No Need to Panic About Global Warming

[bobbutts]

Article in WSJ signed by 16 scientists with this conclusion:

it makes no sense at all to back expensive programs that divert resources from real needs and are based on alarming but untenable claims of "incontrovertible" evidence

[salbers]

Article in WSJ signed by 16 scientists with this conclusion:

[/left][/font][/color]

Rather incomplete article that should address some of the AGW concerns. For example what about CO2 and heat in the pipeline? The longevity of CO2 in the atmosphere/ocean system?

Also, humans evolved with lower CO2 levels than at present.

Having a decade of slower atmospheric temperature rises fails to constitute evidence against AGW.

[bobbutts]

Rather incomplete article that should address some of the AGW concerns. For example what about CO2 and heat in the pipeline? The longevity of CO2 in the atmosphere/ocean system?

Also, humans evolved with lower CO2 levels than at present.

Having a decade of slower atmospheric temperature rises fails to constitute evidence against AGW.

But what about the meat of the article. Spend now and take drastic action based on this because it's totally settled or not?

[salbers]

But what about the meat of the article. Spend now and take drastic action based on this because it's totally settled or not?

My "pipeline" comment attempts to speak to this. We should start to change now (as we are to an extent) because it takes a long time to change CO2 output. It's also much easier to reverse things now compared to waiting until later on. Some of the CO2 will simply sit in the atmosphere for centuries to millenia.

Various feedbacks such as ice albedo and methane release are also hard to reverse after they've started.

[WeatherRusty]

Another politically motivated article full of tired, old and discredited arguments. But, it works doesn't it? They attack the science and all I can do is offer a he says she says retort. Yes it is, no it isn't, yes it is, no it isn't etc.

Instant, apparent equal footing attained by the initiator of the argument. Don't fall for it.

[WeatherRusty]

But what about the meat of the article. Spend now and take drastic action based on this because it's totally settled or not?

Should we give equal credence to the Wall Street Journal as the National Academy of Sciences when assessing the scientific merits of AGW? Why do we have a National Academy anyway?

How about equal footing to engineers and non-climate scientists versus climatologists?

[donsutherland1]

My issues with the opinion piece are as follows:

1. It looks at an arbitrary period of time that is far too short to reach climate-related conclusions. 10-year periods can reflect meteorological developments that may or may not be representative of ongoing climate change.

2. The 30-year period is the statistical minimum for which data take on a normal distribution (a key assumption is that climate data is normally distributed). The 30-year moving average of global land/sea temperatures continues to rise.

3. The argument over whether CO2 is/is not a pollutant is purely a semantical one. The reality is that the atmospheric concentration of CO2 continues to increase. If the rising CO2 concentration has an impact on climate--and the mainstream science suggests that it does--the continuing increase is a matter for concern regardless of whether one calls CO2 a "pollutant" or not.

4. Aside from the climate change issue, another compelling argument for investment in energy supply diversification (short-term) and innovation (medium-term and beyond) is the geopolitical one. The balance of power is shifting in the Middle East. Absent energy supply diversification and innovation, that could portend greater long-run price volatility, especially as global demand for energy continues to grow. The U.S/world. was caught by surprise by the energy shocks of the 1970s and had little capacity to respond. Little learning took place since then and there was a similar lack of capacity for dealing with the 2008 energy shock. For now, the status quo approach remains the course of least resistance when it comes to policy making in the energy and climate arenas.

Overall, the opinion piece represents what is, unfortunately, a narrowing of the nation's ambitions. It confirms a growing risk that the U.S. is evolving into a status quo nation that even the prospect of bold investment (in basic R&D, not specific targeting of firms), especially along the lines of a Manhattan or Apollo project, is not worth considering.That evolution will have profound consequences far beyond the nation's energy/climate-related policy. As such a discussion is beyond the cope of this forum, I won't go beyond this brief sketch.

[bluewave]

Article in WSJ signed by 16 scientists with this conclusion:

[/left][/font][/color]

Global warming is just not that big a concern for the average person compared to all the other challenges

that they face.If they believe that it's all man's fault, then there is nothing that can be done about it because

there is no replacement for a carbon based economy on the horizon. If they think that it's natural variability

at work, then there is no climate control technology coming anytime soon that could change it.

[salbers]

If they believe that it's all man's fault, then there is nothing that can be done about it because

there is no replacement for a carbon based economy on the horizon.

There are several alternatives and solutions to an intensive carbon economy:

1) Bury carbon via biochar, forest planting, and carbon absorbing rocks/concrete

2) Nuclear fission, fusion, and LENR (low energy nuclear reactions)

3) Solar (getting cheaper now)

4) Wind

5) Geothermal

6) Efficiency (relatively cost effective)

7) Natural Gas (burns less carbon per molecule)

etc...

[Vergent]

Article in WSJ signed by 16 scientists with this conclusion:

[/left][/font][/color]

I wonder how much Exxon paid them.

[Vergent]

Remarkable Editorial Bias on Climate Science at the Wall Street Journal

http://www.forbes.com/sites/petergleick/2012/01/27/remarkable-editorial-bias-on-climate-science-at-the-wall-street-journal/

Even right wing Forbes thinks this is B.S.

[bobbutts]

My issues with the opinion piece are as follows:

1. It looks at an arbitrary period of time that is far too short to reach climate-related conclusions. 10-year periods can reflect meteorological developments that may or may not be representative of ongoing climate change.

2. The 30-year period is the statistical minimum for which data take on a normal distribution (a key assumption is that climate data is normally distributed). The 30-year moving average of global land/sea temperatures continues to rise.

3. The argument over whether CO2 is/is not a pollutant is purely a semantical one. The reality is that the atmospheric concentration of CO2 continues to increase. If the rising CO2 concentration has an impact on climate--and the mainstream science suggests that it does--the continuing increase is a matter for concern regardless of whether one calls CO2 a "pollutant" or not.

4. Aside from the climate change issue, another compelling argument for investment in energy supply diversification (short-term) and innovation (medium-term and beyond) is the geopolitical one. The balance of power is shifting in the Middle East. Absent energy supply diversification and innovation, that could portend greater long-run price volatility, especially as global demand for energy continues to grow. The U.S/world. was caught by surprise by the energy shocks of the 1970s and had little capacity to respond. Little learning took place since then and there was a similar lack of capacity for dealing with the 2008 energy shock. For now, the status quo approach remains the course of least resistance when it comes to policy making in the energy and climate arenas.

Overall, the opinion piece represents what is, unfortunately, a narrowing of the nation's ambitions. It confirms a growing risk that the U.S. is evolving into a status quo nation that even the prospect of bold investment (in basic R&D, not specific targeting of firms), especially along the lines of a Manhattan or Apollo project, is not worth considering.That evolution will have profound consequences far beyond the nation's energy/climate-related policy. As such a discussion is beyond the cope of this forum, I won't go beyond this brief sketch.

I bolded the conclusion, since I think it's insightful and interesting and I hadn't really framed this issue in that context before.

1-4 are pretty well cemented into my head. 4 especially since the majority of conflicts that have occurred during my lifetime have been at least partially related to energy. It seems the political (impossible to calculate) and even direct military costs are always omitted when comparing fossil energy to alternatives. And of course the environmental costs are not calculated either.

[dabize]

someone has started my work for me--the backgrounds of these so-called experts exposed (partial list):

http://brutishandshort.com/2012/01/27/shock-news-global-warming-denialists-are-dishonest-pt-1/

Having fought in the Smirking Chimp wars (and learning to my sorrow just how rabid the WSJ opinion folks are), this is a pleasure to behold

[dabize]

Here's a good one for bringing reality home to the NY and SNE crowd.

http://planthardiness.ars.usda.gov/PHZMWeb/#

Used to be we were solidly in Zone 5 here in Sudbury (20 mi W of BOS).

Now we're firmly in Zone 6, with Worcester (ORH) holding on to Zone 5 by its dendrites.........

Maybe I should try treating my dahlias as hardy perennials next year.......hmm

[cheetah440]

My issues with the opinion piece are as follows:

1. It looks at an arbitrary period of time that is far too short to reach climate-related conclusions. 10-year periods can reflect meteorological developments that may or may not be representative of ongoing climate change.

2. The 30-year period is the statistical minimum for which data take on a normal distribution (a key assumption is that climate data is normally distributed). The 30-year moving average of global land/sea temperatures continues to rise.

3. The argument over whether CO2 is/is not a pollutant is purely a semantical one. The reality is that the atmospheric concentration of CO2 continues to increase. If the rising CO2 concentration has an impact on climate--and the mainstream science suggests that it does--the continuing increase is a matter for concern regardless of whether one calls CO2 a "pollutant" or not.

4. Aside from the climate change issue, another compelling argument for investment in energy supply diversification (short-term) and innovation (medium-term and beyond) is the geopolitical one. The balance of power is shifting in the Middle East. Absent energy supply diversification and innovation, that could portend greater long-run price volatility, especially as global demand for energy continues to grow. The U.S/world. was caught by surprise by the energy shocks of the 1970s and had little capacity to respond. Little learning took place since then and there was a similar lack of capacity for dealing with the 2008 energy shock. For now, the status quo approach remains the course of least resistance when it comes to policy making in the energy and climate arenas.

Overall, the opinion piece represents what is, unfortunately, a narrowing of the nation's ambitions. It confirms a growing risk that the U.S. is evolving into a status quo nation that even the prospect of bold investment (in basic R&D, not specific targeting of firms), especially along the lines of a Manhattan or Apollo project, is not worth considering.That evolution will have profound consequences far beyond the nation's energy/climate-related policy. As such a discussion is beyond the cope of this forum, I won't go beyond this brief sketch.

A $15T debt has an impact on the ambitions of a nation and the ability to make "bold" investments.

I don't know what the cope of this forum is either.

[WeatherRusty]

A $15T debt has an impact on the ambitions of a nation and the ability to make "bold" investments.

I don't know what the cope of this forum is either.

The only way out of the inevitable consequences of continuous growth is to reinvent yourself. The old ways of doing things are gone forever.

[cheetah440]

The only way out of the inevitable consequences of continuous growth is to reinvent yourself. The old ways of doing things are gone forever.

Our free market system will ensure this will always happen. The government didn't creae the iPad.

As long as we don't insist on "bold investments" to be the catalyst for innovation we will be fine. The great myth is that "bold investment" by the central government is what leads to prosperity. It isn't and never has been. When it comes to climate change and fossil fuels etc, our free markets will continue to ensure the most efficient use and resources are available to consumers. The government can play a role but the larger role it tries to play(cap and trade for ex) the more destructive to innovation it will be. The goals are cheaper, better, faster, more efficient. Government creates slower, more expensive, less efficient, less beneficial. We don't need energy to necessarily get more expensive, we need to guide the markets to ensure that demand is met by the most efficient supply to create the cheapest, easiest and cleanest energy possible. In that order, with weighted importance heavily skewed in that order. I'm all for clean, but the primary goal is inexpensive and independence.

[donsutherland1]

A $15T debt has an impact on the ambitions of a nation and the ability to make "bold" investments.

I don't know what the cope of this forum is either.

Just so my earlier point is clear and any further detailed discussion should probably take place in the politics subforum:

There's a difference between expenditures that have no long-term impact and expenditures that yield long-term benefits. The latter is investment (from a public policy standpoint). Examples would include education, infrastructure, basic research funding, etc. Furthermore, funding basic research is not the same thing as targeting companies e.g., Solyndra, for funding.

When it comes to fiscal consolidation--an essential task--the root causes of the imbalances need to be addressed. As part of that process, efforts to distinguish between spending with no future benefits and expenditures that yield long-term benefits need to be undertaken. Otherwise, the nation's long-term growth trajectory will be flattened, its competitiveness weakened relative to other countries, and its socioeconomic outcomes will be less than would otherwise be the case, etc. A lower growth path would make it more difficult for the nation to address its long-term fiscal imbalances, even if identical savings were achieved, because revenue growth would be slower and costs related to automatic stablizers e.g., unemployment benefits, would be higher.

As noted earlier, there are compelling climatic and geopolitical arguments for energy supply diversification and innovation. Of course, as with any policy, elements of trade-off and choice exist. The future outcomes i.e., externalities related to CO2 emissions, flexibility to respond to rising global demand for energy resources, ability to respond to supply disruptions, risk associated with the evolving balance of power, etc., will depend largely on the choices made (or not made). And, of course, delay could make it more difficult to respond, especially if other countries achieve qualitiative competitive advantages in energy supply innovation that would then be reflected in the balance of trade, etc.

[WeatherRusty]

timestamp='[/color]1327933530' post='1327511']

Our free market system will ensure this will always happen. The government didn't creae the iPad.

As long as we don't insist on "bold investments" to be the catalyst for innovation we will be fine. The great myth is that "bold investment" by the central government is what leads to prosperity. It isn't and never has been. When it comes to climate change and fossil fuels etc, our free markets will continue to ensure the most efficient use and resources are available to consumers. The government can play a role but the larger role it tries to play(cap and trade for ex) the more destructive to innovation it will be. The goals are cheaper, better, faster, more efficient. Government creates slower, more expensive, less efficient, less beneficial. We don't need energy to necessarily get more expensive, we need to guide the markets to ensure that demand is met by the most efficient supply to create the cheapest, easiest and cleanest energy possible. In that order, with weighted importance heavily skewed in that order. I'm all for clean, but the primary goal is inexpensive and independence.

I think we all understand and appreciate the benefits of the free market system and capitalism. Operating in isolation and free of any concern for externalities there is no better system.

However, on the world stage, we are dealing with an uneven playing field where government subsidy is driving companies and innovation overseas. Turning a blind eye toward the environmental consequences of using the oceans and atmosphere as a free garbage dump and overly zealous exploitation of natural resources to the point of exhaustion will be payed not by the perpetrators but by the innocent and future inhabitants.

The true cost to society of fossil fuel use is not being payed. We act as if extraction and burning of the stuff is a free gift from the Earth. Little considered in the price payed is the affect of pollution on the health of people and the biosphere. The chemistry of the oceans and the atmosphere is being substantially altered and this fact is not without additional consequences such as ocean acidification and global warming.

You can prioritize the way you do only because you rationalize away the full implications of our actions.

[cheetah440]

I think we all understand and appreciate the benefits of the free market system and capitalism. Operating in isolation and free of any concern for externalities there is no better system.

However, on the world stage, we are dealing with an uneven playing field where government subsidy is driving companies and innovation overseas. Turning a blind eye toward the environmental consequences of using the oceans and atmosphere as a free garbage dump and overly zealous exploitation of natural resources to the point of exhaustion will be payed not by the perpetrators but by the innocent and future inhabitants.

The true cost to society of fossil fuel use is not being payed. We act as if extraction and burning of the stuff is a free gift from the Earth. Little considered in the price payed is the affect of pollution on the health of people and the biosphere. The chemistry of the oceans and the atmosphere is being substantially altered and this fact is not without additional consequences such as ocean acidification and global warming.

You can prioritize the way you do only because you rationalize away the full implications of our actions.

I don't rationalize it away, I don't believe the consequences of fossil fuel usage is as dire as some. Everything is a trade off in life. The trade off with fossil fuels is a huge net benefit. Mankind has enjoyed the best, most prosperous life and lifestyle since the industrial revolution and fossil fuel usuage than at anytime in mans history on this planet. By any and every measure. Life is much easier and more pain free, mostly attributed to the benefits of fossil fuels. That said being congnizant of the environment is of course a good thing, but inhibiting fossil fuel usage at all will be a net negative on mankind, not a positive.

[cheetah440]

Just so my earlier point is clear and any further detailed discussion should probably take place in the politics subforum:

There's a difference between expenditures that have no long-term impact and expenditures that yield long-term benefits. The latter is investment (from a public policy standpoint). Examples would include education, infrastructure, basic research funding, etc. Furthermore, funding basic research is not the same thing as targeting companies e.g., Solyndra, for funding.

When it comes to fiscal consolidation--an essential task--the root causes of the imbalances need to be addressed. As part of that process, efforts to distinguish between spending with no future benefits and expenditures that yield long-term benefits need to be undertaken. Otherwise, the nation's long-term growth trajectory will be flattened, its competitiveness weakened relative to other countries, and its socioeconomic outcomes will be less than would otherwise be the case, etc. A lower growth path would make it more difficult for the nation to address its long-term fiscal imbalances, even if identical savings were achieved, because revenue growth would be slower and costs related to automatic stablizers e.g., unemployment benefits, would be higher.

As noted earlier, there are compelling climatic and geopolitical arguments for energy supply diversification and innovation. Of course, as with any policy, elements of trade-off and choice exist. The future outcomes i.e., externalities related to CO2 emissions, flexibility to respond to rising global demand for energy resources, ability to respond to supply disruptions, risk associated with the evolving balance of power, etc., will depend largely on the choices made (or not made). And, of course, delay could make it more difficult to respond, especially if other countries achieve qualitiative competitive advantages in energy supply innovation that would then be reflected in the balance of trade, etc.

Rising global demand is here. We are no longer the worlds biggest energy consumer, China is. And while our per capita consumption is 5x China's, they are headed in one direction and it means demand. Big demand. And it will be oil and coal. They are only going to catch up to us and surpass us, likely by a wide margin in the next 20 yrs. I think they already have with respect to coal. That simply means that our energy supply will cost us more and more. So you can forget about any climatic arguments, China isn't slowing down and our impact will be less and less. I don't see them slowing down or curtailing usage of fossil fuels either. CO2 is here to stay and will go up. We'll see in 20 yrs what the impact is, because there will not be any decline in output over the next 20 yrs, but a sharp increase. At the rate of China's growth, our energy consumption will already be a shrinking percentage even if we increase our own demand. Energy costs are going to rise no matter what we do, which means the opportunities for alternatives for Oil and Coal will be here soon enough and most certainly without any need for foolish external forces by our government. Energy industry has enough self interest to innovate and offer alternative solutions. They are innovating and would like to continue to innovate but are being held back by regulation. While we need regulation, we need energy and we need businesses who are in business to provide energy, to be able to provide it as cheaply as possible. We should be trying to make energy costs go down, not up. We have no control over the worlds demand, we ought to look to fulfill it, instead we are doing the opposite.

The debt is a fact that will prevent the massive funding that would need to completely overhaul our infrastructure to natural gas, which is the only viable alternative to oil and coal to have even the slightest impact. Solar, wind and tide aren't going to fuel our economy, natural gas is the only alternative and with oil flowing freely around the globe, it is never going to replace it in our lifetime. It could replace some coal though, which would be a start, And that wouldn't require a huge "investment", but could be done with incentives instead.

[BeastFromTheEast]

you've totally missed Don's point. please don't crap up this thread.

Ohhhh the irony....

[donsutherland1]

The Wall Street Journal published a rebuttal written by climate scientists:

In part, the rebuttal piece stated:

You published "No Need to Panic About Global Warming" (op-ed, Jan. 27) on climate change by the climate-science equivalent of dentists practicing cardiology. While accomplished in their own fields, most of these authors have no expertise in climate science...

Climate experts know that the long-term warming trend has not abated in the past decade. In fact, it was the warmest decade on record. Observations show unequivocally that our planet is getting hotter. And computer models have recently shown that during periods when there is a smaller increase of surface temperatures, warming is occurring elsewhere in the climate system, typically in the deep ocean.

The rebuttal can be found at: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204740904577193270727472662.htm