This is why people in the business community don't believe a thing the AGWs say.

[Hambone]

People in the business community believe that there is a strong liberal, anti-business agenda behind the AGW movement.  In fact it's hard to believe that all AGW supporters are not liberal, and anti-business, because well, we haven't seen any.  So, since AGWs hate business to begin with any potential explanation for why y'all are wrong resonates like the Liberty Bell among conservatives and pro business groups. If AGW is true, you have to find

a way to configure your rhetoric to get business engaged as a partner, not as an enemy... which you have done a magnificent job of accomplishing so far.

 

 

http://a-sceptical-mind.com/co2-the-basic-facts

[csnavywx]

Windfall

 

Here's a book I'm reading at the moment. If you can't find any pro-business folks that believe in AGW, it's because you're not looking very hard.

[Jonger]

I have gradually shifted into the AGW acceptance camp, but I still have doubts on the total contribution via co2 alone.

 

Has anyone studied how much total heat we have exhausted into the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels alone?

 

We took buried coal, oil and gas and pumped incalculable amounts of heat energy directly into the atmosphere. This alone has to trigger a factor of some sort.

[csnavywx]

I have gradually shifted into the AGW acceptance camp, but I still have doubts on the total contribution via co2 alone.

 

Has anyone studied how much total heat we have exhausted into the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels alone?

 

We took buried coal, oil and gas and pumped incalculable amounts of heat energy directly into the atmosphere. This alone has to trigger a factor of some sort.

So let's run a back-of-the-envelope calculation on that:

 

Let's make an easy assumption for the sake of argument and say ALL of that heat is pumped directly into the top 10% of the oceans. That's about 10^20 kg or 10^23 g. The specific heat of water is about 4J/g. If you convert all of the fossil fuel we burn into energy -- it's about 550 exajoules (as of 2010) or 5.5x10^20 J. Let's say for ease of math that it's all heat and it all ends up in the ocean. That's about 0.005J per gram of water -- enough to warm that water by 0.0012C. I was being very generous with the assumption of it all ending up in the surface oceans and sticking around though, so it's a gross overestimate.

 

 

In reality, nearly all of that heat is simply radiated off to space as the heat capacity of the atmosphere is pretty small. It takes a significant increase in radiative trapping (IR in this case) to keep the heat in. This is why CO2 has the effect that it does. The extra opacity provided by it to infrared light is enough to force a ~1W/m2 or 1J per second/m2 imbalance. Doesn't seem like much, but when you're multiplying over the entire earth's surface, it results in heat trapping that is orders of magnitude over what can be achieved by burning alone -- about 1.6x10^22J per year. That calculation is where the "Hiroshima bombs per second" widgets are based off of.

[ORH_wxman]

The fundamental mathematics/physics of CO2 contributing warming is not debatable by itself. Doubling CO2 from pre-industrial levels produces an energy imbalance of 3.7 watts per meter squared. It can be proven and is uncontested in the literature. This is roughly an increase of 1.1-1.2C...so unless you think the feedbacks are negative, then it is impossible to say AGW doesn't exist....and there's virtually zero evidence that the net feedbacks are negative, and plenty of evidence that they are positive which is why most estimates produce a warming of higher than 1.2C.

 

The actual scientific debate in climate change is on the fronts of TCR/ECS and attribution studies.

[chubbs]

Its a shame there is so much climate mis-information from conservative media like the link sited above. This produces a denier group-think among conservatives that politicizes the issue and prevents a conservative pro-business solution. True conservatives should be able to support a carbon tax with the monies used to reduce marginal income taxes, since substituting consumption taxes for income taxes has been a long-term goal of conservatives. Without a carbon tax, fossil fuels are currently getting a government subsidy that is producing sub-optimal investment. No big deal now - but our economy will suffer greatly 30-50 years from now when the investments we are making today will have been proven to be counterproductive.

[The_Global_Warmer]

Energy shouldn't be free market or even subsidies free market or even highly regulated free market.

It should be completely state controlled and a part of the federal/state departments control.

Essentially controlled by the people.

It's good to see municipalities starting to invest in wind and solar farms to help off set their private commercial and residential sectors energy costs.

This kind of investment goes well beyond profit margins.

Having self sustaining community's of 5, 10, 20k residents on clean renewable energy propogates a since of self reliance.

It also is a direct tribute to modern science and advanced technology.

Which helps promote free thinking

[vortmax]

Energy shouldn't be free market or even subsidies free market or even highly regulated free market.

It should be completely state controlled and a part of the federal/state departments control.

Essentially controlled by the people.

It's good to see municipalities starting to invest in wind and solar farms to help off set their private commercial and residential sectors energy costs.

This kind of investment goes well beyond profit margins.

Having self sustaining community's of 5, 10, 20k residents on clean renewable energy propogates a since of self reliance.

It also is a direct tribute to modern science and advanced technology.

Which helps promote free thinking

So complete government control is considered control by the people?

Define "free thinking".

[Brewbeer]

Define "free thinking".

See the first post in this thread for an example of "free thinking" devoid of serious contemplative thought.

[Msalgado]

There is basically one community which doesn't believe AGW:  GOP voters.  Businesses don't believe in it in so much as they fall in that category, but otherwise the idea that businesses don't buy into it is completely false.  The insurance, investment, and energy sectors are quite aware of the costs and opportunities presented by AGW.  I'm not aware of a single industry directly affected by AGW that isn't taking industry wide steps as a result.

 

When people have large sums of money at stake they don't typically bury their heads in the sand.

[skierinvermont]

People in the business community believe that there is a strong liberal, anti-business agenda behind the AGW movement.  In fact it's hard to believe that all AGW supporters are not liberal, and anti-business, because well, we haven't seen any.  So, since AGWs hate business to begin with any potential explanation for why y'all are wrong resonates like the Liberty Bell among conservatives and pro business groups. If AGW is true, you have to find

a way to configure your rhetoric to get business engaged as a partner, not as an enemy... which you have done a magnificent job of accomplishing so far.

 

 

http://a-sceptical-mind.com/co2-the-basic-facts

 

Well the link was a disappointing recitation of the most simplistic and manipulative denier arguments. 

[Hambone]

Energy shouldn't be free market or even subsidies free market or even highly regulated free market.

It should be completely state controlled and a part of the federal/state departments control.

Essentially controlled by the people.

It's good to see municipalities starting to invest in wind and solar farms to help off set their private commercial and residential sectors energy costs.

This kind of investment goes well beyond profit margins.

Having self sustaining community's of 5, 10, 20k residents on clean renewable energy propogates a since of self reliance.

It also is a direct tribute to modern science and advanced technology.

Which helps promote free thinking

Boom, exactly what I was talking about... business will crush you.

[Hambone]

The fundamental mathematics/physics of CO2 contributing warming is not debatable by itself. Doubling CO2 from pre-industrial levels produces an energy imbalance of 3.7 watts per meter squared. It can be proven and is uncontested in the literature. This is roughly an increase of 1.1-1.2C...so unless you think the feedbacks are negative, then it is impossible to say AGW doesn't exist....and there's virtually zero evidence that the net feedbacks are negative, and plenty of evidence that they are positive which is why most estimates produce a warming of higher than 1.2C.

 

The actual scientific debate in climate change is on the fronts of TCR/ECS and attribution studies.

But is that but one equation among a feedback sea of electrics, sun phases, ocean effects, etc?

[ORH_wxman]

But is that but one equation among a feedback sea of electrics, sun phases, ocean effects, etc?

 

Yes...that is the CO2 contribution without feedbacks. That is the isolated effect.

 

In order to prove that AGW is negligible or non-existent, then you'd have to prove that the feedbacks from the CO2 warming are negative enough to offset the 3.7 watts per meter squared energy imbalance. There's currently no compelling evidence at all that feedbacks are negative...instead, the evidence points to them being positive.

 

 

Stuff like the solar cycle and such are not part of the feedbacks...those are independent forcing mechanisms.

[winterymix]

But is that but one equation among a feedback sea of electrics, sun phases, ocean effects, etc?

The real question is this: how much time do we have to observe rather than act? The rate of change upon

environment from anthropomorphic forcing may increase and then over-ride our corrective interventions.

The time to act may be passing us by.

[Hambone]

The real question is this: how much time do we have to observe rather than act? The rate of change upon

environment from anthropomorphic forcing may increase and then over-ride our corrective interventions.

The time to act may be passing us by.

Or it might not be.  Business doesn't commit $billions, on a may be.  And that's the reason for this thread.