many of us who can bounce around from the obvious to the ridiculous in one insulting post, and lose the point along the way. But you nailed it. BTW, is your point still that AGW is a good thing?

The highlight for me was when you criticize Matt's hypocrisy for blowing his nose. Up until then I could almost see the point you were trying to make. But that statement just gives "agricultural economists" everywhere a bad name.

Posted by: mikatollah | February 26, 2009 8:17 AM

Mikatollah et al:

If what I'm saying sounds ridiculous, it is only because that is the natural extension of the kinds of things that Matt is talking about. Oh sure, what he says SOUNDS good, if you don't think about what it REALLY MEANS. But a "speciesest", if it's definition is anything like the other "ists", is someone who either has a higher regard or concern for one species than for another, who prefers one species to another, or believes that one species is superior to another. Clearly, Matt claims to not believe that his own species is superior to any other. It is his choice to believe so, and I will no longer try to disillusion him in that regard. Nor do I believe his claim to be false, as he has, clearly, put his money where his mouth is and responded to my challenge to exchange his brain for a pair of wings.

However, on the basis of his regard and concern for his own and other species, his own words reveal him to be a speciesist. He has professed a concern for my specfic well being. Me. Another Human. Yet he has no concern for individual members of other species. As far as he is concerned, "all ya'll look alike" when it comes to other species. If he held that attitude toward humans of another race, he would be a racist.

And, BTW, my point was NEVER that AGW was, IN GENERAL, a good thing. Though I happen to believe that the benefits of global warming (whether it's natural or anthropogenic) outweigh the damage, that determination is based on my own personal evaluation of the importance of the various issues that are affected by global warming. I do not presume to credit you, or anyone else, with the same notions of importance of issues. Therefore, I cannot decide, FOR YOU, whether global warming is good or bad. Speaking for myself, I happen to place a high importance on things like the alleviation of human hunger, economic prosperity, freedom, transportation, and property rights, all of which will either increase under global warming, or decrease if the world makes a serious attempt to stop global warming. I do recognize the potential harmful effects of global warming on such issues as rising sea levels, localized drought, localized flooding, and possibly even the extinction of a few species. I just don't place as much importance on those issues.

My POINT, at least in this series of posts, is that, in terms of global food production, and global food production alone, global warming, if it continues, will have a net positive effect. I also happen to believe that there are other benefits to global warming, like fewer human deaths due to cold weather (which will far outnumber any additional deaths due to hot weather). And furthermore, I think that, among the negative effects of global warming, most of them are not nearly as certain, nor as grave, as the alarmists claim. But it was never my intent to get into a discussion of anything outside of food production. I (perhaps foolishly) made a couple of purely parenthetical comments about polar bears and other species, and, because you guys don't have the knowledge to argue with me about agriculture, you've chosen to focus on those paranthetical comments and steer the discussion away from food production. And (again, perhaps foolishly), I have played into your hands.

To avoid this in the future, I will make every attempt to refrain from such parenthetical comments about aspects of global warming not directly related to food production. I will also try my best to ignore any further comments from the peanut gallery about such non-related items. For the sake of getting the discussion back on topic, I hereby concede, for now, that:

a) polar bears are endangered by global warming;

b) biodiversity is a good thing;

c) sustainability is a good thing;

d) every species of life is equivalent to every other species of life, and just as deserving of survival, as well as our respect and concern;

e) humans who accept d) as an axiom are superior to humans who do not accept d) as an axiom;

f) humans who accept d) as an axiom are NOT superior to other species (none of whom accept d) as an axiom);

g) other species are not superior to humans who do not accept d) as an axiom;

h) there is no contradiction, inconsistency, or paradox in the simultaneous truth of d), e), f), and g);

i) it is unacceptable to discriminate against other species in any way (unless it's a species that Matt doesn't like, or that he finds tasty, or that causes him to be ill);

j) it is acceptable to discriminate against other planets, other climates, other religions, other beliefs, and anything else that Matt doesn't like;

k) there is no contradiction, inconsistency, or paradox in the simultaneous truth of i) and j);

l) people who are not formally trained in climate science are incapable of expressing legitimate comments on whether those who ARE trained in climate science are right or wrong;

m) people who are not formally trained in agricultural science are perfectly capable of expressing legitimate comments on whether those trained in agricultural science are right or wrong;

n) bloggers who are formally trained in neither climate science nor agricultural science are perfectly capable of expressing legitimate comments on both subjects, unless those comments contradict the "concensus on global warming";

o) there is no contradiction, inconsistency, or paradox in the simultaneous truth of l), m) and n);

p) climate change, if it's natural and random, is a good thing, or at least not a bad thing; it does not result in a decrease in biodiversity or sustainability;

q) climate change, if caused by mankind, is a bad thing; it inevitably results in a decrease in biodiversity and sustainability;

r) the degree to which climate changes is not a factor in either p) or q);

s) humans are evil and all other species are good;

t) other species are not superior to humans;

u) there is no contradiction, inconsistency, or paradox in the simultaneous truth of s) and t);

That said, I will not be posting on this board again until I have completed the remainder of my essay on the effect of global warming on food production. I hope to have the section on HEAT ready to post early next week. Have a good weekend, all of you.

Regards,
Trevor

Posted by: Trevor | February 26, 2009 12:27 PM

Richard the tone of your post betrays your agenda. You have no intention of changing your lifestyle and resent those who are willing to do it. So what motivates you? Frustration from losses in two election cycles? Feeling marginalized by the overwhelming weight of the evidence of AGW?

Those aren't real questions because I don't really care why any of you get trapped in this denial loop. You're part of the problem, and until you can see what is happening all around you, the heavy lifting will be done for you by others.

Posted by: mikatollah | March 9, 2009 7:00 AM

John,

I do what I can. I carry my canvas grocery bags to the store, and I've replaced all of my non-reading bulbs with fluorescent bulbs. As I upgrade my appliances I buy the energy saver models. I'll buy an electric plug-in for my next car. I have two 85 watt solar panels that can run virtually everything in my motor home (can't run my wife's hair dryer). We make a game out of seeing how far we can go without plugging in... baby steps. I would like to one day start producing my own solar power for my home.

More importantly, I support legislation that moves us away from the use of fossil fuels and towards clean energy. In the meantime, I will support efforts to motivate power plants to meet clean air standards. I support increasing CAFE standards for our passenger cars. I think the future of our country and the world is wind, solar, hydro and other renewable sources of energy. Hydrogen is an exciting possibility for the future. Natural gas is a good stop-gap fuel for trucks and other heave equipment until the technology catches up.

I think the world needs to totally ween itself off of fossil fuels. It's going to take awhile, but we can't afford to wait until the last drop of oil has been burned before we make the switch.

Serious change doesn't occur in this country until people are motivated to change. The government can speed up the process with good policies that move us in a positive direction. Corporate America would never have taken lead out of gasoline on its own. Our cities would still look like Beijing if we hadn't taken firm regulatory action. The time to act on AGW is now...

Posted by: mikatollah | March 9, 2009 3:20 PM

Crakar,
like you, I've been away from these pages for a couple of weeks. Just to dwell for a moment on a triviality, shouldn't that say "Labor Party"? It appears the Brits can spell "Labour", but the Aussies, for some curious reason I've never understood, prefer "Labor".
Cheers
P.

Posted by: Peter Doidge | March 10, 2009 7:20 PM

mikatollah, Why can't you answer my question without questioning my motives? What you have done to reduce your carbon footprint is less than what I have done. So what? Passing laws to make me do more, still begs the question. How much do I - or you - have to reduce our carbon footprints to impact AGW? If you don't know, it behooves you to find out. If I don't know, how can I know what you will require of me?

Posted by: richard | March 11, 2009 11:56 AM

Crakar

I tend to think that Emissions trading (Cap and trade) is an overly complicated system, and hasn't really been all that successful in Europe. A simple carbon tax would be far more simple, useful and efficient. Less possibility of cronyism and/or speculation. Use the tax revenue to fund R&D (though using it to provide tax breaks for lower income earners isn't a bad idea, I just don't prefer it).

Barack O'Bush
C'mon, man, Obama may not be the perfect President, but he's not even anywhere near approaching the awfulness of Dubbya.

Posted by: Adam | March 11, 2009 4:26 PM

P. Doidge

I hate to spoil your trivial reflections but us Aussies have been using 'labour' and 'colour' as our spellings ever since first landing here. It's the Yankees that give you the contractions you find so offensive.

Posted by: Matt Bennett | March 11, 2009 11:24 PM

Hi Adam,

Firstly i must agree with P. Doidge it is in fact the "Labor" party, even the political party spell it without the "U". Should it have a "U" or not i do not know but they spell it without one.

Secondly, yes it was a typo i should have said 500 million (not enough zeros thanks for the correction). Still the question remains why did the planet not fry. Do not get side tracked with sarcasm just respond to the question i asked , why did the planet not fry? In regards to accuracy of the data from way back then, yes i agree it is open to conjecture but the C02 levels 500 million years ago would have been higher regardless. So once again why did the planet not fry?

Thirdly, thanks for the detailed account decade by decade, as you say spending 10 minutes with the data does show a lot. The data i am looking at (your link)tells me that in 2004 the levels were 376ppm and in 2008 they are 385ppm that makes it 9ppm increase in 4 years, and if my math is correct thats about 2ppm per year. In fact open further reading i discovered that in 1959 the levels were 315.98 and in 2008 the levels were 385.57. The increase as i said previously was at an almost linear trend. So once again i ask the question were did the IPCC get its figure of 4.1ppm per year. It sure as hell was not based on any scientific grounds (refer show of hands in previous post).

Lastly, i noticed you ignored all the relavent points to my post, you know the ones that point out the lack of disclosure on how the IPCC reached its conclusions about C02, experiments etc Something which i have become accustomed to when talking with believers. I am not surprised as AGW is like any other religion it is primarily faith based.

Just to prove a point i have a question that i would like answered:

A few months ago we were bombarded with a scary story saying because of GW the oceans are warming and releasing C02 which caused more warming, which caused more C02 release from the oceans which caused more warming etc, then a scientist came up with the idea that we could lace the oceans with some concoction to make them absorb C02 instead.

No sooner had that story dropped off the front page we are now being flooded with scary stories about the oceans becoming acidic due to all the extra man made C02 they are absorbing and in a few years the coral will dissolve and all fish will die.

Now we both know the only way an ocean can absorb C02 is if it cools so my question is does GW cause the oceans to warm and release C02 as per story #1 or does GW cause the oceans to cool and absorb C02 as per story #2?

Or a third option does GW cause both to happen at the same time?

I challenge anyone reading this to answer the question, bonus points to those that do it without mentioning the phrase "the latest computer models predict".

Cheers

Crakar

Posted by: Crakar14 | March 12, 2009 6:03 PM

Thirdly, thanks for the detailed account decade by decade, as you say spending 10 minutes with the data does show a lot. The data i am looking at (your link)tells me that in 2004 the levels were 376ppm and in 2008 they are 385ppm that makes it 9ppm increase in 4 years, and if my math is correct thats about 2ppm per year. In fact open further reading i discovered that in 1959 the levels were 315.98 and in 2008 the levels were 385.57. The increase as i said previously was at an almost linear trend.

If you look at the numbers I showed there, it was a rough attempt to show that the rate of increasing carbon dioxide concentrations is increasing (positive second derivative). If you think about it, this makes perfect sense.
http://www.earth-policy.org/Indicators/CO2/2006_CO2small.GIF
If we're already already seeing a CO2 concentration increase of approximately 2ppm/year, why would you expect this to stay the same under the business-as-usual assumption (which results in increasing carbon emissions)? We see a rising rate of concentration increase as emissions increase, why would this relationship suddenly stop?
Further more, you site the increase from 1959 to 2008 as evidence of linearity. This is an increase of 70ppm in 50 years, or about 1.4ppm/year. This is NOT approximately linear to 2ppm. This is a result we would expect if we're seeing approximately 2ppm/year currently, and less earlier (more like ~1ppm/year). I'm really not sure why this is a difficult concept.

Posted by: Adam | March 13, 2009 8:47 PM

You're qualm seems to be that you think we are seeing linearly increasing CO2 concentrations (zero second derivative). I demonstrated that we aren't, and that increasing CO2 emissions leads to an increasing rate of CO2 concentrations. Based purely on this, the increase of 4.1pppm/year average by 2100 seems reasonable. Additionally, this is ignoring other effects, such as deforestation, release from permafrost, etc.

If you really want to know where the IPCC got their numbers from, you'll actually read the report. If you don't find their reasoning adequate, you should bring up what specifically about their conclusions and assumptions do you find disagreeable? Then we can talk about that. Until then, you're making an intellectually dishonest argument.

Posted by: Adam | March 15, 2009 9:09 PM

Hello again Adam,

Yes i agree an increase in C02 emissions leads to an increase in concentration (ignoring all other factors) and just for you i did a bit of math on the figures from Mauna Loa and here they are;

From 1959 to 69 C02 was up by 8.1ppm
69 to 78 12.31ppm or 1.231ppm per year
79 to 88 16.33ppm or 1.633ppm per year
89 to 98 15.33ppm or 1.533ppm per year
99 to 08 18.74ppm or 1.874ppm peryear

Now the IPCC guessed/exaggerated C02 levels would rise on average by 4.1ppm per year from 2000 to 2100 and yet never in recorded history has a level this high ever been recorded, in fact the highest ever recorded increase in one year is 2.93ppm which happened in 1998 (thats interesting isnt it).

So now for the IPCC to get it right we need an average of 4.34ppm from now on until 2100 and every year we fail to meet this figure the average blows out even further.

I put it to you that there was not one shred of scientific input into establishing the IPCC Co2 levels. In fact i fail to see how it could unless science is now into playing guessing games 100 years out. And if the Co2 levels are over estimated by what could be a very large amount then the IPCC temp guess by 2100 is also very much over estimated agreed?

Posted by: Crakar14 | March 15, 2009 10:49 PM

Dipshit hey, good one. i can call people names aswell. Would you like me to stoop to your level?

I will have you know i have done a lot of reading which is why i think this whole AGW thing is a load of bull.

Here is something i have read

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/OceanCooling/page1.php

It falls into the category of what did you call it? Ah yes here it is

"You're more interested in creating the appearance of impropriety on the part of the scientific community than you are in being educated"

This is a good story i wont spoil it for you but what i do find interesting is that the data prior to 2003 does not match the models so they change the data to now match it. But then a rather fun thing happens as the data from 2003 to now does not match the models either. So what are they to do? change the data again?

In regards to warming oceans you know i could have sworn they were cooling got something to do with -PDO and AMO and probably La Nina conditions as well. But hey you cant question the data can you.

Every piece of research that you hold dear to your heart is questionable at the very least. Now before you go off calling me names again think about it for a moment. If the AGW theory was well founded and there was evidence that supported the theory would Coby have a website to manage?

Every piece of so called evidence is disputed, from ignoring thermometer readings to models that dont work either looking backwards or forwards. And now as we speak C02 levels are rising and the global temps are dropping why is that.

Posted by: Crakar14 | March 15, 2009 11:12 PM

I think we both read a lot but have a different view based on preconceptions.

I heard a saying the other day, "you cannot reason someone out of a position if reason was not how they got there in the first place"

Not suggesting this applies to you well maybe both of us.

Until tomorrow then?

Cheers

Posted by: Crakar14 | March 15, 2009 11:54 PM

Crakar -

Using your numbers:
Decade ppm/year Increase
1970____0.81_____52%
1980____1.23_____33%
1990____1.63_____-6%
2000____1.53_____22%
2010____1.87_____25%
2020____2.34_____25%
2030____2.93_____25%
2040____3.66_____25%
2050____4.58_____25%
2060____5.72_____25%
2070____7.15_____25%
2080____8.94_____25%
2090____11.17____25%
2100____13.96____25%

Average 4.82ppm/year

The average of the percent increase of CO2 concentrations per year per decade of the numbers you suggested is ~25% (a bit more actually, but what's .1% amongst friends?) So, just for convenience, I used that for future projections. Low and behold, if you average it out, you get 4.82ppm/year (higher if you discount the earlier decades).

Now, I would not present this in a scientific paper, nor would I be even willing to bet YOUR money on it. It makes several assumptions that can reasonably be criticized. The intention, however, is not to make projections for the future, but to demonstrate that non-linear relationships have the potential to explode very rapidly. Now, if I was doing this seriously, rather than just to demonstrate a point, it'd make a lot more sense to project emissions, feedback, etc. and make concentration predictions from that. Fortunately, I don't need to do that because it's already been done.

Now, I've said as much about this as I intend to. If you have a specific qualm with the IPCC projections, we can discuss specifics. Raging "ZOMG, WAR DID DEY GIT DEZ NUMBAHS" is pointless, because you can read the report.

Posted by: Adam | March 16, 2009 10:22 AM

You raise a very good point Trog, how much is exactly. The Australian senate has just rejected the ETS for differing reasons.

The Labor party wanted to reduce emissions by 5% of 2000 levels with room in the legislation to increase that amount (depending on Copenhagen results)in order for the bill to pass they needed the support of either the Greens or the opposition.

The Greens rejected the bill because the reduction in levels was too low in their opinion, they wanted about 40% of 2000 levels.

The opposition rejected the bill because 5% would do nothing to reduce GW but would cost the economy millions of dollars etc. However i suspect the opposition are the more sceptical of all parties and some have spoken out against AGW. I also suspect there are quite a few sceptics in the labor party but are too afraid to speak out as they must vote along party lines.

So how much is enough? Well if you believe what gets written here you would have to say that we should reduce levels back to the preindustrial times of 275ppm (1750) as we are told ALL CO2 produced since then was caused by man.

What do you think?

Posted by: crakar14 | August 16, 2009 9:53 PM

Yes i saw the link you provided, Smith's analogy of the amount of CO2 is very good as when you try and explain CO2 levels expressed in ppms the average punter's eyes just sort of glaze over as it is way above them. This way they can put it into a more relavent perspective.

Its a bit like trying to tell someone there is global warming when it is cold outside like the 10 US states that has recorded the coldest (6) and second coldest (4) July's on record (1890's). Then you have the alarmists saying "AGW made it less cool" the point is completely lost on some people.

Posted by: crakar14 | August 16, 2009 11:14 PM

Standing on the shoulders of giants.

Update on this thread:

I spent the early part of my morning reading this whole thread. Among the more interesting exchanges was from one "Trevor", who tapped into his agronomic knowledge to argue, in essence, that projections of temperature and CO2 increases would actually bode well for humanity--on average--by promoting food production,
Trevor's overall point . . .

. . . at least in this series of posts, is that, in terms of global food production, and global food production alone, global warming, if it continues, will have a net positive effect. I also happen to believe that there are other benefits to global warming, like fewer human deaths due to cold weather (which will far outnumber any additional deaths due to hot weather). And furthermore, I think that, among the negative effects of global warming, most of them are not nearly as certain, nor as grave, as the alarmists claim.

my point was NEVER that AGW was, IN GENERAL, a good thing . . . I do recognize the potential harmful effects of global warming on such issues as rising sea levels, localized drought, localized flooding, and possibly even the extinction of a few species. I just don't place as much importance on those issues [relative to more pressing concerns such as hunger, etc.]

Although implicit in his argument was that this was a relatively short term projection. He seemed largely indifferent to or ignorant of the potential *long* term impacts of AGW.

Matt Bennett astutely pointed out a key issue Trevor was not grasping:

So, you see, the threat this time round [relative to other historic changes in climate] is the ABNORMAL SPEED with which this is happening, due to our digging up and quickly releasing billions of tons of long ago sequestered carbon. No time for biological adaptation, which is why global warming will prove to be the biggest disaster mankind has ever faced and then some.--Matt Bennet

Matt Bennett at one point suggested Trevor was "beneath contempt", leading to a number of colorful exchanges, such as Trevor's insistence that Matt was being inconsistent in his valuations of different life forms. Trevor's logic at times became pedantic and bizarrre:

You [Matt, are] still a planetist, a climate-ist, a concern-ist, an insight-ist, a pathetic-ist, a religion-ist, a zealotry-ist, and a domion-ist. To that list, I can now add consistency-ist, temporalist (you don't like "out of date" people, innateness-ist, and logic-ist.--Trevor

How about this one, Matt? You are, obviously, concerned about the effects of global warming. But why? Can't we just move to another planet if it gets too hot here? Or do you believe, like me, that there is no other planet capable of supporting human life? Do you believe that this planet, Earth, is therefore "SUPERIOR" to all other planets in terms of its ability to support human life? Do you PREFER to live on this planet, and therefore DISCRIMINATE AGAINST all other planets? Does that not make you a "planetist"? -- Trevor

If you don't apply this whole prejudice thing equally, than you're a life-ist, or a concept-ist. -- Trevor

Yet your concern for other species clearly DOES NOT extend to each individual member of those species, because you have no concern at all about the billions of individual viruses that you killed inside your own body.

Even if you are a vegetarian, then you still eat plant matter, which means you are harming plant species.--Trevor

This was all extremely enteraining to read, if not necessarily convincing. Other times Trevor echoed distinctly Crakerian conspiracy theories:

If there were any agronomists at all in the section [of the IPCC] that wrote that chapter, they were hand-picked to be the ones that could be counted on to deliver a negative finding.--Trevor

At one point Trevor became defensive in his promotion of the superiority of the human species:

I proudly proclaim that I have never conversed with a rat . . .

(This guy doesn't drink *nearly* enough gin.)

. . . discussed politics with a magnolia, drank a beer with a lichen, been a roommate with a zebra, joined a country club that allowed artichokes as members, bathed with a chimpanzee, dated a watermelon, kissed a pig, married a dolphin, or had sex with a sheep.

(When I read the last part I couldn't help but wonder if Crakar could give me the same assurance in earnest. Sorry, mate; couldn't restist.)

Trevor made the occasional, superficially shrewd piont:

Clearly, among major ecosystem changes, you have a distinct PREJUDICE against those caused by the deterministic actions of mankind, and a distinct PREFERRENCE for those caused by random chance and nature.

But this is of course a straw man, because any reasonable person would hedge against preventable risks even as they lament the unavoidable ones: Just because driving off a cliff will you kill you anyway doesn't mean you have no reason to wear your seatbelt.

At one point "mikatolla" suggested:

Trevor, you have the gift of crap... there aren't many of us who can bounce around from the obvious to the ridiculous in one insulting post,

There was the occasional nitwit post such as this from one "T Lu", who claimed to be "an engineer".

So, even using the numbers which Al Gore suggests as being real, my question is how can any thinking person really believe that such a minor change in the overall makeup of the earth's atmosphere [from a few parts per million to a few more parts per million Co2] would have a "dramatic" impact on the temperature of the earth?--T Lu

I am assuming this argument from incredulity needs no comment, right? Right up there with, "The Earth doesn't *look* round, so . . . "

And at one point our dear Crakar chimed in, diverting off the main thread topic by questioning how the IPCC produced its figure of 4.1 ppm average increase in cO2 concentration until Adam set him straight using Crakar's own numbers.

Matt Bennett suggested that Crakar

try doing some more reading and you won't always look like such a dipshit.

He later apologized for this, although I have to admit some of my exchanges with Crakar have stirred similar sentiments.

(Crakar left the subject, and shortly thereafter, the thread.)

Curiously, Crakar brough up his "hotspot" point here:

The above are the three key parameters used to establish climate sensitivity, all 3 have been overstated by the IPCC and the proof is in the hot spot. All the models on which the IPCC relies on predict the hot spot and yet none can be found.

This was reminiscent of the first blowout Crakar and I had on *Hockey Stick Open*:

. I [am] not constrained by preconceived beliefs have[sic] the ability to change my point of view. The best example that immediately springs to mind is the missing hot spot, the mere fact that the hot spot does not exist clearly falsifies the theory of AGW, if the hot spot suddenly appeared for all to see then I would seriously consider the theory of AGW to be very robust and highly plausible.

By the way, Crakar made his first You-can-take-this-blog-and-shove-it farewell speech before this hotspot thing was ever debated.

One contributor, "dev", tried to stay on topic:

Even if you[sic] science turns out to be right your solutions make no sense. Serious economists can find nothing on this site to justify the literally trillions that would be required to implement a serious solution.

And the last post--a link to a CNN article about green alternatives, was by me. No one responded. Sigh.

So that, in a nutshell, is where this this thread stands at the moment.

Does anyone--Crakar, SKepticalByNature, MB, Michael?--wish to discuss these issues of the relative costs of action versus inaction on AGW? Its actually the one place where "deniers" actually have plausible sounding points, although in the end the fail badly, as I will argue with anyone so inclined.

Posted by: skip | January 22, 2010 11:14 AM

) The amount the Earth will warm by from a doubling of CO2 (to 450 ppm) is open to debate ... 4) If the Earth ‘only’ warms by 1 or 1.5 Deg C, my ‘gut-feeling’ is that adaptation + progressive emissions reduction may be sufficient.

My first gut feeling is why should I give *your* gut feeling that 1C to 1.5C that adaption plus progressive emissions reductions may be sufficient?

Who are you, and why is your gut important? Is it extra-large, hanging-over-the-belt-to-your-knees important, somehow?

My rational, intellectual, response is that 1C to 1.5C isn't on the table in the world of science, so your point #4 isn't worth thinking about.

2C minimum. Grok it, digest it, deal with it.

Posted by: dhogaza | January 22, 2010 9:18 PM

Skip,
I’ll have to go slow on this topic, what with my fat gut and all, which naturally causes most of the blood in my brain to rush to my stomach . . .
Since I’m going to be in learning mode, I’m not worried if your comments with others on this thread supersede any I subsequently make. I’ll be learning all the while anyway.
Now, to return your politeness in providing an interesting link for me to read (the content of which I am still digesting; hope there’s room left in there by the time I complete my standard 11-course dinner; gotta keep that gut growing), I read the following interesting article based on comments and a paper by Stephen E. Schwartz. I have done a basic background check and he seems credible, don’t you think? I know most of the content in the links is only tangential to the discussion of economic impacts, but it is important that I not wait time researching economic pros and cons of any particular temperature rise, if not all temperature rises are credible.
I’ll use Crakar’s trick (oops—dirty word) of putting periods between the www so the post is not modded.
See: http://w.w.w.bnl.gov/bnlweb/pubaf/pr/PR_display.asp?prID=1067
The link to the paper abstract is within the above webpage.

A key piece I took out from the linked site states:
“A key question facing policymakers is how much additional CO2 and other heat-trapping gases can be introduced into the atmosphere, beyond what is already present, without committing the planet to a dangerous level of human interference with the climate system. Many scientists and policymakers consider the threshold for such dangerous interference to be an increase in global temperature of 3.6°F above the preindustrial level, although no single threshold would encompass all effects.
The paper describes three scenarios: If Earth’s climate sensitivity is at the low end of current estimates as given by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, then the total maximum future emissions of heat-trapping gases so as not to exceed the 3.6° threshold would correspond to about 35 years of present annual emissions of CO2 from fossil-fuel combustion. A climate sensitivity at the present best estimate would mean that no more heat-trapping gases can be added to the atmosphere without committing the planet to exceeding the threshold. And if the sensitivity is at the high end of current estimates, present atmospheric concentrations of heat-trapping gases are such that the planet is already committed to warming that substantially exceeds the 3.6° threshold.”

To which my immediate thought to myself was: Yikes!

Regards,

Posted by: SkepticalbyNature | January 24, 2010 4:05 PM

Skip,
Here's a related article and another interesting quote from Schwartz:
w.w.w.ecd.bnl.gov/news/NationalPost.html
"Recall World War II, where everyone was making a sacrifice: gas rationing, tire rationing, no new car production, food rationing," he explains. "I don't think the people of the world are ready or prepared to make such a level of personal sacrifice. Perhaps when the consequences of climate change become more apparent that will change. But by that time, there will be irreversible changes in climate."

I think the above provides useful perspective for the layman (i.e. someone like me who requires some analogy rather than hardcore scientific or economic theory). So, do you think, if mankind was really serious about addressing the potential negative effects of AGW, we would buy into this kind of sacrifice? How many people would be willing to take their standard of living back 50 years? Or indeed, are we talking about anything as draconian as that?

I understand some first-world governments have/had talked about cutting CO2 emissions by 50% by 2020 and 80% by 2050 (Britain is amongst that group, I believe). If the energy-use inherent in that level of cuts is not replaced by available green technologies, then it implies a certain drop in the standard of living compared to today, e.g. carless days, or power outages, etc. Will any government be able to sufficiently convince their people that making a sacrifice to their standard of living is the right thing to do?
Personally, I think democracy will work against the principle of acting prudently against risks posed by AGW. If the Chinese (to take an example) ever got serious about counteracting AGW, one could imagine that regime imposing directives even if their people did not like them or want them. However, would you really like to live under a China-style administration, today, or ever?

I know this thread is supposed to be a discussion on the economics of addressing AGW, but what do you think of the notion (almost implicit in some of Schwartz's comments) that we could buy ourselves time by using the cooling effects of aerosols to counteract some warming, so we could let the development of green technology catch-up with our energy use needs, and hence we would have some time up our sleeves? How we would geo-engineer the climate is beyond me, not to mention the potentially catastrophic effects if we got such intervention wrong. Also, assuming we allowed CO2 levels to gradually increase along the present trend, if we were to subsequently remove the aerosol effect, wouldn't we just be delaying harmful warming until a few centuries away?

Irrespective of what I may be reading myself, if you happen upon any good links to discussions of the economic issues relating to adaptation/change, I'll be happy to follow them up.

Regards,

Posted by: SkepticalbyNature | January 25, 2010 3:03 PM

Make sure you find the report by McKinsey referenced here http://climateprogress.org/2008/12/29/mckinsey-2008-research-in-review-stabilizing-at-450-ppm-has-a-net-cost-near-zero/
Joe's summary there is pretty good.

Posted by: GFW | January 25, 2010 6:13 PM

Following on from my last post, if we are to assume a JOS of 1 then no mitigation or adaptation can save us from AGW. Lets ask a few questions, what is causing AGW? Increases in CO2 levels, so how do we stop this from happening? Reduce emissions of CO2. How do we do that?

Well we wont do it by lacing the atmosphere with sulphur or any other hare brained idea (reminds me of a joke i'll send it to you Skip).

We could do a keanu Reeves and stop the world (The day the Earth stood still Reg TM) but that may cause more problems as has been stated so what are the alternatives, here is a list of failures and partial successes.

1, Hot rocks: the idea is to drill two holes through the crust about 2 K's deep sleeve the holes, pump water down one hole and collect the steam in another to drive turbines. The last time i checked the sleeves ruptured in the holes and the project has been all but abandoned.

2, Wind: Another flight of fancy from the green tinged sector, wind is unreliable in fact during the last cold spell in the UK (you know when coal and gas was running low) wind farms produced almost zero power because they suddenly discovered there is not much wind when it snows.

3, Nuclear, (fission) or as presdint Booosch liked to say nookular (thats for our Amercan cousins) is not the answer for three reasons, the first is that it will take many years to get a plant up and running and as UK PM Gordon Brown has already told us "we only have 50 days to save the planet"....hang on 46, 47, 48, 49...hey he bullshitted us again Skip.

Reason two: A nookular plant may not produce CO2 but it does produce a tremendous amount of water vapour and we all know what that does to the greenhouse effect.

And three: The amount of radioactive waste produced during the mining stage of uranium is staggering coupled with the problem of waste disposal in addition to the threat of a "china syndrome" makes nookular worse than coal.

4, Political policies: Hmmm need i say more?

5, Nuclear, (fusion)A technology in its infancy but research is gaining momentum around the world, fusion is a clean energy (very slight radioactive) who's only by product is helium. The advantage in this technology is that it cannot run away (china syndrome)like its cousin and if the research ever bares fruit the wet dreams of every greenie will come true. Of all the technologies discussed this is the only real option from coal and gas. Alas if only the 50 billion and counting was not given to the IPCC inquisition of CO2 and instead funnelled in this direction we may not even be here chatting.

6, Solar: Solar has its place, solar can off set the amount of energy we use. For example if every house had a couple of panels and every supermarket/factory had some panels then our reliance on coal and gas would be reduced, thus reducing CO2 from spiralling out of control at a staggering 2ppm per year.

The problem with solar like wind like all the rest they cannot replace the base load of a coal or gas fired power station, and there ladies and gentlemen lies the problem.

Anyone can feel free to comment on my comments or add to the list (maybe i missed some).

Cheers

Crakar24

Posted by: crakar24 | January 26, 2010 8:29 PM

Skip i think you misunderstood some of my post, maybe you should take off your "defender of the faith" hat for a while and just have a conversation.

When i said "Following on from my last post, if we are to assume a JOS of 1 then no mitigation or adaptation can save us from AGW."

I meant that we cannot dither around with pipe dreams like hot rocks etc. We cannot simply build walls to stop the oceans, we cannot simply mix shit in with jet fuel in a vain attempt to block out the sun.

What we do need to do is replace coal and gas fired power stations with an alternative BASE LOAD power.

I then went through the current crop of possibles to do this and IMHO i beleive the only viable option was nuclear fusion, this came with the caveat that i may have missed an alternative.

A JOS of 1 is perfectly reasonable when you consider that the effects of AGW can already be witnessed (arctic ice loss, glacial recession, amazonian flora and fauna dying, droughts, floods and cyclones/hurricanes, etc) and we are going to see a temp rise of another 3 to 6C if you accept the IPCC POV.

And no my JOS was not done in a vaccuum as you suggest, you are talking about follow on consequences of what we do, i understand that but imagine a time when we develop fusion or some other replacement of base load power, both this and coal running in parallel we then turn off the coal. Simple really isnt it? Wind, solar, hot rocks, shit in jet fuel or any other flights of fancy you can think of WILL NOT be able to replace coal or gas as a BASE LOAD POWER SUPPLY.

But lets talk some more about idiotic knee jerk decisions that have been done in a vaccuum.

Currently KRudd and K.D Wong are planning to reintroduce the ETS & CPRS, yes thats right the very same ETS which was voted down right before COP15. The idea is to hit our biggest export which is coal with a TAX, who is our biggest trading partner of coal? Thats right China. China will not lift one finger to reduce CO2 and either will any other exporter of coal.

So we now apply a TAX to coal will China buy our expensive coal or will it buy coal cheaper from somewhere else? Not to mention the fact that this TAX will raise prices on everything we see, touch, smell and hear and for what? Will Australia's CO2 emissions fall....NO they will not and seeing how no other country in the world will conform to COP15's non binding agreement then all KRudd will achieve is economic disaster. The vanity of the man holds no bounds.

The bit about the sheep is somewhat troubling i never thought of that. On the other hand we do have plenty of camels here (more drought tolerant) of course you would have to domesticate it first other wise it may all end in tears.

Posted by: crakar24 | January 27, 2010 8:33 PM

Not sure i am following you in this chat Skip, you either do not understand what i am saying or are you just itching for a fight.

Question:

How would you propose we "wean" ourselves off fossils?

I dont understand the next bit, i mentioned KRudds desire to TAX the coal industry and then stated that the scheme will have no effect on CO2 emissions thus why do it.

No rehash, no guilt by association just a logic based question. I will rephrase it this way, if our aim is to reduce emissions then any plan/scheme that does not reduce emissions is useless....yes?

No need to drag out the old death to all denier placards Skip, just relax and have a conversation, if you are simply in this for the fight then let me know.

Posted by: crakar24 | January 27, 2010 10:05 PM