The bottom line

Cimourdain,

Two of the most convincing critics I've read are from the left [...].
I have to say that I really dislike the right/left terminology. They don't seem to denote anything concrete.

Yet you presumably still consider it meaningful, since you've just employed it.

I wonder what effect on peace global warming is going to have. America already invaded a country for its oil (yes ok, its more complicated than that). I wonder how relations between Canada and the US will hold up under pressure...

Jadehawk,OM: "Post 498"

The peer review proccess as it applies to AGW, tells us it's happening and it's a problem. What to do about it, is a political problem to be decided on by politicians that are elected by voters (most of whom I suspect have never heard of the peer review proccess). Being a successful peer reviewed scientist involves skills which do not neccessarilly make one good at (and may even make one bad at) politics.

Hopefully, the politicians will not discard the consensus on AGW. But how much warming is tolerable and what actions to take are going to be different among different constituencies. Sorting this out is a political problem.

I Breifly checked out the Dunning-Kruger effect. Interesting stuff. Got any peer reviewed studies showing a consensus on contrarian views leading to it?

As a brit you just can't understand our holiday troll traditions I fear. So Merry Goatmas! and may your holiday be full of robot munkeys jacking off!

*mind boggles*

OK, I am now imagining a holiday celebration where revellers, bedecked in ceremonial cephalopod hats and robotic monkey suits, exchange traditional seasonal insults before sitting down to a festive meal of bacon and ice cream. The bacon is slightly burnt to symbolise the Medieval Warming Period, while the ice cream, of course, is served at the Optimum Temperature of the Planet. After dinner, the party-goers recite the ritual prayer for enlightenment - "O mighty Zeus, reveal unto thy humble servants how it is that there are PYGMIES and DWARFS" - before setting fire to a sacrificial goat and shooting it into orbit.

This year, of course, the tradition has been modernised for reasons of health, safety and animal welfare: an effigy of Glenn Beck is now used instead of a goat.

Cimourdain,

Well, the first and most important answer to that is trade liberalization. This is the number one thing that can be done to help more people for the least amount of money, all over the world. When a tsunami ravages Indonesia or Bangladesh, hundreds of thousands can die. Throughout Africa, millions die from the smoke of cooking fires, or fall to drought, or die of disease or a million other scourges of the natural world. And what does the First World do? It gives out huge amounts of cash to subsidize kleptocrazies, while maintaining massive trade barriers that gut any hope at the development of the ordinary people. This is a sub-Brechtian racket.

Yes, this is what I keep pointing out. The US farm bill and the EU Common Agricultural Policy are, essentially, legalised corruption on a massive scale. They spend billions subsidising vast Western agri-businesses, while starving producers in the developing world who can't compete. The whole system of agricultural subsidies and tariff barriers is designed to benefit the wealthy few, while screwing over some of the world's most vulnerable people. Furthermore, not only is the current system of subsidies grossly immoral, it isn't even necessary for preserving the domestic farm industry; New Zealand abolished most of its farm subsidies in the 1980s, and it still has a thriving and efficient agricultural sector.

Unfortunately, the cosy links between the farming lobby and politicians in the US, and in some EU member states (France being the worst example), make it unlikely that serious reform of agricultural subsidies or trade laws will ever take place.

It seems that Jadehawk and PL beat me to a response. I have a few things to add, but they'll have to wait.

Cimourdain another cornucopian libertarian nutcase,

No. It's technological, industrial solutions, or none. Which is good, because, unlike government crap, these are solutions that actually work.

Yet more libertarian bullshit. And you want to get politics out of this ?
Then stop denying reality.

Canman,

I'd like to see the political debate be between cutting carbon and geoengineering.

Why would there be a debate between the two when it's quite obvious that we are going to need both.

Cimourdain,

And, a_ray, please get politics out from this. Two of the most convincing critics I've read are from the left, Bjorn Lomberg and Phillip Stott.

Do you actually make use of your brain when you write stuff like this ?

Walton,

I note that you still haven't replied to my question.

Canman,
The problem with geoengineering solutions is that we have no such solutions to address the current problem. The most commonly proposed geoengineering solution is use of sulfate aerosols, but there are several big problems
1)The time scales: The effects of aerosols last for months, while those of CO2 last for decades to centuries.
2)Acidification--it's not generally a good idea to have H2SO4 raining on your parade.
3)Masking of warming--If we find that we must stop the use of aerosols (e.g. due to acidification), then you would see a huge and sudden spike in warming.
4)CO2 is among the best known of all climate forcings, while aerosols carry with them considerable uncertainties. In effect, you are rejecting the solution we can best model for efficacy and replacing it with one where our models are more uncertain. This is a little like finding you have walked into a mine field. The best stragegy is to tiptoe out the way you came in.

As to other geoengineering ideas. I don't know where I can buy any carbon-gobbling trees as Dyson suggests. Ocean ferro-fertilization was a failure. Carbon-capture and storage is not economical. Terra-preta could have some effectiveness, but has not been validated on a large scale. And on and on.

Unfortunately, at present, geo-engineering is simply a disguise for inaction. It is not that I am against it. I think we will have to avail ourselve of some and perhaps lots of geoengineering to get through this. However, there simply is no viable technique at present.

I said: "I'd like to see the political debate be between cutting carbon and geoengineering."

negentropyeater: "Why would there be a debate between the two when it's quite obvious that we are going to need both."

It's not a black/white issue. How much disruptive carbon cutting do we want to do? How prudent do we want to be with new geoengineering schemes?

Cimourdian says, "Solidarity with the wretched of the earth used to be a centrepiece of the left, but these days it seems the wretched of the earth can go hang in the eyes of the First World leftist intelligentsia."

Cimourdian, sweetie, I spent 2 years of my life as a volunteer in Togo training science teachers. I taught villagers to build improved, safe cook stoves and to filter water to prevent guinea worm. When you can match that for commitment to the "wretched of the earth," then we can talk about solidarity, 'kay.

Now, if I can strip away the diatribe from the constructive suggestions, I get two:

1)Trade liberalization
2)Technology will save us!!!

Now the thing is, I'm all for both of these, and it is my sincere hope that the developing world can wring some concessions on the former out of climate talks. None of these, however does anything to stop the already-too-high CO2 levels from going even higher. Both take significant amounts of time to work, and technological solutions will take considerable investment that is unlikely to occur when the payoff may be decades away. So, again, I'm asking, can free-marketeers (since you don't like the term "political right") supply any more detail than "And then a technological miracle occurs!"

For instance, how do we hold CO2 levels low enough that we are confident we won't hit any tipping points before technological solutions can be developed--say in 2050 or so?

a_ray_in_dilbert_space,

Regarding Post 509,

Just read an article online about Nathan Myhrvold, a former Microsoft guy who has a sulfur pumping scheme. He says other things can be substituted for sulfur.

As to your list of 4 problems:

1)The time scales: AS we do this stuff, we learn more and get better at it.

2)Acidification: This is not a black/white issue. How much H2SO4 do we want to keep from raining on my parade.

3)Masking of warming: We need contigencies. If sulfur causes problems, try the next best candidate.

4)CO2 is among the best known of all climate forcings: We know that we put a lot of it up there and reducing it is going to take a long time. I'm for trying somthing faster.

You are missing the point--there isn't an ideal aerosol producer--and the fact that aerosols last weeks to months means we have to use a helluva lot of it and keep using it. Myrvhold, unfortunately, is a loon. He has zero understanding of climate and not enough patience to learn. If this were easy, the smart people wouldn't be so concerned.

Walton, we don't to put the goats in orbit anymore. NORAD complained.

oh yeah, I missed the part where you're blaming your "nature" for your misery. Guess what, your nature is that of a social animal, and your society is one that produces the 2nd largest percentage of mentally ill people (after the U!S!A!, which of course is NUMBER ONE!![/sarcasm]).

That would be pretty impressive and interesting if true. Where did you take that stat from?

Walton, we don't to put the goats in orbit anymore. NORAD complained.

Trouble is, the GOATS don't tend to stay ON FIRE once they leave the stratosphere, leading to spacegoat debris.

a_ray_in_dilbert_space:

"You are missing the point--there isn't an ideal aerosol producer--and the fact that aerosols last weeks to months means we have to use a helluva lot of it and keep using it. Myrvhold, unfortunately, is a loon. He has zero understanding of climate and not enough patience to learn. If this were easy, the smart people wouldn't be so concerned."

If we have to use a lot of something and keep doing it, at least it's a sustained jobs program. As stuff like this is tried, we are bound to learn more as we go along and get better at it.

While the understanding of the science of climate might be nearing compleation (I've read that effects of water vapor are still not fully understood), I think technology has a long way to go. Bio and nano technology appear to me to be in their infancy. Computers and electronics just keep on advancing.

Even if guys like Myrvhold don't completely understand climate science, it doesn't mean they can't come up with useful technology. If he's a complete doofus, I'm sure there's others who aren't. This stuff needs to be researched.

Canman,
By all means, we need to be looking into as many geoengineering and geomitigation tactics as possible. On the other hand it would be looney to implement them before 1)they've been shown to be effective, and 2) shown not to make things worse. We aren't there. For now, decreasing carbon output is the only viable strategy for buying back the 20 or more years the denialists have cost us by refusing to accept established science.

negentropyeater (Post 472): "...when you've got Ayn Rand's worldview vectored into your cerebral cortex, like Walton or Canman ..."

Walton (Post 473): "I am not, in any way, shape or form, a follower of Rand"

Ayn Rand wrote a lot of interesting, thoughtful stuff I never saw anywhere else. Some of it is bizarre. She's too black/white and humorless for me. Christopher Hitchens called her batty.

a_ray_in_dilbert_space: (Post 518)
I've run out of thoughts. I'm leaving before the bartender kicks me out. Holy shit, it's Christmas eve. I've still got shopping to do.

That would be pretty impressive and interesting if true. Where did you take that stat from?

I don't have the source at hand, and I won't until I'm back home, but here's a couple studies that show similar results*:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez/15173149?dopt=Abstract&holding…

http://www.hcp.med.harvard.edu/wmh/IFPE_WMH.pdf (graphs on pages 22-26)

------

*btw, I might not have made this clear, but I was originally talking specifically about the developed world, since it can be hard to gather data in the developing world; however, some of the studies linked here show that even compared against poorer countries, the U.S. does very badly.

(If petroleum does get used up, AGW solves itself -- gallows humor:))

US coal-related emissions of CO2 totaled 2,125 million metric tons in 2008 (0), or about 36.5% of all US energy-related CO2 emissions. That number alone - even ignoring the coal burned in the rest of the world - is more than enough to keep atmospheric CO2 levels rising faster than any other time in the last 2 million years. Although coal is the second-largest sorce of CO2 in the US (right behind oil) it is the largest source of CO2 worldwide.
Some other important points about coal:

Hansen has said that phasing out coal “is 80% of the solution to the global warming crisis.”[7] As pointed out in Ted Nace's Climate Hope, Hansen’s reasons for emphasizing coal were fourfold:

* The amount of carbon remaining in the ground in oil and gas reserves is much smaller than the amount of carbon contained in coal reserves.[8]

* "Second, coal is the most carbon intense of the fossil fuels. Producing a kilowatt-hour of electricity from coal produces about 2.4 pounds of carbon dioxide, while producing a kilowatt-hour of electricity from natural gas produces about 1 pound of carbon dioxide. While coal produces half of the electricity used in the United States, it is responsible for 80 percent of the carbon dioxide released by electric utilities."[9]

* "Third, coal consumption is far more concentrated than the use of other fossil fuels. A mere six hundred large coal-burning power plants account for nearly all coal usage, in contrast to the tens of millions of cars, trucks, planes, homes, businesses, and factories that burn oil and gas. Thus, reducing emissions from coal is a far simpler task."[9]

* "Fourth, production of oil and gas is primarily located in countries that American domestic energy policy has little or no ability to control. Any reduction in use by the United States might well be consumed by other countries. In contrast, our ability to control the consumption of coal is substantial, since the United States leads the rest of the world in the size of its coal reserves."[9]
[...]
7. Letter from James Hansen to Nevada governor Gibbons, April 14, 2008, at www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/
8. Historical Fossil Fuel Emissions and Remaining Reserves. Source: Adapted from James Hansen et al., “Target Atmospheric CO2: Where Should Humanity Aim?” Open Atmospheric Science Journal (2008): page 11. Estimates for remaining oil, gas, and coal reserves are from Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change 2001: Mitigation, B. Metz et al., eds. (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2001).
9. 9.0 9.1 9.2 Ted Nace, Climate Hope: Chapter 1, published 2010

(From here. )

(0) Emissions of Greenhouse Gases in the United States 2008, page 10

llewelly, shouldn't coal radioactive emissions be noted too?

a_ray,

Sweetheart, I'm African born-and-bread. And that has emphasized one very important lesson, that too few seem to care - that charity is about ensuring your own virtue by fawning on the poor - and hence desiring them to remain so. Witness Mother Teresa.

So don't even try to get into the "authentic" game, 'kay?

Now, in your response you did not disgree with my comments on trade liberalization and technology. Good. What's more important, though, is that I fail to see any disagreement with my fundamental point that the hideous measures being urged by the likes of Copenhagen & Kyoto will a) have fuck-all effect on the climate, and b) immiserate the world that is too poor to fight back against such nonsense.

As regards my confidence in technological progress, it's a confidence that's repaid many times over. I'll place my confidence in technological solutions over faith in government salvation any day.

llewelly: "|(If petroleum does get used up, AGW solves itself -- gallows humor:))
.......Hansen has said that phasing out coal “is 80% of the solution to the global warming crisis
......Producing a kilowatt-hour of electricity from coal produces about 2.4 pounds of carbon dioxide, while producing a kilowatt-hour of electricity from natural gas produces about 1 pound of carbon dioxide
......coal consumption is far more concentrated than the use of other fossil fuels."

One of deshh shientishts hash dragged me back into the bar by quoting me. Hmmm, does coal fall under the category of petroleum. In the interest of technical accuracy, the next time I spring this lame quip, I'll use the term "fossil fuel".

It's time to sober up to political reality. Copenhagen doesn't look like it's accomplished much. A large portion of the public has heard about the decade long stoppage of warming and perceives it as a cooling.

Phase out coal. Eliminate it? Walton and Cimourdain aren't going to like that much. Replace it with solar? The most unconcentrated, area intensive source of electricity. Natural gas? A very volumous fuel. It can probably be retrofitted. They appear to have found a lot more of it. Heating bills are going down. It still gives off some CO2. Nuclear? I kinda like it. Hope they can harden it against accidents and terrorists. The Muhammad Ali of concentrated electricity sources. I hear breeder reactors are all the rage.

But what do I know? I'm just a starry-eyed cornucopian.

I'm just a starry-eyed cornucopian.

You're a fruit basket? Well, we don't judge around here.

Solar and wind power needs pushing properly. The obsession with it being efficient enough to be marketable and comete with coal and oil reminds me of the anti-vaxers demanding 100% safety from vaccines otherwise its just not good enough.

Cimourdian says, "Sweetheart, I'm African born-and-bread[sic]." So were Mobutu and Idi Amin, and P.W. Botha for that matter, and you strike me in their mold more than, say in the mold of, say, Mandela.

He continues: "...that charity is about ensuring your own virtue by fawning on the poor - and hence desiring them to remain so." I guess that you figure as long as you can impugn the motives of the charitable, that makes you free of any obligation toward your fellow men, eh? Sorry, dude, but altruism exists, and you can even demonstrate (via biology and game theory) that it confers a survival advantage.

And yes, I am with you on trade liberalization, but with the admonition that free markets do not just happen. Sometimes they need SMART regulation.

And although I am a technophile, I'm painfully aware that technical solutions require time. Even with an all-out effort, the Manhattan Project took half a decade, and what we require here makes the scope of that project pale in comparison. And since we have spent 2 decades debating with idiots over settled science, time, unfortunately, is precisely what we do not have.

The immediate future of the human race will be chaotic and not always pretty. Ideology will have to be supplanted by pragmatism and doing well will have to make way for making do. At stake is the question of whether the bulge of neurons on the top of our spinal column really serves any useful purpose or whether we merely use it to delude ourselves.

Richard Eis: "Solar and wind power needs pushing properly"

They're also going to need zoning.These sources take up a lot of space.

Canman, wind farms can be put on pastureland or even cropland with very little footprint.

Solar, well, not so much. Unless of course space solar power technology can be developed and commercialised.

(Geothermal and tidal are also nascent technologies with a lot of promise.)

In a_ray's post there is no refutation of the effects of these horrible copenhagen/kyoto measures - there's not even an attempt to do so. It's as though the fate of these human beings doesn't register.

This is exactly why I hate charity-heads. The mask of charity allows people to get away with things they'd otherwise be hung for. Witness the biofuels debacle. Witness Greenpeace's record of fucking the Third World. Witness the DDT scandal. On and on it goes.

The immediate future of the human race will be chaotic and not always pretty. Ideology will have to be supplanted by pragmatism and doing well will have to make way for making do.

Yeah, I've heard this before. "We have to be practical, we have to make sacrifices now..." - it's never bloody them! It's not a_ray who'll end up having to bury a child or three that choked to death because coal use get's blocked and the people are forced to rely on cooking fires.

If that's your altruism, you can stick it.

This is why I have to admire India and China, if for no other reason that they've told the kyotocrats, in so many words, to go fuck themselves.

The rest of the post is nothing more than hysterical insults. I think I can guess why. You're one of those who have been very quick to label my loathing of Islam as "racist", aren't you? Can't be nice to have the wind taken out of your sails.

ray, you can stop arguing with that moron, it won't do any good. he thinks scientists are genocidal freaks for not letting him spray the whole world from top to bottom with DDT. I even tried discussing this with him and gave him scientific citations as to why he's wrong; as a response, I got conspiracy and denialist sites and lots of (willful?) misunderstanding of what I was saying *rolleyes*

I see Cimourdain has finally assploded into complete gibberish and a persecution complex that would make a christian green with envy.

We have always made do. We have always had to make small sacrifices. Those that don't are currently enjoying massive credit card debt. You expect too much from bipedal monkeys.

Coal use will either be rationed or will run low and become unprofitable to extract. "Cooking fires" (or alternatives) are inevitable except for them that can afford it...and I doubt thats anyone on this forum.

Uh,Cimourdain, you might want to wipe that spittle away and readjust your tinfoil hat.

FYI, I think ethanol from corn is a stupid idea--less so from sugar cane.

Uh, dude, have you ever tried to inhale coal smoke? It's not a lot better than wood smoke.

And as near as I can tell, your entire mitigation approach seems to be predicated on a technological miracle. Sorry, dude, you'll need to show your work on that one to get even partial credit. Fail!

Some thoughts on solar power. While statistics show it's use to be expensive and marginal, there is clearly a lot going on here. PV streetlights really surprised me. I hear of lots of companies popping up. One selling point I like, whether it's companies selling to consumers or politicians selling subsidies to voters, is that it offers people independence. If solar really takes off, the left might be chagrinned to see it contributing to suburban sprawl.

There is also a good side to solar or wind power that is easily forgotten. Energy cooling is apparently the largest water requirement in the US. I heard 50% of all water used in the US is used for cooling.

Thing is, it doesn't have to be really good, it just has to be "not so bad". I'm sure no one complained 50 years ago when coal use wasn't as efficient as it is today.
I know a few places where it is being used and clearly there is a market... it just needs pushing and maybe government grants. Green energy is a huge "new" possible market, its just the "wrong time" for it, because other methods are slightly cheaper (yet much more toxic).
The problem is, green energy is dealing with an old market centered on fossil fuels and getting litle help to undo this from the government.

Let's see now - a_ray is whining about my tone, despite the fact that he/she thinks calling me "Idi Amin" is an acceptable debating practice, Jadehawk is lying through his/her teeth about the minor fact that I refuted each and every one of its claims, and Richard is claiming "we have to make small sacrifices", despite the inconvenient truth that there is no 'We' here, and that it is human lives that will be wrecked and destroyed by this drivel.

None of you have provided any evidence agains my basic point: these moronic measures will do nothing to the climate, and immiserate vast numbers of the wretched of the earth. You don't, because you can't. And because having a bunch of natives starved to death is of no concern to you, as long as you can feel good about yourselves. Witness the Greenpeace blockade of GM foodaid, the biofuels debacle etc. etc.

I particularly resent a_ray's weird idea that, just because he's taken a two-year extended holiday, he's competent to decide on the fate of the world's poorest.

That's my point. Phillip Stott is quite right: if you have clean water, electricity, and decent infrastructure, you'll manage no matter what's happening with the climate. Or, to state the case negatively, if there are no technological solutions to this, then there are no solutions, period.

Oh, and Jadehawk? I happen to be a scientist. And I can tell you, as such, that we don't need water-boys with delusions of grandeur, thank you very much.

Phillip Stott is quite right: if you have clean water, electricity, and decent infrastructure, you'll manage no matter what's happening with the climate.

Then America is thrice screwed just like your natives. Happy?

A_ray is right...you don't half moan.

Wht s th ptml tmprtr f th plnt?

The temperature where you cease to post your inanities here oh banned fool. What a stoopid idjit.

Dumbass question.

Th Rdhd cntns t xtnd hr wrld rcrd fr ! Hw ttlly nsrprsng!

Fuck off. Please?

Bt n ncrdbly ntllgnt rspns.

Nt.

When did you get a sex change Nerd?

Mk m.

Jadehawk is lying through his/her teeth about the minor fact that I refuted each and every one of its claims,

ahahaa.... no.

here is the exchange, for everyone to see.

It's an intelligent answer to a pathetic question.

Make me.

PZ will. You will be gone shortly. What a loser. An intelligent person would realize that he is not wanted. A rational person would do the same, and cease trying to post here. Only stoopid irrational unscientific jerks like you would do what you do.

It's an intelligent third-grade schoolyard-level answer to a pathetic legitimate question which you and your ilk are never able to answer.

There, fixed that for ya, Stevie-boy.

Don't mention it.

Stll mr frm th rdhd. Oh wll, sch s th ntr f wrkng s th jntr t phrmctcl cmpny nd cllng nslf scntst, I spps.

Wht s th ptml tmprtr f th plnt?

Persistent troll is persistent? I still don't see why he's asking that question. For life on earth as we know it, particularly human life, it's pretty obvious that the optimal temperature of the planet is pretty fracking close to what it is today. Push it in either direction and we have desertification or an ice age, to put it simply. From the universe's perspective, there is no such thing as an "optimal temperature of the planet," which makes it pointedly obvious that it's our responsibility to be aware of our influence on such things and react appropriately when our influence runs amok. Why does WITOTOTP think he's making a point here?

destlund,

I still don't see why he's asking that question.

Troll thinks it's a "gotcha", and being oblivious to evidence and reasoning, it will keep thinking that.

I still don't see why he's asking that question.

Because he's a moron and can't comprehend that rates of change from environmental conditions that the bio inhabitants of the planet have evolved over millions of years to tolerate have significant impacts that we are already seeing in spades today. The acceleration of the change is the issue not any straw man mythical optimal temperature.

But monotonous troll will continue to be monotonous, and stupid.

Does he think we can develop an entirely new biosphere within a generation or two? I'm kind of frightened by what appears to be complete distrust of science and delusional faith in science in the same being...

destlund, he doesn't see AGW as occurring. He's stupid git without any redeeming features. Think of him as a creobot with one mantra, who repeats "how old is the earth?" over and over, and you won't be far from the truth.